Smart playlists NOT updating within iTunes itself?!

[ralliart122010]

Hi fellows, I've a puzzling situation with my smart playlists (SPL). Please allow me to elaborate on their structure 1st. Basically, I've a few "component" spl that "feed" into one master spl, named "sync_to_iDevice". The component spl are:

1. latest_additions:


2. UNrated:


3. second_chances:


4. ★_&&_skip_greater_than_10_times:


5. rarely_heard:


6. ★★ to ★★★★★ (these are 4 spl):





7. rated_already (this spl does nothing but aggregate the songs from my 2- to 5-star spl):


& all (except the 1-star) feed into this "master" playlist, which is the ONLY playlist I synced onto my iPod:

8. sync_to_iDevice:


Here's the puzzling problem: yesterday I observed the songs on my iPod aren't "rotating", even between iTunes sync. At first I tot it is because I never sync the component playlists onto my iPod, but then I recalled live updating of SPL on iPod directly, has been wonky/unreliable from the various threads around here. But what puzzles me is that, when I try playing/rating songs from the same spl (sync_to_iDevice) from within iTunes, it doesn't update as well! By right, when songs are played/skipped/rated within that list, due to the conditions of my component spl, they (songs) should disappear and re-appear from time to time, hence refreshing the list of songs within "sync_to_iDevice; but they (songs) don't!

I did a few tests (all testing done within iTunes, since the problem is already surfacing at the iTunes level): I tried giving a different rating to a song within my ★★★★★ spl (no problem, the newly-rated song disappear); I tried rating a song within my "UNrated" list (no problem, the song disappeared after being rated); I tried playing a few songs across my ★★, ★★★, ★★★★ spls (no problem here either; the songs disappear after being played completely as I set a "not in last played" filter).

I can provide an even more obvious example: let's say I have song A in 1 of my "component spl, say "★★★★★"; which implies song A also "exists" in my master spl (sync_to_iDevice).

I can goto "★★★★★" and play song A, after which it will disappear from "★★★★★" (because 1 of its criteria is last played is not in 1 week).

However, if I goto "sync_to_iDevice" and play song A (the same song), it does NOT disappear off the list! Which I have no idea why?

In other words, all my component spl are behaving properly but I couldn't figure why my master spl (sync_to_iDevice) isn't updating. Can somebody enlighten me please? I will be very appreciative.

[Code Monkey]

Your first rule there, Playlist is NOT "star & skip blah..." is at the top of playlist, so it allows for *every* song in your library not on that playlist to be included, therefore not much is ever excluded so that's why it's not updating. What you did with your nesting was then append that rule with a bunch of ANY statements without actually filtering in the way you thought you were.

What you need to do if you want that list to work the way you want is a series of paired nested rules like this:

[ralliart122010]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

Your first rule there, Playlist is NOT "star & skip blah..." is at the top of playlist, so it allows for *every* song in your library not on that playlist to be included, therefore not much is ever excluded so that's why it's not updating. What you did with your nesting was then append that rule with a bunch of ANY statements without actually filtering in the way you thought you were...

Hi CM, thanx for ur rapid response. You mean in my original "sync_to_iDevice" configuration, as long as the song is not in "★_&&_skip_greater_than_10_times", it is allowed on "sync_to_iDevice", regardless of whether it originates from the other component lists?

I structure "sync_to_iDevice" in my original manner because I thought it will evaluate to allow these in:

• song that is not in "★_&&_skip_greater_than_10_times" but in "latest_additions",
  
• song that is not in "★_&&_skip_greater_than_10_times" but in "UNrated",
  
• song that is not in "★_&&_skip_greater_than_10_times" but in "second_chances",
  
• song that is not in "★_&&_skip_greater_than_10_times" but in "rarely_heard",
  
• song that is not in "★_&&_skip_greater_than_10_times" but in "rated_already"

You mean once the 1st rule, "not in..." is fulfilled, the remaining 5 "match any" criteria (as listed above) are "flexible" criteria and can be ignored?

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

...What you need to do if you want that list to work the way you want is a series of paired nested rules like this:

Hi, I dun really understand your example, do you mean for my case to work in the manner I originally intended, my "sync_to_iDevice" should be:



Did I get it right this time?

[Code Monkey]

Your example is exactly right. When you use the nested logic you need to assign each "nest" it's own Boolean logic. Any top level rule follows the logic of the whole smart list. In your original version what it was matching was anything on your sublists and anything not on your exclusion list, ie pretty much everything in your library.

[ralliart122010]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

Your example is exactly right...

So, as a matter of fact, my original "rarely_heard" component spl is also wrong? Should the correct "rarely_heard" be like this:



In additional, assuming this scenario, the solution is also wrong, am I right to say that? Shouldn't it be:

(Match Any)

match All
Rating is > 3 stars
Artist Contains (x)

match All
Rating is > 3 stars
Name Contains (y)

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

...When you use the nested logic you need to assign each "nest" it's own Boolean logic. Any top level rule follows the logic of the whole smart list...

Can you dumb this down for me please? I assume the top-level rule of my original, is "Playlist is not ★_&&_skip_greater_than_10_times", but don't each of my nested rule evaluate to their own Boolean logic already? i.e. match Any song that is from the playlist "UNrated", match Any song that is from the playlist "rated_already", etc

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

...In your original version what it was matching was anything on your sublists and anything not on your exclusion list, ie pretty much everything in your library.

Do you mean "or" instead of "and"?

[bwh79]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

Your first rule there, Playlist is NOT "star & skip blah..." is at the top of playlist, so it allows for *every* song in your library not on that playlist to be included, therefore not much is ever excluded so that's why it's not updating.

But it says "Match all":
+Not on (star & skip)
+any of the following
--unrated
--latest editions
--etc.

So it should only pick up songs that are on one of the other lists AND not on the star & skip list. Just not being on star & skip shouldn't be enough by itself right?

[ralliart122010]

Originally Posted by bwh79

...So it should only pick up songs that are on one of the other lists AND not on the star & skip list. Just not being on star & skip shouldn't be enough by itself right?

That was certainly how I interpreted the nesting logic until CM corrected me (and his interpretation seems to be the effective one); though I still dun understand how the nesting logic works.

[Code Monkey]

Intuitively, yes, it appears as originally implemented it works the way you two thought. I thought the same thing, I only know it doesn't work that way because I tested the bejesus out of it when iTunes 9 came out. For whatever reason, topmost rules don't work as you might expect for trying to do a (!A & (B or C or D)) type statement. You can get the opposite to work, do a global ANY and then append a nested sub rule to one of the top level rules, but if you do a match all with only one rule and try to modify it with the opposite boolean like in this example, nope.

How it appears to be evaluating it is (!A or (B or C or D...)), hence, pretty much everything in the library.

Any time I mix and match opposite booleans like he did I put in a sub-nest like I showed. Once you go one level down, it seems to always work the way we intuit (I haven't tested it, but it's even possible a global ANY, followed by a nested ALL with the exact same rules as were used initially might work as expected, just never got that bored).

The newish smartlist logic opens up some finer filtering in single lists than was previously possible, but it also requires some debugging time when things don't evaluate as expected.

[ralliart122010]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

...You can get the opposite to work, do a global ANY and then append a nested sub rule to one of the top level rules...

Is this what you mean:



Actually, I'm curious, what does the above evaluate to? Does the "Last Played" sub-rule belong to the 2nd (lower) "Playlist is"?

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

...Any time I mix and match opposite booleans...

May I have a (simple) example of this "opposite boolean" idea?

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

...a global ANY, followed by a nested ALL with the exact same rules as were used initially might work as expected...

Is this what my screen capture in this post is doing?