Feature request #1461: Configurable minimum length (50-100%) before last.fm submission

Comments

1. Greg Hurrell 2010-01-17T06:26:40Z

   Interesting, didn't know about that one. I've actually never used the official scrobbler (nor any other); I just implemented the scrobbling support by sitting down with the official scrobbling protocol documentation and making Synergy conform to it exactly.

   The original version of the protocol I developed against was 1.1 (http://www.audioscrobbler.net/wiki/Protocol1.1.merged). Of interest here, it says:

   • Each song should be posted to the server when it is 50% or 240 seconds complete, whichever comes first.
   • If a user seeks (i.e. manually changes position) within a song before the song is due to be submitted, do not submit that song.

   So at least according to that version of the protocol it says to submit at 50%, not at or after 50%. The wording seems quite clear that there is no leeway for submitting the information at any other time.

   The next version of the protocol is version 1.2 (http://www.audioscrobbler.net/development/protocol/) and it has the following modification:

   • "No skipping" rule removed (50%/240 seconds must still be played).

   Digging a little deeper it says:

   1. The track must be submitted once it has finished playing. Whether it has finished playing naturally or has been manually stopped by the user is irrelevant.
   2. The track must have been played for a duration of at least 240 seconds or half the track's total length, whichever comes first. Skipping or pausing the track is irrelevant as long as the appropriate amount has been played.

   So my understanding of this is that the exact moment for submission is once again strictly determined, but this time rather than at the 50% point it is at the end of the song. It would appear that if the official client is allowing the user to determine the moment at which stuff gets submitted then it isn't actually adhering to the official 1.2 protocol.

   Apparently, the very latest version of the protocol is version 1.2.1 (http://www.lastfm.es/api/submissions). As far as I can tell, it includes the exact same rules about when to submit, and the only modifications are described as:

   The only change is an additional, optional, handshake mechanism to allow third-parties to use Last.fm web services authentication to create new scrobbling sessions.

   So on the protocol front, I'm inclined to reject this feature request. At least until we get official clarification from last.fm that the protocol is incorrect or ambiguous and will be updated in a future revision.

   On the technical front, I don't see any real technical obstacle to implementing it, as it just means that the places where the 50% point is hard-coded into the algorithm would just need to be replaced with a user-controllable variable ranging between 50% and 100%, and of course the accompanying UI for actually manipulating that setting.

2. anonymous 2010-01-17T11:15:26Z

   And about the now playing part? The official scrobbler shows when a track is playing (not necessarily scrobbled), could this be implemented as well?

3. Greg Hurrell 2010-01-17T23:16:44Z

   Hm, I'm not sure. The protocol says nothing about "now playing" notifications, it only talks about scrobbling. Perhaps it is being scrobbled early (as you say, as early as 50% through the track) and the website shows that as "now playing"?

4. anonymous 2010-01-19T17:02:29Z

   No, the official scrobbler really display "now playing" for the hole time the track plays. If you stop it before 50% it is removed from the list, if it plays passed 50% then it is scrobbled and remain on the list when the track change.

   So it's basically: Track start to play -> set status to now playing on that track -> track is marked as scrobbled, still showing now playing -> next track -> track remain on the list -> next track start to play Or : Track start to play -> set status to now playing on that track -> next track -> track is removed from the list -> next track start to play

5. Greg Hurrell 2010-01-20T13:26:21Z

   Interesting. So they must be using some as-yet-unpublished API because the behavior you're describing doesn't conform even remotely to what's required by the protocol.

6. Greg Hurrell 2010-04-01T14:22:56Z

   Changes are in the wind:

   • http://www.lastfm.es/forum/21716/_/611779: "Request for feedback on the next version of the Scrobble API"
   • http://blog.last.fm/2010/03/19/but-does-it-scrobble: "But does it scrobble?"

Add a comment

Comments are now closed for this issue.