Talk:Last.fm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Radio Portal This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	To-do list for Last.fm:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Update sections concerning the Last.fm client (previously Last.fm player, perhaps merging these sections would be helpful) and the Audioscrobbler plugin. Reorganize and update the features section, the subheadings could perhaps be integrated into the same section.

Contents 1 Moderation 2 Rewrite 3 Audioscrobbler vs. Last.fm 4 Ravensbourne 5 Last.fm template 6 Pandora (music service) 7 Wiki 8 NPOV: Last.fm as a global chart 9 Vandalism? 10 Removing the Global Chart 11 Removed cleanup 12 Problems 13 Out of date 14 MusicBrainz 15 Matthew Ogle 16 Links in band pages? 17 The radio 18 Convoluted intro

[edit] Moderation

I just deleted the whole moderation paragraph because the mod system is deprecated and they stopped allowing users to contribute.--Elysianfields 20:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole audioscrobbler.com site is about to change as it is merged with the last.fm site over the next 48 hours. I've been waiting till that has finished to change the page here. --MilkMiruku 21:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm desperate to get to me profile page on AS, do you know when it is due back up?

As I mentioned, 48 hours or so. Patience :) --MilkMiruku 16:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, 48 hours from WHEN? :0 pomegranate 16:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I believe they expect to be back up late tonight (sun)/early tomorrow (mon). If you look, they've already got a new "we're down" page, giving a tiny hint of what's to come. In any way, anonymous, just be patient. It's been up for months and months and has only been down for a couple days. Something tells me, you can wait a few more hours.. --Hersch 18:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I can wait but I've become so addicted to it. The flash "page down" looks pretty good. They have been workin' on it for a while, I hope it comes out great. The old was awesome, I hope they keep the functionality and justmake it better w/o sacrificing the old AS/L.fm. Wonder what it will be like....--Elysianfields 22:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

For access to the beta for the new site, login via IRC to #audioscrobbler on irc.audioscrobbler.com. --MilkMiruku 10:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Milk.....you are a good man. Thank you--Elysianfields 17:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Currently @ #last.fm.beta Visor 19:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A release date of August 9th has been posted on the website. Headed to IRC now..--Hersch 20:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone be kind enough to show some screenshots from IRC, I've no idea about IRC. Host at imageshack.us. Please! pomegranate 08:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing you asked so nicely... 1 2 3 --MilkMiruku 00:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, purdy! Thankyou very much. pomegranate 08:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the new site...and those beta pics look cool, not what I expected though. GrayFox92 14:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

So, everything has changed, and this article, and the Last.fm one reqire a rewrite. Here's some info from the IRC channel:

(23:31:57) <milk> is 'audioscrobbler' as a site nolonger? is it just the name of the backend system that last.fm runs on? or will the name be completly faded out at some point in the future?
(23:32:19) <muesli> milk: it will become some kind of a development platform for technologies around your music profile
(23:32:35) <@RJ> like smart playlist plugins
(23:32:39) <@RJ> ala moodlogic, for example
(23:32:51) <@RJ> and a bunch of other stuff
(23:33:49) <@RJ> basically we:ll expose all the data to do with tagging and profiles and similarity via wbservices, which will make lots of funky stuff possible
(23:34:14) <milk> so the site and service is last.fm but the system is audioscrobbler?
(23:34:44) <@RJ> yeah, a/s is the guts
(23:35:03) <@RJ> hence the as.com site will become more programmer-friendly and less user friendly
(23:35:21) <@RJ> we're hoping to see some fun new uses of the music profile
(23:36:13) <milk> rj: by that do you mean there will be profile info available in a different format on audioscrobbler.com (as it was before), or that as.com will be more of a 'dev community' site?
(23:36:34) <@RJ> dev community
(23:36:41) <@RJ> profile will be there, but only in XML ;)
(23:36:54) <@RJ> i:m writing a journal entry about it now
(23:36:56) <@RJ> hang on.
(23:48:02) <@RJ> milk, http://www.last.fm/user/RJ/journal/2005/08/9/369/
(23:48:11) <@RJ> bit jumbled. i should have proof read it *D

--MilkMiruku 22:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audioscrobbler vs. Last.fm

What do people think about using Last.fm over Audioscrobbler? Should every mention of "Audioscrobbler" be changed to "Last.fm"? -- MacAddct1984 06:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the features pertaining to Last.fm should be referred to as last.fm and audioscrobbler respectively.

Obviously it's now Last.fm. The way I'm writing it, Audioscrobbler is only mentioned in connection with historical specifics, or the plug-in system. I also merged in the Last.FM article as someone tagged for -- when I saw the change, actually, I thought it had been merged with that article. Tsk, tsk, whoever did that should have been more eagle-eyed! In any case Last.FM is orthographically incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 01:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I am one of the Last.fm (and originally Audioscrobbler) developers, and yes, it should now be referred to as "Last.fm" (that capitalisation is official), and definitely not as Audisocrobbler - at least at present. We may bring the AS name back later somewhat (stay tuned), but at the moment use "Last.fm". I have a couple of issues with the article at the moment, but for reasons of objectivity I'm not going to edit it at the moment - I'll raise it later. Russ 00:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ravensbourne

Regarding Martinten changing the text, I'm looking for the most accurate way to describe this. Technically the project may have "started" individually somehow. But Last.fm must have had some university imprimatur to compete in the Europrix, as only academic teams are eligible. [1] [2] Given that several other sources have listed Ravensbourne as the place where Last.fm started it seems wise for us to clarify the details (and eliminate confusion). I've asked Martinten on his Talk page to come here and give us a fuller explanation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last.fm template

{{Last.fm|Belle+and+Sebastian|B&S}} gives B&S at Last.fm

or simply {{Last.fm}} to link to an Last.fm page with the same name with Wikipedia's

note:

• all spaces in the first parameter should be written as plus sign "+"
• see Template_talk:Last.fm for details

-- Bact 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pandora (music service)

So i've been playing with pandora a bit and i love it, but i haven't gotten around to playing with last.fm. how do they compare?Shaggorama 19:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't used Pandora but I have used Last.fm. Pandora only seems to be a streaming site while Last.fm has streaming only as one part of their site. The idea with Last.fm is to build a profile of what you listen to. Last.fm then uses that data and recommends (or streams) other songs based on the relationships of those songs with other listeners. So if you listen to a lot of jazz, Last.fm will look at the profiles of other people who are listening to the artists you are listening to, and might play some artists that they have listened to that you have not. User's can also tag artists, songs, and albums. I find that part to be valuable because it lets me examine how people are classifying different types of music. You can stream or search based on tags as well. From my personal stats I was surprised at how much jazz I listen to. I didn't think that I listened to that much of it. — Mperry 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good discussion here http://www.stevekrause.org/steve_krause_blog/2006/01/pandora_and_las.html A Geek Tragedy 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki

So Last.fm now also has a wiki and more new features. I have no idea where to write it :S --Vincent 13:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Link? --Thorpe | talk 14:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to what? Mperry 04:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Although Last.fm's wiki is GFDL-licensed, it doesn't say that until you try to edit a page.. actually, the bottom of every page says the content is copyrighted by Last.fm. Technically this is a GFDL violation. Rhobite 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: Last.fm as a global chart

I've never tagged anything as possibly not NPOV. But it seems the above section of this page is bordering on non-NPOV. Especially of note are the lines about "foster(ing) an inherent bias toward established artists" . It seems that with Last.FM, if a person identifies with some smaller artists or likes using "tags" which are more common to smaller artists (such as "experimental" or "progressive rock") then a user would be likely to run into other smaller, lesser known artists of similar tastes that were perhaps previously unknown to the user.

What do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yokyle (talk • contribs).

i have the same problem. another one in this area is: "The worst flaw, in what is otherwise a very effective method of ranking musicians, is that more prolific artists of average quality will almost always win out over those who have released a few outstanding songs but little else." who is to decide about quality? and: "such great heights" ist the best counterexample of a VERY un-profific band with one hit winnig out over a lot of "more prolific artists of average quality"...--85.124.233.127 15:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yokyle, while it is true that a user can find smaller artists on Last.fm the chances of those smaller acts impacting the global chart is minimal. The section of the article that you are talking about, while might appearing to be not NPOV, is factually correct. The global chart on Last.fm is calculated based on the "reach" of the artist, where reach is defined as the number of users who have listened to said artist or a specific song. You can see this effect in this week's charts. Even though more Beatles songs were played than Radiohead songs, more people listened to Radiohead bringing it higher in the top artist chart than The Beatles. This topic comes up on the Last.fm forums now and then. People will play their favourite song over and over to try and game the stats in the hopes that it will make their song the top song. Because of the design of the system this just counts as one vote no matter how much the song is played. The part in the article should probably be reworded to better convey that unless you are able to market yourself as well as a successful major label band then you are unlikely to surpass such artists because you won't be able to reach the same number of unique listeners as those other artists. Last.fm also has the ability to license major label music for streaming. Many smaller artists will need to submit their music to Last.fm for it to be heard and discovered via streaming, provided that they have even heard of the web site. --Mperry 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your insightyokyle 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't actually an NPOV problem so much as an original research problem. Classic case of using weasel words to say things that can't be easily cited. It's based on the premise that Last.fm promotes the overall Last.fm chart as a "global chart", which they don't, so who cares? I left it alone last year, but I'm leaning toward nuking the whole section unless we can dig up some authoritative criticism. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

The table of Last.fm top tracks and artists over time lists 'Such Great Heights by The Postal Service' multiple times for both Radiohead and Coldplay. Is this vandalism? --Flatluigi 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. — Mperry 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The track is not listed for coldplay or radiohead, they are two separate mutually exclusive charts. Such Great Heights was the single most played track, while Coldplay/Radiohead were, when all plays of all their tracks were combined, the single most played artists. Joe D (t) 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, just my misreading of the table. Thanks. --Flatluigi 01:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the Global Chart

Does anyone have any objections to removing the Global Chart table and linking to the chart on the Last.fm site instead? It's serving little purpose on Wikipedia and the repetition of The Postal Service and Radiohead is getting tiresome. --Mperry 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this idea. It mars the page. Euphoria 17:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no objections I have removed the chart and replaced it with a link to the charts at the Last.fm web site. Users can research chart positions there. --Mperry 03:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I originally started the table as a way of showing Last.fm's chart system. But if you feel it is unnecessary, I have no objection. --Anthony5429 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed cleanup

I think I've cleaned it up enough to warrant the removal of the tag. Voretus the Benevolent 15:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that work, Voretus. I finally decided to just write a new Charts section under Features to factually describe the various charts that Last.fm makes available, and then fold in a little bit of this old section as an aside, without setting it up as "criticism". The old section spuriously framed a dispute between one type of chart and another, when there isn't really anyone taking "sides" here. They're just different. Anyway, I hope the new section is more useful, although I fear it's overlong. But the charts really are one of the key features of the service, not just a sidebar. --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

Should a section be devoted to some of the recent problems the site has encountered? Such as the failure to generate charts in about 3 months? This could be attributed to the surge in popularity of the site and the subsequent increase in submissions. 195.92.168.175 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've experienced some delays, but nothing like that. Have you posted in the forums about your issue? --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I do remember being very very sad for my profile not updating for a record FIVE MONTHS... this was, however, in the first half of 2005, back in the Audioscrobbler days. 195.92.168.175, you should indeed ask in the forums. Is your recent tracks-listing working, by the way? If it's not, perhaps your plugin has failed. You may also want to check the submissions log of your plugin. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, everything is back in working order now. I was referring to the transition to their new system which made everything not work for ages. But they seem to have finally fixed everything now and Last.fm seems as good as new. Thanks for the help ideas anyway. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.170 (talk • contribs).

Ok, seems like the problems just started. I for one don't have a clue what going on cause everytime I try to log on to last.fm I'm faced with this screen that says "Ready for Operation Depth Charge? Don't touch that dial…". And that's it. So I guess somethings up. If someone knows what's going on maybe it should be entered into the main article. Cause whatever it is, it do seem kinda major. (Djungelurban 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

They've been talking about the beta in the forums for weeks now (my subscription ran out so I didn't have a chance to check it out myself). The site seems to be partially working now. In any case, this article is not a "last.fm status update" page. --Dhartung | Talk 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung is right. This is an article about what Last.fm is, not something to keep track of its server status or when upgrades are scheduled. --Mperry 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out the paragraph about the site upgrade and the temporary message. It doesn't server any purpose to list that they had a temporary message displayed while they upgraded their database and server software. --Mperry 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was the History section. The upgrade is quite extensive and is going to require rewriting substantial parts of our article, so I think it's notable enough to mention. That's different from what I revised, which was basically "it's down, oh it's back up now". --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

last.fm’s problems aren’t over yet. Lots of criticisms over the new site design, especially with the collages next to the user’s recent tracks list and weekly chart. ～Michelle 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I also I am considering giving up on Last, due to playback difficulties. The bulk of this article reads like a company press release, can anyone give me some honest appraisal as to how much of this is independently edited? ~ negriljerry

I don't work for last.fm, but I do use it practically every day. I think the article basically describes features that the website and software have without being overtly one-sided. If there are independent third-party reviews from reliable sources, we should include them, positive or negative. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of date

This is not out of date they have some (horrid) new program... and hte plugin page is gone. Not sure what the deal is... but, the article doesn't explain. gren グレン 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you mean? I'm having trouble understand what you are saying. --Mperry 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gren, this is not a Help page for Last.fm. The article has been updated to reflect the website changes. --Dhartung | Talk 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The plugins still exist, but you have to download one package, which in turn downloads both all the plugins and the player. It's up to you whether, knowing that, you still want it mentioned in your article. Hey, the new site doesn't work on IE7 yet, but that maybe shouldn't be mentioned either until it starts affecting a statistically significant number of people (besides me.) --Mrcolj 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed {{Template:Out of date}} as I can't understand the explanation above, the article looks current, and consensus in this section seems to favour its removal. Would welcome its return to the page if individual sections are detailed as being out of date. Dicconb 22:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we discussed this right after the last round of upgrades and then it was extensively edited. I also confess I don't understand the point of the reorganization, which has left some important things like the Last.fm radio orphaned, and made the quotidian details of the site's history prominent again. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MusicBrainz

Should there be some mention of MusicBrainz in this article? I am aware that Last.fm intends to integrate with MusicBrainz, or at least use their data, although I am unsure of the specific details. --Tim Rawlinson 13:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Ogle

Matthew Ogle, the main Last.fm web developer, is a well-known musician.

If he's so well-known, why isn't he mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia knows all, but the person who made that claim could at least start an article or something. — TheJames 16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's an easter egg, i.e. an in-joke. We should not present it as factual here, however, and if doing so takes all the fun out of it, why present it at all? --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links in band pages?

Would it be appropriate to link to bands' Last.fm pages along with MySpace, Purevolume, etc? I don't see why not... FatalError 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally MySpace and PureVolume are links to be avoided, per policy.

Ultimately the point of external links is to offer more information, and last.fm pages really don't do that. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The radio

The article doesn't mention where the music comes from - is it streamed from their server or from other users with p2p technology? O-dezu 10:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's internet radio, not a p2p application, so why would you think that? Yes, it's streamed from their servers. It's fully licensed and they pay the RIAA fees (and hope the new royalty schedule doesn't cream them). That said, I think a mention that they have two streaming datacenters (London and, um, somewhere in Asia) would be appropriate. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convoluted intro

The system builds a detailed profile of each user's musical taste, also recommending artists similar to their favorites, showing their favorite artists and songs on a customizable profile webpage, comprising the songs played on its stations selected via a collaborative filter, or optionally, recorded by a Last.fm plugin installed into its users' music playing application.

I cannot make sense of this sentence, or else I would fix it. Is "comprising" really the intended word? What comprises what? What noun does "selected" refer to: songs or stations? AxelBoldt 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that got expanded from The system builds a detailed profile of each user's musical taste, comprising the songs played on its stations selected via a collaborative filter, or optionally, recorded by a Last.fm plugin installed into its users' music playing application. It's better to put the embedded phrase outside. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)