Dear Griffin,
Your argumentation sounds like: my great-grandfather did it that way, my
grandfather did it that way, my father did it that way so I'm doing it
that way. That's no argumentation but a story about a family tradition.
There's not one atom of logic in such an argument.
Now, let's take a nice example:
Suppose that all the tracks of this album were recorded by six musicians
instead of three, and that these musicians chose an album title
consisting of more than a hundred characters. Following your standard
method, how do you think a file-name look would like? Would you then
maintain your standard method? Besides, in such a case you might also run
into trouble with your operating system. Most operating systems allow 256
characters as maximum for file-names.
Kind regards,
Natasha
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 04:42:04 -0600, Griffin wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:32:56 GMT, Natasha <natasha@use.net> wrote:
>
>>Thanks 4 the post, but what a terrible file naming scheme. Everything at
>>the left side of the track number is unnecessary and even unwanted, for
>>it makes the track titles unreadable. Besides it is a lot of work to
>>reformat all these bloody file names.
>>Please ask your ripper to change this behaviour.
>>
>>Kind regards!
>>
>>Natasha :-)
>
> Ever hear of looking a gift horse in the mouth?
>
> Besides, some people prefer this way of naming files. So if I change it
> for you, then other people will be unhappy.
>
> Get "Tag & Rename." It makes changing file names fast and easy. If you
> can't find it, just send me an email and I'll give it to you.
>
> Griffin
|
|