Bounties for new features

[groover km]

Call me old-fashioned, but I quite like the 'surprise' of each new release. It amazes me how much is squished into each one, and there is always something that is relevant to *me*. I like that; I like the way that I guess sub tries to cover all users with a new feature or something...

I am getting a little curious about what happens next though, sub.... is there a big landmark planned for 1.0, or are we going to be in a holding pattern at 0.999999999?

Seriously though, when it gets time for 1.0, if you wanted to send us, your faithful minions, off to promote on digg, slashdot, del-ici-ous, fark, etc... just say the word!

[fbachofner]

Hi Frank Z:

I'm sorry if my tone is terse. I have no intention in starting a flame war. (Certainly sub would not tolerate it). I do think that concepts such as bounties and prizes to be paid on completion of a wish, is undermining the very spirit of GB-PVR.

No offense taken! I hope, however, you realize I am (in intent and effort) one of Sub's staunchest supporters. I am completely astonished at his level of support and his ability to code and I constantly shout praises about GBPVR to anyone who is interested in PVRs.

My intent here is certainly NOT to undermine the spirit of GBPVR, but to give Sub a mechanism for MEASURING what users would like -- and giving him a financial consideration at the same time. Both effects might make Sub's life better.

Even though GBPVR is a labor of love, I think it is critical Sub get financial recognition for his efforts. It is simply a great way of assessing how well liked the software is!

On a related note: I know of a number of people who SAY (don't know if it is true, of course) that they would annually donate 25-50% of, for example, what a TIVO subscription costs when GBPVR supports the feature set they expect. [If a sizable percentage of other users have the same attitude, GBPVR could become a HUGE "business" -- notwithstanding that these would probably still be voluntary donations (unless Sub commercializes GBPVR). Indeed, I suspect the ability to somehow reap greater financial benefit *might* be one reason Sub wishes to keep the source closed. I hasten to add: "that's great!"]

Since there is no roadmap, no polled wishlist and no bounty system, these people seem to think that their desired features might never be implemented.

I have recommended all of the people participate in the forums (even if only in the "wishlist"). To a one, each has said, "I don't have time to post. Can't I just pay something to increase the chance this gets done?" [As a consequence of the inability to do this in a measured way, Sub knows of at least 5 fewer people that think his software is "almost perfect."]

You may consider these users out of the "spirit" of GBPVR, but consider that a PVR is probably mostly about making good use of one's time. [I suspect there are MANY users who do not participate in the forums because they are too busy.]

I think that as a community in support of Sub we should try to help him with the same.

[sub]

Call me old-fashioned, but I quite like the 'surprise' of each new release.

Me too. I fell like santa sometimes.

It amazes me how much is squished into each one, and there is always something that is relevant to *me*. I like that; I like the way that I guess sub tries to cover all users with a new feature or something...

Actually I do actively try to do this. I'm very aware that we've got a diverse set of users, with different desires, so I try to make sure there is a little something for everyone.

I am getting a little curious about what happens next though, sub.... is there a big landmark planned for 1.0, or are we going to be in a holding pattern at 0.999999999?

To be honest, the next release will probably be a v0.99.13 or something similar, since its mostly just bug fixes at this point, with no major new features added yet. I'm playing around with a couple of potential things for the next major release, but I havnt decided if these are doable yet.

[fbachofner]

Hi Sub:

I do read everything (except some posts the plugins forum), and I do listen to what people are saying. This of course doesnt mean I can implement everything, but if certain requests seem popular, or I like the idea, then there is a good chance it'll be implemented.

It is very clear you listen based on changes/improvements to GBPVR. I hope you don't think I was implying otherwise.

I just think there should be a consise, public way of measuring/tracking feature requests that does not involve reading the entire wishlist.

Sorry, this wont be happening. GB-PVR will not be an open source project.

Fair enough. I just had to ask since nobody has for a while!

[fbachofner]

Hi Sub:

I dont want to personally create and run a polled wishlist myself, but I'd certainly follow it with interest if you create one.

This is great news! Thanks for your ongoing interest in feature requests.

Can I somehow implement it as a "sticky" poll (so it stays at the top) in the GBPVR forum wishlist (does a moderator need to give me permission?) or would you prefer that I post such a poll somewhere else entirely?

I'd be interested to see what people think are the important features, and within reason I'd consider implementing any features that seem to be widely desired (keeping in mind considerations mentioned in http://forums.nextpvr.com/showthread.php?t=23966 and the time required to implement said features).

I assume one major "consideration" reference you are making is that you don't want it to become a bounty system. Is that correct?

[zehd]

Hi Frank Z:



No offense taken! I hope, however, you realize I am (in intent and effort) one of Sub's staunchest supporters. I am completely astonished at his level of support and his ability to code and I constantly shout praises about GBPVR to anyone who is interested in PVRs.

My intent here is certainly NOT to undermine the spirit of GBPVR, but to give Sub a mechanism for MEASURING what users would like -- and giving him a financial consideration at the same time. Both effects might make Sub's life better.

Even though GBPVR is a labor of love, I think it is critical Sub get financial recognition for his efforts. It is simply a great way of assessing how well liked the software is!

On a related note: I know of a number of people who SAY (don't know if it is true, of course) that they would annually donate 25-50% of, for example, what a TIVO subscription costs when GBPVR supports the feature set they expect. [If a sizable percentage of other users have the same attitude, GBPVR could become a HUGE "business" -- notwithstanding that these would probably still be voluntary donations (unless Sub commercializes GBPVR). Indeed, I suspect the ability to somehow reap greater financial benefit *might* be one reason Sub wishes to keep the source closed. I hasten to add: "that's great!"]

Since there is no roadmap, no polled wishlist and no bounty system, these people seem to think that their desired features might never be implemented.

I have recommended all of the people participate in the forums (even if only in the "wishlist"). To a one, each has said, "I don't have time to post. Can't I just pay something to increase the chance this gets done?" [As a consequence of the inability to do this in a measured way, Sub knows of at least 5 fewer people that think his software is "almost perfect."]

You may consider these users out of the "spirit" of GBPVR, but consider that a PVR is probably mostly about making good use of one's time. [I suspect there are MANY users who do not participate in the forums because they are too busy.]

I think that as a community in support of Sub we should try to help him with the same.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I appreciate your intents and efforts.

I have also encountered those that are using GB-PVR but are not active. It makes you think just how many users are really out there. Yes, and if there were a mechansim for the 'busy' it might be a good thing...

[sub]

This is great news! Thanks for your ongoing interest in feature requests.

Can I somehow implement it as a "sticky" poll (so it stays at the top) in the GBPVR forum wishlist (does a moderator need to give me permission?) or would you prefer that I post such a poll somewhere else entirely?

If you create the poll, I'll mark it as sticky.

I assume one major "consideration" reference you are making is that you don't want it to become a bounty system. Is that correct?

Sorry, I didnt provide the correct link. It was supposed to be: http://forums.gbpvr.com/showpost.php?p=1...stcount=10. Basically I'm not very keen on zap2it only features - since majority of downloads, and forum users, are outside of the US.

[KingArgyle]

Here are my list of basics that aren't there. Not a long list:

1. Ability to set or arrange the priority of recordings, regardless if you have more than a single tuner or not. Myth, BeyondTV, Sage, Media Portal, etc all have this in the base system. Plus this almost eliminates the manual conflict handling (with CDK I've had as many as 60 programs to be scheduled and it's handled all the conflicts without having to manually intervene and this is on one tuner).

2. Eliminate duplicates and ignore shows that have already been recorded. You can do this without the use of ZAP2It, but it really relies on the quality of the XMLTV source. I don't use the ZAP2IT format, but the XMLTV format through the North American grabber (which gets it's info from Zap2It). I use a combination of RecTracker and CDK Scheduler to eliminate and not record duplicates. It gets about 98% of the shows, but not 100%. The key is the Title, Sub Title and Description checks. If these are different it's considered a new episode. Also, shows that have been already recorded are tracked in a seperate database or table. This is checked to when scheduling to determine if it should be scheduled or recorded. Again, this relies on the quality of the data provided by the guide, not reliant on special features of ZAP2IT. This should also be enabled as it is now on a recording by recording basis.

3. A wider selection of recording options, ability to schedule a show on any channel, not just specific channels. Ability to set keyword searches and recordings. (All options should give the option to be priority based). Ability to search Title, SubTitle, Description for particular shows to record. Again no reliance on ZAP2It data.

4. Diskspace management, not just show management.

5. Ability to specify different directories or drives for a particular show. Highly useful when you know a particular drive is getting near it's capacity.

The CDK Scheduler code implements most of the recording features mentioned here. I originally wrote the code because the features weren't there, but with the full intention that CDK Scheduler would go away once these features were in the core. The code is available, myself, Jorm, Jrockintuititve, have given permission in the past for the code to be rolled into the core if necessary, or it can be used as a base to implement the above features. That offer still stands and the source is available on sourceforge.

CDK Scheduler was designed not to rely on any particular information that is only in Zap2It. It was designed to rely on information that is stored in the GBPVR database and the XML TV files (even thought it doesn't read those files directly).

That's all I can see right now on basic functionality that has become standard on most PVRs (Tivo, Sage, Beyond, Myth, etc), that I still see is missing. I've written utilities to handle this and others have continued their development but these are base features built into the other PVRS that GBPVR is still lacking.

[KingArgyle]

One last one, Episode Guide. The ability to have a Favorites selection for the guide to narrow the list down. Should allow the user to create a unlimited number of favorite filters so that they can customize the guide as much as they want.

[sub]

Thanks - good feedback. Hopefully we'll see similar from other users.

1. Ability to set or arrange the priority of recordings, regardless if you have more than a single tuner or not. Myth, BeyondTV, Sage, Media Portal, etc all have this in the base system. Plus this almost eliminates the manual conflict handling (with CDK I've had as many as 60 programs to be scheduled and it's handled all the conflicts without having to manually intervene and this is on one tuner).

This one is on my list of things to do.

2. Eliminate duplicates and ignore shows that have already been recorded. You can do this without the use of ZAP2It, but it really relies on the quality of the XMLTV source. I don't use the ZAP2IT format, but the XMLTV format through the North American grabber (which gets it's info from Zap2It). I use a combination of RecTracker and CDK Scheduler to eliminate and not record duplicates. It gets about 98% of the shows, but not 100%. The key is the Title, Sub Title and Description checks. If these are different it's considered a new episode. Also, shows that have been already recorded are tracked in a seperate database or table. This is checked to when scheduling to determine if it should be scheduled or recorded. Again, this relies on the quality of the data provided by the guide, not reliant on special features of ZAP2IT. This should also be enabled as it is now on a recording by recording basis.

From what I've seen of the various EPG source, Title + Sub Title + Description are not good enough to be used for this task. The US zap2it sourced data is much better and more complete than you can expect anywhere else in the world. I think any solution (outside of the US) relying on this would be too hands-on to maintain, and the user would have to know too much about the quality of their data.

That said, I have been thinking of extending the existing zap2it duplicate detection. Currently it wont schedule a show recording if another show of the same identifier exists in the 'ready' or 'pending' status. I'm considering modifying the database to hold the history of show identifiers even after a show has been deleted, but there are some complications like whether a screen is needed for the user to maintain this info, ie user wants to record a show they deleted recently (why is nothing ever simple?).

BTW, GB-PVR also pulls in the zap2it show identifier info from XMLTV, so there users can be using zap2it via xmltv. Also, if users in other countries have good episode info, they can populate their XMLTV files with this info in the zap2it format, and GB-PVR will provide them the same functionality (it doesnt expect it to be available on all channels or all shows).

3. A wider selection of recording options, ability to schedule a show on any channel, not just specific channels. Ability to set keyword searches and recordings. (All options should give the option to be priority based). Ability to search Title, SubTitle, Description for particular shows to record. Again no reliance on ZAP2It data.

I am intending to add the ability to schedule 'any channel' recordings.

I would also consider the keyword suggestion, but in the past when I've thought about it I havnt been able to think of a nice clean place to integrate it into the user interface. I'm open to suggestions on this. I want to keep things pretty simple and easy to use.

4. Diskspace management, not just show management.

5. Ability to specify different directories or drives for a particular show. Highly useful when you know a particular drive is getting near it's capacity.

I dont know if I'd call these essential. I have been considering some minimal work in these areas - probably a long the lines of adding multiple recordings paths, and setting a disk % threshold for each, and it'd go through them in order to evaluate the best path at recording time. I dont really like the idea of specifying different drives for different recordings.

The CDK Scheduler code implements most of the recording features mentioned here. I originally wrote the code because the features weren't there, but with the full intention that CDK Scheduler would go away once these features were in the core. The code is available, myself, Jorm, Jrockintuititve, have given permission in the past for the code to be rolled into the core if necessary, or it can be used as a base to implement the above features. That offer still stands and the source is available on sourceforge.

Thanks for the offer, but its most likely just easier to implement these types of things myself given that the bulk of the work is in the GUI. The actual underlying logic is pretty straight forward.

It is often difficult for me to weigh up the priorities of power users vs those that want it super friendly for the wife and rest of the family.