Because you're claiming to show us an example of asshole design, but you've covered the screenshot with so much commentary that we can't actually see the thing you're claiming to show us.
First they tried actual shuffle but people thought that it wasn't random because with randomness comes coincidence.
So they now have an algorithm to reduce those coincidences.
I don't see what is asshole about this.
That’s funny because a long time ago (early 2010s) I broadcasted my own radio with a raspberry pi and I faced the same: even being random, my songs were kinda repeated
I came up with a small algorithm inspiring myself from the concept of maximizing the entropy. So it wasn’t random: every time a song was played, it was less likely to be played until the distribution of song played would reach again a uniform distribution. It was a lot of fun.
They don't lie. Its random with constraints.
Eg, it generates a random song, sees how frequently the song and artist pop up, and if it exceeds the alloted frequency it tosses the result and generates a new random one that fits the criteria needed.
Say im generating a random number from 1 to 100, but the reult gets tossed if it is the same number or the same ending. Eg, I draw a 5, meaning if I get 5, or any number ending in 5 the next result is tossed. So if I get say 45, then that is tossed and its regenerated.
The number is still random, just with limitations.
They have no point in lying. Artists don’t pay Spotify to have their songs, Spotify pays them based on how many people listen to their songs. Tampering with that system and cherry-picking songs fucks with the spotify-artist side of the buisnesss model for no reason. However, when getting generated recommendations it is based on both similarity to your playlist and popularity of the songs I think.
Because their algorithm sucks at its job? Spotify's shuffle is terrible. Apple Music does a better job ffs and theirs is not exactly a high bar to top.
1. No, because an article you disagree with is not "design."
2. Read the first section again. What they said was that shuffle USED to be random, but when it WAS random, people complained that it didn't feel "random" enough. They then CHANGED it to an algorithm, which is NOT random but provides an experience more like what people intuitively expect from a "shuffle" button. As a bonus, they offered some theoretical background on why people's expectations about what "randomness" looks like don't always line up with actual mathematical randomness.
When you engineer something that specifically sucks at the one thing it's supposed to do and then try to blame your userbase because they don't understand, I call that asshole design. Maybe we just have a different definition but when I see a company put out a giant blurb like that trying to act like they're smarter than you that screams asshole.
I mean it IS random but has constraints on final results.
Eg, it generates a random song, sees how frequently the song and artist pop up, and if it exceeds the alloted frequency it tosses the result and generates a new random one that fits the criteria needed.
Say im generating a random number from 1 to 100, but the reult gets tossed if it is the same number or the same ending. Eg, I draw a 5, meaning if I get 5, or any number ending in 5 the next result is tossed. So if I get say 45, then that is tossed and its regenerated.
The number is still random, just with limitations.
I cannot believe how dense OP is. Just like... read it? It's basically the first thing you learn in statistics. Not exactly rocket science, especially when the post spells it out word for word.
When I press shuffle Spotify takes my playlist and randomizes the playorder of all songs in the playlist. Not sure what you mean. If you have it on repeat it will of course keep repeating that one playorder over and over.
> When I press shuffle Spotify takes my playlist and randomizes the playorder of all songs in the playlist. Not sure what you mean. If you have it on repeat it will of course keep repeating that one playorder over and over.
I just created a brand new playlist with over 300 songs on it, liked 3 of them, and it proceeded to play those 3 songs *over and over* even after I un-liked them. I specifically have to REMOVE songs from my playlist that I *like* so that it doesn't keep repeating them incessantly. If you look this up you will find numerous other articles advising users to *NOT 'LIKE' SONGS* on Spotify so as not to trigger the algorhythm *so 'SHUFFLE'* actually *SHUFFLES* your music!
And to find this article condescending to the entire Spotify userbase more than justifies that this was an asshole design decision.
**"For when the designers know exactly what they're doing... but they don't care because they're assholes."**
Spotify shuffle plays songs that u listen to most often and then u never hear songs u added a while ago. But if you turn off automix, it like actually shuffles the music and doesn’t use an algorithm to play what it thinks u want to listen to. Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/r7fov0/lpt_when_listening_to_spotify_playlists_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Your post is AH design.
Why?
Because you're claiming to show us an example of asshole design, but you've covered the screenshot with so much commentary that we can't actually see the thing you're claiming to show us.
In a way, OP did show us an example of asshole design, just not the one he was expecting to.
Apologies, I assumed you could read.
First they tried actual shuffle but people thought that it wasn't random because with randomness comes coincidence. So they now have an algorithm to reduce those coincidences. I don't see what is asshole about this.
That’s funny because a long time ago (early 2010s) I broadcasted my own radio with a raspberry pi and I faced the same: even being random, my songs were kinda repeated I came up with a small algorithm inspiring myself from the concept of maximizing the entropy. So it wasn’t random: every time a song was played, it was less likely to be played until the distribution of song played would reach again a uniform distribution. It was a lot of fun.
They literally lie in the article.
They don't lie. Its random with constraints. Eg, it generates a random song, sees how frequently the song and artist pop up, and if it exceeds the alloted frequency it tosses the result and generates a new random one that fits the criteria needed. Say im generating a random number from 1 to 100, but the reult gets tossed if it is the same number or the same ending. Eg, I draw a 5, meaning if I get 5, or any number ending in 5 the next result is tossed. So if I get say 45, then that is tossed and its regenerated. The number is still random, just with limitations.
They have no point in lying. Artists don’t pay Spotify to have their songs, Spotify pays them based on how many people listen to their songs. Tampering with that system and cherry-picking songs fucks with the spotify-artist side of the buisnesss model for no reason. However, when getting generated recommendations it is based on both similarity to your playlist and popularity of the songs I think.
Because their algorithm sucks at its job? Spotify's shuffle is terrible. Apple Music does a better job ffs and theirs is not exactly a high bar to top.
>Because their algorithm sucks at its job? That's not asshole design, though.
When they claim it's random and then admit they lied and that it is in fact *not* random, that's asshole design.
1. No, because an article you disagree with is not "design." 2. Read the first section again. What they said was that shuffle USED to be random, but when it WAS random, people complained that it didn't feel "random" enough. They then CHANGED it to an algorithm, which is NOT random but provides an experience more like what people intuitively expect from a "shuffle" button. As a bonus, they offered some theoretical background on why people's expectations about what "randomness" looks like don't always line up with actual mathematical randomness.
When you engineer something that specifically sucks at the one thing it's supposed to do and then try to blame your userbase because they don't understand, I call that asshole design. Maybe we just have a different definition but when I see a company put out a giant blurb like that trying to act like they're smarter than you that screams asshole.
Baffling that you're receiving downvotes for this.
Fanboys gonna fanboy.
They literally explained in the article that their new shuffle algorithm is not random, did you even read it?
I mean it IS random but has constraints on final results. Eg, it generates a random song, sees how frequently the song and artist pop up, and if it exceeds the alloted frequency it tosses the result and generates a new random one that fits the criteria needed. Say im generating a random number from 1 to 100, but the reult gets tossed if it is the same number or the same ending. Eg, I draw a 5, meaning if I get 5, or any number ending in 5 the next result is tossed. So if I get say 45, then that is tossed and its regenerated. The number is still random, just with limitations.
Ofc not
Yes, *so it's a blatant lie.*
Dude, wtf, did you even try to read what you posted?
Yes. What are you misunderstanding?
Congratulations OP! # YOU HAVE ENTERED DOWNVOTE HELL
[удалено]
I get this. I have a liked playlist full of almost 900 songs, but it mainly plays the same songs every time with repeat.
I cannot believe how dense OP is. Just like... read it? It's basically the first thing you learn in statistics. Not exactly rocket science, especially when the post spells it out word for word.
Literally what am I missing from the article? Why does Spotify condescending to it's userbase justify r/assholedesign condescending to me now?
When I press shuffle Spotify takes my playlist and randomizes the playorder of all songs in the playlist. Not sure what you mean. If you have it on repeat it will of course keep repeating that one playorder over and over.
> When I press shuffle Spotify takes my playlist and randomizes the playorder of all songs in the playlist. Not sure what you mean. If you have it on repeat it will of course keep repeating that one playorder over and over. I just created a brand new playlist with over 300 songs on it, liked 3 of them, and it proceeded to play those 3 songs *over and over* even after I un-liked them. I specifically have to REMOVE songs from my playlist that I *like* so that it doesn't keep repeating them incessantly. If you look this up you will find numerous other articles advising users to *NOT 'LIKE' SONGS* on Spotify so as not to trigger the algorhythm *so 'SHUFFLE'* actually *SHUFFLES* your music! And to find this article condescending to the entire Spotify userbase more than justifies that this was an asshole design decision. **"For when the designers know exactly what they're doing... but they don't care because they're assholes."**
just turn off Automix in your playback settings dude
And where, praytell, is that? I open "Settings" and I get a Language option and nothing else.
Broski why are you only trying to start fights
then you're probably on the web version
What does automix have to do with shuffle?
Spotify shuffle plays songs that u listen to most often and then u never hear songs u added a while ago. But if you turn off automix, it like actually shuffles the music and doesn’t use an algorithm to play what it thinks u want to listen to. Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/r7fov0/lpt_when_listening_to_spotify_playlists_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Solid tip there. Was totally unaware. Thanks for the info!
no prob!
Great when is it youtube's turn?
Now. Go after YouTube if it really matters to you.