[mythtv-users] Show matching two searches not recorded

[Michael T. Dean]

On 05/06/2014 11:19 AM, Nathan Wray wrote:
> It seemed obvious to me that max(priority) would be ideal but I hadn't 
> considered the "negative scheduling" case where you're specifically 
> trying to push something down, like "don't record Simpsons reruns on 
> Tuesdays".
>
> For me, priority is how important the recording is to me, and applying 
> max(priority) would make the results more intuitive.  I'm not entirely 
> convinced this isn't the case but it's nice to be aware of the 
> counterargument.
>
> The system seems to be using "first rule wins", which is workable but 
> non-obvious since it isn't surfaced that way in MythWeb.  Ideally 
> there would be a drag-and-drop interface in MythWeb that explicitly 
> lets you order your rules.

There was a proposal*** by a scheduling genius to completely remove the 
"pick some number between -99 and +99 to represent the priority for your 
show, even though you don't remember the priorities of the other 142 
recording rules that already exist" and, instead, to put new rules at 
the "top" (highest "priority"--or was it bottom?) of the list (though 
possibly different tops based on rule type) and allow users to adjust 
which rules take precedence over others by moving rules up and down the 
list with an interface similar to what you describe (as appropriate 
based on user interface--such that it's remote-accessible in 
mythfrontend, etc).  Especially since priority is generally not 
necessary (most rules should have a default priority unless there are 
specific and recurring conflicts which need to be resolved) and since a 
single, definitive ordering of rules against all others would allow 
users to know the exact effect of their changes, this simple approach 
would just Do The Right Thing for almost all new rules for almost all 
users but would let any user fine tune the ordering as needed when 
necessary.

As I understood the proposal, it would also make this "should we use 
priority to determine which rule wins when multiple rules match a show" 
issue a moot point because users would specifically say which rules 
should win over which others when they move up/down rules in the list, 
and users would always see the exact "resolution" of changes (any rule 
below this one would be overridden when this one matches/matches of this 
rule would record in preference to matches of rules below this one).  
The fact that we would not be using exact values to specify priority, 
but instead a relative ordering of rules, would allow us to remove the 
existing priority value on the recording rule and use the rule order to 
determine which rule takes precedence without the issues described in 
that post--you'd see the other rules that get bumped over or under this 
rule as you change things.

Mike


*** And, no, I'm not just intentionally posting this to try to get user 
support for the idea (and to get that developer to consider re-proposing 
it) because I loved the idea even though many others felt that the 
"whatever number I choose between -99 and +99 at the point when I 
schedule a TV recording rule is the exact and proper priority value for 
that show, regardless of future changes to the broadcast schedule, not 
to mention the fact that in 6 months when I create a new rule I won't 
remember that I chose +72 for this show and so need to use a value >+72 
for the new, more-important recording rule I'll be creating" priority is 
much better and more intuitive.  But if people started to consider 
potential benefits for such a radical departure from our current 
1980s^H^H^H^H^Hpriority-as-a-number-based scheduling approach, I 
wouldn't be upset...  ;)