Talk:Last.fm/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Last.fm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Capitalisation

Internet should be capitalised. Internet all in lower case is an internet, 'any' internet. The Internet most people refer to is the one we're using here. A white house is not the same as the White House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.88.129 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Last.fm template

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

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)

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)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. :) —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I can't say that I agree to this one: if anything else, a Last.fm artist page shows which of their tracks are most popular. --Jellevc (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have rewritten the introduction and had a go at reorganising the Features section but the article is getting very long. I am not sure whether a list of music players that are no longer supported is actually relevant here. The section on the Audioscrobbler plugin, and the supported audio and media players could be made into a separate article. Jud 22:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of countries

There are 248 different locations listed in the "country of residence" drop down menu on the Last.fm user finder page. [3] Jud 10:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Audioscrobbler Plugin

Using seek controls works fine with audioscrobbler plugins from what I have seen, so I'm taking out that phrase from the audioscrobber plugin section. - Amitp06 20:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Listening Data

The article says that last.fm's listening data is no londer released.

This isn't correct since it is available from http://www.audioscrobbler.net/data/ under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK license. So I'll change the article to reflect this...

I don't think that's true anymore, the link you named redirects to the Last.fm API page, and there is no word about the CC-licensing as far as I can see. Maybe someone can update the paragraph in the article about this. -- TripleF (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ihackedlastfm.png

I certainly wouldn't consider it a shortcoming of the system, and so I don't think it is appropriate to call it such. — mæstrosync ^{talk&contribs}, 02:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rofl, not really manipulating it.. All you have to do is change the tags of ANY song. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is abuse of the system though. It illustrates how independent bands could potentially spam the system, or whatever. Whether it merits inclusion or not is another matter. That and I don't care all that much. Seegoon 12:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of a pointless hack, as RJ et al. have repeatedly explained. You can personally put whatever tags you want -- call a certain performer Child D. Molester and play his songs all day, for instance. People have done this sort of thing and most of the scrobblerspam is filtered out. There are still "legitimate" ways to spam the system but the weighting now makes it harder for one person to make any sort of difference. And you don't get any benefit of scrobbling if you do this. A band could spam themselves all they want, play it with popular artists like Britney or Limp Bizkit or Fiddy, and since they're not enough people they won't affect recommendations enough. It's possible, in other words, but the potential benefit is so limited that why bother? Bottom line: nobody's written about this "weakness" and this image has no real place on Wikipedia. It's original research. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Last.fm changed into japan-based?

Last.Fm is really not an UK-based site at all anymore! All texts in Last.Fm are now japan. Really WTF?

Next to the search box in the top right there should be a link with the Japanese flag next to it (

). Click that and then click English. --Closedmouth 01:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still based in the UK. Always has been and apparently always will. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Songtaste

Why was the songtaste reference removed? I found a short reference through Google. Is there any other information on Songtaste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Registered99 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of users

The introduction states that last.fm has 20 million active users. I dispute this figure, although I have no idea what the real number is, but I doubt there are 20 million active users, as the weekly charts show that the most played artists have less than 100 000 listeners. I am absolutely certain that if there were 20 million active users, the most popular bands would definitely have more than 100 000 people listening to them in one week. I'd estimate the real amount of active users to be somewhere around 1 million, but as I said before, I have no idea what the real number is, I just know that it's not 20 million. Alice Mudgarden 09:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On a similar theme, does anyone know what percentage of the user accounts have upgraded to "Subscriber". The little blue subscriber logos seem quite rare. I know the advantages aren't exactly spectacular but the cost is very, very low and worth it to help keep the site going. Grievous Angel (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Last.fm are currently claiming to have over 20 million users Promote your Music on Last.fm Jud (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

However, imeem is claiming the same number, and have been doing so for over a year, furthermore, most metric sites (alexa, compete, quantcast, comscore) show imeem.com with much higher traffic and user counts than last.fm so the claim to be the biggest site is only valid inside their press releases. I'm going to remove the claim to be largest since it's not substantiated by any independent sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.217.156 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Although there are superficial similarities, Imeem.com operates in a totally different way to Last.fm and the two are not really comparable. It is actually far more similar to Youtube. Jud (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

They're both similar enough that the description 'Social Music Platform' is an appropriate description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.217.156 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it far beyond suspicious that imeem should be the bigger of the two sites. Search for the two sites anywhere, and last.fm gets far more than 10 times the number of hits. Furthermore, polls conducted on unrelated sites always show an enormous majority of people using last.fm rather than imeem. I see the numbers from traffic sites, but those could very well be doctored, and it is unclear what counts as a "hit" in those statistics. Remember that imeem is mostly known for those little embeddable players. Furthermore, what is an "industry observer"? I don't think I've ever heard a more ridiculous term in my life.

The promote user music thing isn't suggesting anything of the kind of the number of accounts, it's just how many people visit the site each year, i think anyhow. METALFREAK04 (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OT: How to mark/view loved tracks?

Sorry for this being un-wikipedic... but does anyone know a way to mark and view my "Loved Tracks" after-the-fact? I can mark tracks as loved while listening to them, but I would like to know if there is a way to review this in the last.fm web interface, and I've been unable to find it. Thanks for any help! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't, for a simple answer, you can however go through your radio station and list it on a pad then just do a journal, it's easy after awhile. :) METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Propsal of the new 'royalities' feature

There is a new feature that you should know about, I think there should be a new section for this new feature...I am willing to write it up but I need conformation, I don't want to get into any fights over this. So here is the link....http://blog.last.fm/

"We already have licenses with the various royalty collection societies, but now unsigned artists can put their music on Last.fm and be paid directly for every song played. This helps to level the playing-field—now you can make music, upload it to Last.fm and earn money for each play. If you make music, you can sign up to participate for free.

We’re not printing money to pay for this—but the business model is simple enough: we are paying artists and labels a share of advertising revenue from the website.

Today we’re redesigning the music economy. There are already millions of tracks available, and we’re adding more every day. We will continue to work hard to bring this to everyone in the world." METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LastFM Main page.png

Image:LastFM Main page.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

easter eggs?

what happened to the easter eggs section? such as the microwave's music page, etc. I read in here that 'it's an inside joke rather than factual information'.. but it would be interesting to include this information on wikipedia, wether on here or on a internally linked stub. thoughts? Nnnudibranch 03:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Third party applications section

I added the bit about "Build Last.fm", the website's newest feature, it is last.fm's attempt to gather many third party extensions that they approve of into one spot, I also added the SXSW bit. I didn't delete the small list of third party applications, which I'm not sure why it's so small in the first place, and I'm not sure as to what everybody prefers. I then reorganized the section by 'supported by last.fm' and 'other' sections.. although by this point it's probably better to delete that list, or create a "list of last.fm applications' wiki page and link to it. Nnnudibranch 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the website currently provides a downloadable .pdf game where one prints out stickers with popular tags used on the website, to print out and physically "tag" the artists at the venue, and then take a picture of the thing you're tagging (preferably before applying the sticker), upload if to flickr.com, and tag the photo on flickr with "tagsxsw", so everyone can "see how the real world tags up". Note: The flickr idea has been used to tag photos from an event with a special tag that the website then retrieves, thus allowing the event page to have user submitted photos that are hosted on flickr. Wether Last.fm implements something interesting with the "tagsxsw" tag like this is unknown to me right now Nnnudibranch 05:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

you're supposed to take the picture after you tag it, not before - otherwise, how would you know what you tagged it as? Ingridjames (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

list of social networking sites

I added last.fm to wikipedia's list of social networking websites. (Last.fm already linked to it, even though it wasn't on it) I went with the 20 million users claim, since that's what Last.fm itself says. If anyone thinks they can write a better description than "Music: streaming radio; personal profiles track users' listening habits and link to artist & label pages" then go for it.Ingridjames (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this but the page didn't hit on live updating hardware like the Squeezebox players and they don't fit into any category on that page Money2themax (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Music catalogue: how many tracks?

The current version says: "Last.fm's music library contains hundreds of thousands of individual audio tracks and past and present albums from artists on all the major commercial labels." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last.fm#Music_catalogue

Should we give a more precise track count?

On its blog, last.fm claims: "So far our fingerprint server identified 23 million unique tracks, from the 650 million fingerprint requests you’ve thrown at it. Who knows how many unique tracks there are out there.. We have a couple of hundred million tracks based on spelling alone – but not all of them are spelt correctly. We’re getting closer to an answer though." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last.fm#Music_catalogue

--Norz (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about two separate sets of numbers here - Last.fm's music "library" consists of a large number of individual music tracks which have actually been uploaded by artists and labels, and which are made available for streaming to Last.fm listeners from the Last.fm servers. This is just a small proportion of the millions of song titles in the overall music "catalogue" which forms the bulk of the site.

The number of "unique tracks" mentioned in the blog refers to the total number of individual tracks that have been listened to by Last.fm users on their own computers and ipods and which are collected via the plugins to form the last.fm listening statistics. Because of the way Last.fm is set up, any "new" track gets a separate listing, although many of these are actually duplicates because of spelling errors etc. Attempts are now being made to tidy up some of the more obvious mistakes. Jud (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the figure mentioned on our blog (23 mio tracks) refers to the number of unique tracks that the fingerprinting server identified. This means spellings are totally irrelevant. --muesli 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that - would it be possible for you to suggest where we could also find verifiable figures for the current number of tracks in the audio library? Especially as so much new audio content has been added recently.

My point still stands that the number of audio tracks available for streaming on the site is bound to be considerably fewer than the huge number of individual tracks which have been added to the database by scrobbling. (even if the many duplicates due to spelling mistakes are not included) Jud (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

policy inconsistency

I have twice reverted the addition of the user at IP 98.216.65.124 claiming an inconsistency between Last.fm's inability to disambiguate identically-named artists and its enforcement of artist name trademarks on behalf of its signed partners. Aside from the fact that the text was unclear as to the specific nature of the "policy inconsistency" referred to, I felt that there was a lack of adequate referencing for the content to satisfy Wikipedia policies against original research, as I explained in the user's talk page. Even if such statements were " true, beyond dispute" some evidence would need to be provided as to the saliency of the information. Per verifiability policy, exceptional claims of require exceptional sources. Claims of "a serious policy inequity" would qualify as "apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". It stands to reason that if the problem is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article, that it would have generated some noticeable controversy or other attention. In addition, the same policy also states that the verifiability rather than truth is the threshold for inclusion. The burden of evidence lies with the party moving to include material. It is not the obligation of others to "prove otherwise". Dancter (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

If I had created a compilation CD, would I be able to put it on Last.fm? I don't mean like uploading the tracks, just the tracklist. Would that be copyright or not? Tcatron565 (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ask them, not us. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout change

Someone should add something about the layout change in last.fm. It seems to be causing a whole lotta mess down there. And all the thing about smart ads that comes with them. Maybe Last.fm sold out. Maybe not. But anyway it's something big. Ciacchi (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable, third-party sources that mention the "mess down there", then it can be added. Some comments have already been added and removed due to them being unreliable and apparently just the personal opinion of the poster. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the "mess" is. For example, the "Bring old Last.fm back!" group only has 7 members. There are no reliable sources to back that up, and until some are found, I don't think the information should be re-added to the article. — ^Fatal Error 19:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry - I have no intention of letting the information stay in the article unless it is reliably sourced. In my opinion, I like the new site layout. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

SEVEN MEMBERS MAN? They have over 4000 now, and it's growing at a rate of about 200 per hour. http://www.last.fm/group/Bring+back+the+old+Last.fm Take a look at this. Ok, I understand that there's no third party sources, but it would be good to have something anyway. Or at least something about the layout, letting alone the mess. I liked the new layout too, but I'm starting to think they've sold out, for some other reasons. Take a look at http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4350427.ece Ciacchi (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ciacchi. Regardless of your opinions about the new layout, the negative reaction has been huge. The 'Bring back the old Last.fm' group is the fastest growing in the site's history and seems to show no signs of slowing, could easily become the largest group. Surely it's only a matter of time until reliable sources can be found that document this so information can in turn be added to this page. Red157(talk • contribs)

As can be seen here, comments on the blog have had to be closed to the overwhelming negativity. Same can be seen in the feedback forums. Reckon something (anything) about needs to be up on the wiki page. Red157(talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Every single design change Last.fm has undertaken has had a huge negative response at first. The funny thing is that the design that people want brought back this time was almost universally hated when it was launched. The only difference now is that there are more users to complain. It'll die down after a few weeks and the next time they change their design, people will demand they bring back this one. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems the other group that had been done, called "We miss the old Last.fm" (as opposed to "we hate the new last.fm" or anything to that effect) had 600 members. This is like a big riot, a great boom of uprising that gathered almost 5000 people in two days. There's a big difference there. Ciacchi (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're right, because there's no way Last.fm got more members during that time. >_< If we say anything about this "riot" (if you can call it that), we'll have to say something about all the negative feedback all the other redesigns have had. It's the exact same thing again, only this time, like Closedmouth said, there are more members. The fact that you think they've "sold out" doesn't mean anything. — ^Fatal Error 06:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FatalError. If the negative reception is noted in the article, a reference to negative receptions in the past should be added. --Jellevc (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that unless some reliable, third party source comes along (The Times, The Guardian, The Observer, something like that) and reports about the problems with the redesign, it doesn't matter how many Last.fm, Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, whatever groups come along, they will be reverted. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn straight. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK then Ciacchi (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Around 6000 users have joined the "Bring Back The Old Last.fm" group - sure it's one of the biggest groups on last.fm, but last.fm say there are 21 millions active users 6000 is barely 0.03% in total. 82.5.97.136 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but gathering 7000 users in three days is quite an achievement, and it doesn't seem to be stopping. That's relatively an awful big number. You couldn't expect all the 21 million people to have found that particular group. It would be then just armageddonic. Ciacchi (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To point out, the group now has over 8,000 members [4], and i found some links from websites outside of the Last Fm service that detail the changes. This one details the change in regards to Last.FMs new advertising policy [5](from The Times). Its not exactly amazing stuff, but its a start. There is also massive issues with it working in Internet Explorer (read, unsuable) that have affected users worldwide which Last.Fm's staff have failed to deal with [6]. Also, the redesign prompted some users to launch their own efforts in re-skinning the page because of the colours being disliked (UI issues) [7]. Also, there is claims that many of the paid users worked on the beta and that complaints where ignored, and several suggestions that the site was moving towards a more facebook approach [8]. So my suggestion is to write in short about the large-scale mixed reaction of this change, as while some users have rebelled strongly against it, others have strongly supported it. Its a notable inclusion, as it is reaching sites outside of Last.Fm (this is not to say it should be made a feature of this wiki entry, but noted in the paragraph about the redesign with cited sources). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.223.43 (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

While I have no doubt personally that the sources you provided (tinypic, flickr and last.fm forums) contain information relevant to the "problems" of the changes, we cannot accept them because they are not reliable sources. The Times article would be the only one we could accept, so you would only get a paragraph (if that) about their new "smart" ads. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It just so happens that I found the so sought-after reference: http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-some-lastfm-users-revolt-over-new-look/ Ciacchi (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

More: [9], [10], [11], [12]. What do you say? Ciacchi (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then add it in! Although 9, 10, and 11 are not reliable sources (blogs/user-submitted). Here's another one: [13]. (Source 8 links to that article.) — ^Fatal Error 03:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A link to Last.FM's announced known issues from the upgrade. Most certainly not third party as its direct from the company itself. [14]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.154.191 (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

MobileScrobbler

The Article states: "iPod touch and iPhone: With iPod touch and iPhone's firmware version 2.0, Last.fm has created an official client for streaming its music.[33] Alternatively, through the process of Jailbreaking your iPod Touch/iPhone, MobileScrobbler can both stream radio and scrobble tracks via Wi-Fi or an EDGE/3G mobile connection."

MobileScrobbler is not available for the iPhone OS 2.0(hopefully it will be in future). And since there is no 1.x firmware for iPhone 3G you can't scrobble over 3G... I think this should be rewritten so that it is clear which software (Last.fm, MobileScrobbler) is available for what OS and what OS is available for which device. But maybe this would be to much detail. Well... I'm not in the right mind state to do this right now so maybe someone else can do this? --91.47.97.196 (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

NEED HELP

I am trying to make the History section better by making it in prose which it needs to be in, in order it to be a historic account. Unless you want a timeline to show present and past updates and justifications, this needs to be edited now.

Where i have said
The old Audioscrobbler site at the audioscrobbler.com domain name was wholly merged into the new Last.fm site in 9 August 2005. This launched audioscrobbler.net as a separate development-oriented site on 5 September 2005. However, at the very bottom of each of the Last.fm pages there was an Audioscrobbler "slogan", which changes each time the page is refreshed. Based on well known sayings or advertisements, these originally appeared at the top of the old Audioscrobbler website pages and were all created and contributed by the original site members. ^{[citation needed]}

An update to the site was made on 14 July 2006 which included a new software application for playing Last.fm radio streams and for logging of tracks played with other media players. Other changes included the improvement of the friends system and updating it to require a two-way friendship, the addition of the Last.fm "Dashboard" where users can see on one page relevant information for their profile, expanded options for purchasing music from online retailers and a new visual design for the web site (including an optional black colour scheme). ^{[citation needed]}

By this, ^{[citation needed]}, I mean we need to check the relvence of my prose in that historic account, becuase I admit i am not the best in the world of english language. By the second paragrpah, I am wandering if the other changes should be in prose aswell as it might be better than it is now. Thanks and i would like some decent help with this. METALFREAK04 (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sign up to listen to the radio jan 8 2009

I listen to last.fm radio everyday and today I had to sign up to listen I nadded this information and it was removed, I don't know if this is happening to everyone, but it happened to me, I will wait one week if there is no mention of this by then I will re-add it. If this is just happening to me and nobody else then please respond to this.24.109.246.64 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to anonymously listen to a radio station on the last.fm site, and it worked OK for me. We really need a reliable source for this to be added to the main site - "user experience" isn't reliable or verifiable. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

actually it happened to me as well. --217.132.81.63 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Source? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Would a screenshot of the page asking to log in to listen be sufficient? I can't listen without logging in either. Perhaps it depends on one's country of residence. Besides, the article's claim that "Registration, which is free, is required to acquire a profile but is not necessary to view any part of the site or to listen to radio stations." is also unsourced. Totsugeki (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think a screenshot would qualify as a reliable source.

Feel free to tag that statement if you want for sourcing. I just have a quick look over the last.fm site, and couldn't find anything about needing an account to listen to the radio (as I've said before, it doesn't seem to affect me). ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it. By the way, here's a direct quote from last.fm when you try to listen without logging in: "Please log in to Last.fm to listen to the radio. Don't have a profile? Signup now for free. It only takes a minute." Totsugeki (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've just tried it again and not been prompted to login or sign up (I have got an account, but was using a computer where I've never signed in before). I think we need a source that indicates when and where an account is required to listen to radio, since it doesn't appear to be a requirement in the UK (where I am). ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

26

Source 26 is gone 82.28.92.99 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

does somebody know (PLEASE answer me)

why there isn't any charts of top artists, top albums and top tracks of all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.179.216 (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea, ask last.fm - WP:NOT#FORUM. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 10:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You could find out yourself: every artist has its number of plays and listeners indicated on their profile page. Just slide those into a chart yourself, manually or through a script, and you have your all-time chart. Jellevc (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know that but I just couldn't belive it was once again because of programmers laziness.. maybe some ideology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.81.63 (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Added new player

AIMP has built in plugin (aimp_lastfm.dll) for srobbler. Everything works fine. Official web-site [15]. Multilingual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Бардюк Олег Юрійович (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrongly-tagged tracks now being 'cleaned'

This section: "Tracks with ambiguous punctuation are especially prone to separate listings, which can dilute the apparent popularity of a track. Artists or bands with the same name are not always differentiated. The system does attempt to translate some different artist tags to a single artist profile, but does not attempt to harmonise track names." is no longer accurate - about a month ago, Last started auto-correcting inaccurate ID3 tags, in what must be an attempt to clean up the track database and consolidate multiple track names into one correct page. See the little green star which appears next to a scrobbled track when this happens. Someone want to put this into the appropriate section? 194.54.11.218 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this page is written as a blatant ad. Just to name a few: it lists every feature available, and the advantages of subscribing along with payment rates (section Subscriber Accounts). The sheer length of the last.fm article is pretty much the same as the Microsoft article, if we want a reference to the scope involved here.

At the very least, I suggest

Rabend (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Last.fm/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

What an exceptionally well written and informative article. I have spent over 45 minutes carefully reading it and some of the links. The references have been very helpful!!! The author's meticulous attention to details and facts should be applauded.

I am sad to admit that I have had "blinkers" on when it came to internet sites to check out. Thanks to the many fine crafted articles appearing in Wikipedia I really feel that my blinkers have been removed and I can see so much more clearly. I have been given a chance to look beyond the cliched sites and avenues that most musicians predictably take. Thank you for taking the time to share your information with me and the world.

Vegas dragons 13:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC) vegas_dragons

Last edited at 13:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)