I think the current criterion for deciding whether a track has been skipped is whether more than the first 5 seconds are played, the same as for deciding which track Previous jumps to.

I think a better criterion would be whether ¼ of the song has been played - this is a better metric for songs whose intros are so quiet it takes more than 5 seconds to even realise a new song has started, never mind that it's one you're not in the mood for.

Similarly, ¾ would be a good criterion for updating the "played" count for the song.

Great suggestions. I second both of them.

I have the opposite opinion. I think it works correctly in its current form.

I third both of them.

The 5 second time is waaaaay to short.

Another me too, 5 seconds is definitely too short. I have been observing my behaviour since 2.0beta came out, if I skip a track it is almost always after the five seconds are up (although almost always within 30 seconds).

You can add me to that list too. 5 secs is too short in my opinion.

I agree with tony, except I thought it was 10 seconds (guess I'l have to read the release notes one day!)
I've been waiting for 10 seconds on some songs just so it doesn't get logged as skipped!

I would suggest actually 15 seconds. I would not use the fraction-of-song approach since that would be totally useless with long songs (e.g. classical, or elese).

In reply to:

---

I would not use the fraction-of-song approach since that would be totally useless with long songs (e.g. classical, or elese)

---

Absolute times aren't very good with very short songs (like jingles). Perhaps we need to combine the best of both, using min(const, frac*length), or something?

In reply to:

---

Perhaps we need to combine the best of both, using min(const, frac*length), or something?

---

Exactly my thoughts on the way to work this morning.

If you have the track info displayed you can see the "played" counter increment a after the song has been playing for more than 5 seconds...