Sorry for the delay...I missed this somehow.

I understand what you're requesting. I'll look at it. The phrase 'the more different titles are' is somewhat dependent on the number of words in a title. Yate already does word matching/counting when doing its initial matching.

If I ignore leading digits:
Track 1 is 100% correct
Track 2 is 100% incorrect as there is a single word and it's different. (I'm afraid that detecting partial word matches is out of the scope).
Track 3 is 33% correct
Track 4 is also 100% incorrect as it shares no common words.

Also choosing gradients of colours is difficult to detect for some users. I could divide it into 3-4 percentage differences. Outside that would be difficult to detect.

I'll add it to my list 🙂

Thanks for getting your hands so fast on this!

I think two colors may be enough – green and yellow. In most cases (enriching a tagged release with Discogs metadata) everything should be okay already (green).
I think it’s important to do an OR comparison with title and filename. It would be really uncomfortable to have to edit the matching template all the time. It’s unlikely, that all the files you want to tag have the same naming structure. So I think it’s better to just use the one with the higher comparison score.

A more advanced version could use three colors (green=100%, yellow=80-99%, red=0-79%), there are algorithms which do intelligent string comparison (with word-misspell-check) and return a value [0..1].
I think clear (grey) may be misleading together with the other three colors – it looks more like inactive or not compared.

Looking forward to use your implementation 🙂

The screenshot shows some results with the fuzzy string matching. I compare the initial filename and the score based on every file to tag template...where I choose the highest score. I stop if I'm lucky enough to get 100%.

I've reduced the colors to Red (< 50%), Yellow (< 100%) and Green (100%).

Initially I thought I'd have to put in a new 'include - in auto - matching' column in the File To Tag Templates but it certainly seems fast enough without it. I currently have 12 File to Tag Templates and there is no noticeable delay.

I'm ignoring alphabetic case because the results are much better and the score is only used as an indication of a correct match, not the correctness of the filename.

I think I may be able to use this stuff to increase the accuracy of the weight algorithm used for matching.

One thing that has become clear is that the quality of the length (duration) data in Discogs is pretty poor. I'm considering putting in an option to ignore a track's length while matching tracks.