Notice I don’t blame Samer for that at all. Samer was honest when describing the cons. I don’t take exception with that.

My feeling is, however, that the cons are bad enough to outweigh the pros, completely, and the high score is unjustified. MetaOgger offers little improvements over MusicBrainz Piccard, which contrary to MetaOgger, works.

My computer is by no means old or poor performing. Samer himself admitted as much that the program is very slow. I tried MetaOgger several times on different groups of 70-100 files, and it stopped responding and then crashed repeatedly.

I think it’s clear, that despite promising features, the program is still very much in growing pains. It is evident (though not clear enough) in Samer’s own review.

I think it is an error of judgment to give it 5 stars and a pick, especially when another program does the main feature (acoustic fingerprinting) very well and does not share its incredible problems.

I assume that if you really recommend it, then it’s really that good. This certainly wasn’t the case.

As for me, I won’t try the program until it uses less resources, and I hate the fact that it requires .Net 3.5. I only have .Net 2.0, and I don’t want to install the massive .Net 3.5! All .Net programs suck actually. This program can be written in Java!