riddance, good

[Kool Keith Sweat]

Accolades appear on album pages and tell you where an album ranks in the year, decade, and overall; I think it's useful, but it's hardly an accolade to be 1,583rd album of the decade, so maybe just a different name and formatting.The summary appears on year and decade pages, teling you which musicians have the most points for that amount of time; it's useful for decades, but useless for years because most musicians have one major release a year, so the summary just repeats the musicisns who made our top ranked albums for that year.

[albummaster]

The year summary just provides an easy way for people to click through to the relevant artists if they aren't interested in browsing the chart, so that's the main reason it's there. I agree, it's less useful for individual years than for decades.

As for the accolade system, this is on a list to be redesigned and improvements to this were discussed a while back on another thread. As ever, the problem is trying to find enough time to do everything and at the moment the site redesign is top of the list & using up most of my available time.

[martintho]

exactly, kool keith. accolades were there originally as a kind of celebration (there is a picture of a medal of sorts ther too) for the top notch albums. now all albums have them. useless. and suedeswede, i think a lot of potential new users find the layout on this beloved site both old-fashioned and a bit messy: xxxx year summary just repeats the artists that have the 20 best records each year, i think, so it's just a waste of space. we need to tidy up. spring is due.

[albummaster]

Spring is coming... but it's not here yet