|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 76
Location: Durham, NC, USA 
|
|
|
Charicature
Age: 50
Location: Vermont
- #2
- Posted: 04/06/2010 17:52
- Post subject:
|
I'll second that! Then again, I've been seconding that ever since the chart size was increased to 50 
Thing is, albummaster said it would be contrary to the point of picking your top albums...but for someone like you, Naples, I don't think it would. 100 would be, what - 1% of your collection? 
_________________
<(: @  >
|
|
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 76
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
- #4
- Posted: 04/07/2010 18:22
- Post subject:
|
If we double the size of the charts, it will double the amount of work that happens behind the scenes to keep the data on this site clean and tidy (e.g. tracklistings, artwork, release years, weeding out duplicate entries, incorrect spellings when new albums are added etc).
For the site to work smoothly and correctly, it needs to have correct data. To double the size of the charts, we'd have to build a moderation system which allows members to change data themselves so that the site scales better otherwise we'd never be able to keep on top of keeping the data clean and tidy.
A moderation system is planned for the site but it is quite a big piece of development work and there are also other changes that are higher in the queue such as the long awaited 'genre' charts so bigger charts will not happen in the short-term.
|
|
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 76
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
|
|
badfaith
Gender: Male
Age: 49
Location: Kent 
- #6
- Posted: 04/09/2010 12:54
- Post subject:
|
Just a thought albummaster...
You allow the charts compiled by magazines and respected music journals to feature in the aggregate score don't you?
but these are all 100 albums or more themselves, and some members have less... and as long as this is the case, the data will always be skewed, only when EVERY chart on the site has an equal number of albums to draw from to comprise the aggregate score, can there be an accurate representation of average chart position.
If VH1 puts an album at No.78 for instance, precisely because it has 100 selections to make, but they would perhaps place it relatively higher had they only 50 selections to make, being more parsimonious in this situation, or even placing that album relatively lower in a larger chart, the placement of an album is not just based on it's absolute position in the compiler's estimation, but in the context of the size of the chart.
When compiling my chart, as I'm sure other members have also experienced, there are not just those albums which just bubbled under the top 50, but often a choice between 2 or even 3 albums for a place, meaning many albums that would have made it higher in our charts are absent altogether, especially if you've a broad taste in music, and want to represent different styles of music, you may decide that of those 3 rock albums you would like to include, you have no space then for the jazz album, or the folk, or country album etc. you love, so to be more representative of your tastes, you sacrifice albums, and overall this can mean some albums may drop significantly in the aggregate chart.
I realise this is the point and method of discerning the best albums in the common estimation, but if the chart sizes they are drawn from are unequal then so are the results.
I also see you must have a limit on chart sizes, because some members posses more albums than god, and would only exacerbate this problem, and make it more unequal, but I think your decision to increase the chart sizes must be based on when a certain percentage of all charts contributing have attained the 50 maximum, this being a signal that the increase is warranted.
Perhaps if you also factored into the equation the frequency of activity by members, so this assessment is not hampered by long lost members or those that submitted a chart of 10 albums say a year or two back, and haven't visited since- (if there are a large number of these charts the site in this respect stands still)
But it does seem more and more members are calling for this increase now.
|
|
|
|
Freddie55
Gender: Male
Location: Toronto, ON 
- #7
- Posted: 04/09/2010 15:25
- Post subject:
|
My 2 cents. It is onerous now to click through 5 chart pages so that I can give an honest rating of someone's chart or see what changes they've made. I would end up with carpal tunnel if I had to click through 10 pages every time I wanted to look at a chart.
If the site administrator is looking for more work to do, I would prefer a second stream of charts restricted to releases in the current year and limited at 20 selections. That would keep me more engaged with the site because I listen to current music much more than oldies and my all-time faves rarely change.
Last edited by Freddie55 on 04/09/2010 17:03; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 76
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
Freddie55
Gender: Male
Location: Toronto, ON
- #9
- Posted: 04/09/2010 17:00
- Post subject:
|
| RFNAPLES wrote: | | I too find clicking through all the chart pages a burden. Can't we see all the pages at once like we can when we use the My Chart tab? My mouse scroll works a lot faster than the page refresh. |
I second that!
|
|
|
|
badfaith
Gender: Male
Age: 49
Location: Kent
- #10
- Posted: 04/10/2010 10:53
- Post subject:
|
thirdeded!
Also, when you look at 'my chart' and you get the whole chart, you still have to 'view on website' to see comments/ratings, which takes you back to ten at a time.
Perhaps blend these two aspects?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
