Best Ever Albums

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

albummaster — Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:13:00 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 01/03/2013 10:13

martintho wrote:

as I have with mine.
it's the rating, damn it, the rating..
but this is the best EVER albums
yearly this-year ratings are extremely popular.
we must not let it digest this wonderful site

I don't understand this point. Are you talking about the top-rated chart here?

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

albummaster — Thu, 3 Jan 2013 05:11:27 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 01/03/2013 10:11

martintho wrote:

was my experience not quite the opposite, but?
that the site flooded with 2012 charts in the overall uniform.
new members did not have access to 2012 charts and posted 2012 charts in overall uniform, many of whom in spite?
to create the opposite effect from the one envisioned by 19loveless91, that the albums from 2012 actually have a much higher rating compered with their sisters from previous years?

or maybe it by chance evens out.

it's still a mess, though.

if you look at the rank points for albums in 2012, they are much lower than for 2011 (not higher). Any member can still put a 2012 album in their overall chart if they want to, this is not something restricted to new members. I don't think the 2012 charts looks a total mess, the top 10 shares many albums in common with other sites. I can't think of any two 2012 charts outside of BEA that share the same sequence as each other.

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

albummaster — Thu, 3 Jan 2013 04:00:55 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 01/03/2013 09:00

martintho wrote:

i had great fun and found much knowledge going below the top 100 of each year treasurehunting finding hidden treasures. know this possibility is taken away from me. turns out it was a bug now fixed which enabled me to find these treasures. now i must go elsewhere looking: into each private members list. but being a statistics freak it freaks me out when reading that an album is #486 in 2012 or indeed #4301, that I cannot find out what else is in that neighbourhood. in the bea earlier, in a similar named thread, that was one of the arguments in favour of RYM, that there you would easier find gems. evrybody can understand this logic for themselves, this randomness, it doesn't meen it should be hidden for the stupid masses pardon my sarcasm, and as 19loveless91 points out, this will become less random downwards spiralling as bea grows AND you MAY have this randomness higher up the charts, eg between number 3 and four, the said situation that thebeatlesrevolver and pinkfloydswishyouwerehere was only divided by a point these two albums should be temporarily erased/made invisible?

I've no problem making the charts a bit longer, and they are only truncated because they don't make a lot of sense beyond a certain point. There will always be randomness at the tail end regardless of how big the site is, because of the way the rankings are set up (albums appearing in one chart will always be at the bottom).

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

martintho — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 23:35:27 GMT

Author: martintho

Posted: 01/03/2013 04:35

Happymeal wrote:

I really have no idea what you are saying....

i'm sorry.
i can really see that.
the new 2012-year chart has caused some troubles on this site with regards to the rating numbers.
it's complex.
maybe if you read the whole thread.
maybe not.

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

Anonymous — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 23:28:34 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/03/2013 04:28

martintho wrote:

as I have with mine.
it's the rating, damn it, the rating..
but this is the best EVER albums
yearly this-year ratings are extremely popular.
we must not let it digest this wonderful site

I really have no idea what you are saying....

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

martintho — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 22:37:31 GMT

Author: martintho

Posted: 01/03/2013 03:37

Defago wrote:

What's going on here
I'm having trouble trying
to read your Haikus.

i'm having trouble writing them

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

Defago — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 21:58:48 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 01/03/2013 02:58

What's going on here
I'm having trouble trying
to read your Haikus.

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

martintho — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:12:39 GMT

Author: martintho

Posted: 01/02/2013 23:12

DLGGLD wrote:

Don't mess with year charts please,I put more effort into them than my overall chart,especially my 2012 one.

as I have with mine.
it's the rating, damn it, the rating..
but this is the best EVER albums
yearly this-year ratings are extremely popular.
we must not let it digest this wonderful site

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

GeevyDallas — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:03:10 GMT

Author: GeevyDallas

Posted: 01/02/2013 22:03

Don't mess with year charts please,I put more effort into them than my overall chart,especially my 2012 one.

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

martintho — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:56:10 GMT

Author: martintho

Posted: 01/02/2013 19:56

Jasonconfused wrote:

Extended overall charts would be nice though..

extended overall charts is indeed my mission.
in fact I want them to be 'eternal'
I want to start at the bottom of the 1966 list and work my way upwards
I want to be able to check out what is happening around spot number 18.000 at the moment

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

martintho — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:38:54 GMT

Author: martintho

Posted: 01/02/2013 19:38

albummaster wrote:

Once year charts were added, people tended to put newly released albums in year charts (which are worth less points) rather than overall lists which affected the points total.

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

martintho — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:25:52 GMT

Author: martintho

Posted: 01/02/2013 19:25

albummaster wrote:

but the placings will appear more random further down the list as albums will be separated by a very small number of points. This is the main reason that they are kept to the length they are.

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

Jasonconfused — Tue, 1 Jan 2013 06:32:17 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 01/01/2013 11:32

Increasing the number of albums on the year charts will definitely cause them to become more random down the chart. Plus, I don't think as much thought is put into year charts, at least for me. Extended overall charts would be nice though..

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

albummaster — Tue, 1 Jan 2013 05:34:04 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 01/01/2013 10:34

I agree, & part of this is that year charts weren't introduced to the site until part-way through the year, but in the meantime Bloom had been added to quite a few overall lists. Once year charts were added, people tended to put newly released albums in year charts (which are worth less points) rather than overall lists which affected the points total. I agree, it has affected how the chart looks and it is right to highlight this. New members can influence the chart quite a lot by using their overall list to promote new albums, but so can existing members. Going forwards into 2013, this is something to keep an eye on and if a tweak is necessary to improve the quality of the aggregated charts, then it'll be made.

The best way to address the issue with going past the first 100 albums is by increasing the size of the respective charts (a bug was closed in 2012 which allowed people to go beyond the stated number of pages). The aggregated year charts could be increased to 200 albums, but the placings will appear more random further down the list as albums will be separated by a very small number of points. This is the main reason that they are kept to the length they are.

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

19loveless91 — Tue, 1 Jan 2013 04:25:38 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 01/01/2013 09:25

The anomalies, such as Madonna's album so high in the overall rankings, are due to people putting it on their overall charts, rather than year charts. I think that's also the reason 2012 albums are in general lower in rankings than some of the previous years - last year (e.g.) if somebody wanted to show his love for an album it would have to be on an overall chart, this year people just stick them on a year or decade charts...

So if anything, I think year charts will (as time progresses and BEA grows bigger - and individual charts won't have so much power) help create a more "normal" overall chart.

Re: what is wrong with bea #2

Romanelli — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:58:36 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 12/31/2012 17:58

martintho wrote:

the end of the year and a summary in order for my fav site. 1. the year chart has been a great disaster for the site. we have to go a step back, delete them all (or at least the rating-effects like with the new just-for-fun-charts) and have a year-chart-2013-only available also for new members. 2. personally I also dislike the fact that you can no longer can go to page 11 (out of ten) and further. I have discussed this matter briefly with album master (may peace be upon him) without recognising his arguments. 3. it's also a problem that a couple of madonnas friends are able to vote her album as high on the 2012-list as they actually have done. 4. only one or two of the bea-members have bloom on the #1 spot, and still!!!
that was the negative bits. still love bea. happy new year everybody

1) Your opinion. Year charts are very helpful to me, and I personally think they add a lot.

3) Last year, a couple of Radiohead's friends got King Of Limbs ranked in the top 250 of all time despite it having been out for less than a year. Dumb things happen.

what is wrong with bea #2

martintho — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:38:00 GMT

Author: martintho

Posted: 12/31/2012 16:38

the end of the year and a summary in order for my fav site. 1. the year chart has been a great disaster for the site. we have to go a step back, delete them all (or at least the rating-effects like with the new just-for-fun-charts) and have a year-chart-2013-only available also for new members. 2. personally I also dislike the fact that you can no longer can go to page 11 (out of ten) and further. I have discussed this matter briefly with album master (may peace be upon him) without recognising his arguments. 3. it's also a problem that a couple of madonnas friends are able to vote her album as high on the 2012-list as they actually have done. 4. only one or two of the bea-members have bloom on the #1 spot, and still!!!
that was the negative bits. still love bea. happy new year everybody