Best Ever Albums

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

soundguardian — Wed, 1 Jan 2014 16:54:10 GMT

Author: soundguardian

Posted: 01/01/2014 21:54

meccalecca wrote:

i don't feel like reading the 5 pages of the thread so far

That's why you completely skip the SilverWalrus vs antihero36 thing lol

Quote:

but the thing I think the OP is missing is that people generally rate what they love or hate. Mediocrity is a very very tough thing to rate, because you have such undefined feelings around it.

good point. people's passions are always huge influences on their decision-making processes. people probably base their rating on 1) reason; 2) passion; and 3) cognition. a combination of these things. which is alright, whatever. but also based on 4) pre-defined influences. Like whatever has already been ranked really highly or really lowly, they'll rank similarly.

another issue, I think, is an inherent problem with the Bayesian algorithm used to determine the mean. I know it's supposed to limit the effects of outliers, but it seems to keep the averages of badly-received albums too high and keeps the average of well-received albums down, so then people feel more inclined to keep giving it perfect scores so that that average will hopefully increase (but it doesn't, because the Bayesian algorithm decreases how much any given sample affects the average). I want to look more into algorithms commonly used.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

meccalecca — Wed, 1 Jan 2014 15:23:11 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 01/01/2014 20:23

Ratings don't really mean a thing. i don't feel like reading the 5 pages of the thread so far but the thing I think the OP is missing is that people generally rate what they love or hate. Mediocrity is a very very tough thing to rate, because you have such undefined feelings around it.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Wed, 1 Jan 2014 14:44:54 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/01/2014 19:44

Is it alright to rate music at all? I was thinking last week that the albums are peoples hopes and dreams. Then people come along and tell them if they were worth it. Or perhaps if they themselves are worth it. 🤔 Otherwise maybe 100's all round would be great.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

soundguardian — Wed, 1 Jan 2014 14:35:36 GMT

Author: soundguardian

Posted: 01/01/2014 19:35

There is this issue, and I'm certain it stems from a variety of factors. Like crowd sourcing --- whatever is popular, for example, will be what has the most data points. Whatever is "highly-acclaimed" by critics and the general public will have the highest ratings.

To limit it down to specific factors like these for each album would be quite time-consuming, and would involve the collection of a lot of data ---

1) scraping all of the ratings and time of ratings of all the members for all the albums;
2) tracing the nodes of posts, ratings, and reviews of albums on other sites chronologically back in time to the root node to understand how and when specific albums became popular or acclaimed (bayesian networking and bayesian statistics, etc);
3) comparing the timings of 1) and 2) and how 1) is influenced by 2) (and vice-versa);
4) being able to identify inconsistencies like outliers that rate an album particularly poorly (like a 5) based purely on the instinct to sabotage the album's average rating;

--- and a lot of analysis or interpretation of that data, most likely exploiting principles of Least-squares regression analysis, probability, and game theory (decision science in how people make a decision, like how they make a decision on how good an album is). Also, analyzing this data could theoretically lead to some predictive power on how people will tend to rate the album in the future.

In reality, the collection of a lot of random data on a scale of 5 - 100 should yield a more normal distribution as we collect more data points. This is the tenant of the Central Limit Theorem. So, for example, OK Computer, one of the most-rated albums on this site, should have one of the most shapely Gaussian binomial distributions of all. And, considering this album is highly acclaimed, the mean should be shifted to the right and have a rather small variance (small standard deviation). The result is actually only a representation of half of the binomial model because the mean's been shifted out so far to the high end of the rating scale that it would seem if people could rate it higher than a "100", some people would. Almost half of the samples are 100. Because most people have rated it highly, people believe that they're expected to rate it highly as well, so they do. Some biased independent thinkers, in turn, dissidently rate the album a "5", as low as possible, to influence the rating.

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Just take a look at Bjork's Homogenic, for example. I just looked at it, and the distribution doesn't look binomial at all. It's obviously not influenced by a simple random sample; otherwise, there would not be that rather large peak in ratings at "100". It's been influenced by the bias of a crowd of steadfast Bjork fans that necessarily feel it's a duty to rate the album "100" or simply believe that it is that good, compromising the integrity of what could be a random sample yielding normal distribution. Not to say this is something wrong to do.

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

I'm going to develop models of some albums by peering into the history of them, and I'll share results and analysis later. This interests me! And maybe I can also make some predictions as well.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

RawlsRE — Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:23:49 GMT

Author: RawlsRE

Posted: 01/01/2014 00:23

It sounds like what this thread is suggesting is that, as we assign ratings to albums, we're to match our aesthetic averages (the ratings we associate with terms like 'fine' or 'decent') to the arithmetic median. But this is an odd suggestion, isn't it? Why should the fact that 50 is equidistant from 0 and 100 have any bearing on what I take to be an average album rating?

I'm not saying that we don't have responsibilities when it comes to rating albums. But those responsibilities are entirely aesthetic, right? Good albums get good ratings, bad albums get bad ratings, that kind of thing. It's not as though we have obligations to respect an arithmetic mean, or median, or whatever it is. That would be bizarre.

I suspect a category mistake has been made here. Maybe what's happening is that 'average' is being equivocated with 'arithmetic median'? It's true that in certain contexts these words will mean much the same thing, but in most contexts this isn't the case (average height is not exactly half the height of the world's tallest person, for instance).

Quote:

if the amount of people under average and higher than average is equal, then there's something wrong

This will depend on how we define 'average'. If by 'average' we mean 'median', then by definition there will be as many people over the average as there are under the average.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

videoheadcleaner — Tue, 31 Dec 2013 17:26:52 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 12/31/2013 22:26

Should not have brought up education. I'm on holidays.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Dec 2013 17:14:43 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 22:14

tekin wrote:

Just to clarify about the grading in education system; if the amount of people under average and higher than average is equal, then there's something wrong with the educational process and the system is a failure and it should be abandoned and something better should be designed because the goal of any education is improvement and if people fail in small amounts, it's their own fault but if the majority or half of the class fails then there's a problem with one or several rings in the educational chain.

Finally, someone who speaks English.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Dec 2013 17:06:45 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 22:06

Just to clarify about the grading in education system; if the amount of people under average and higher than average is equal, then there's something wrong with the educational process and the system is a failure and it should be abandoned and something better should be designed because the goal of any education is improvement and if people fail in small amounts, it's their own fault but if the majority or half of the class fails then there's a problem with one or several rings in the educational chain.

Also about the music; I think there's a similar theme. I guess if your ratings aren't mostly higher than average and closer to the highest possible rating then you are, as a music listener, a failure. Because the expectation is that you, as a music listener, filter out the stuff that you reckon are not going to appeal to your taste better than the last day as you proceed in your musical journey, and this process is before you listen to the music in question and mainly through your sources and pre-listening investigation. If after a while, you see that you cannot do that and your ratings aren't going higher, then you should understand that either music sucks and it's not worth your time or you suck and better not look for music or your sources aren't good or you don't know how to find the music you like. Obviously there are many blind choices when it comes to albums and stuff but they are in the minority. At least they should be, otherwise why this site, why genre designations, why people talking about music, why lists and ratings and reviews.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affili

Necharsian — Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:22:49 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 12/31/2013 05:22

antihero36 wrote:

1-3: bad
4-5: averag
6: good
7: great
8: amazing / best of year
9: solid / best of decade

I use a rating scheme similar to this, and i think the reason why I have much fewer ratings lower than 50 than higher is simply because I dont listen to music I dont like. Generally Ill know if I am going to like something by sampling it, and if I dont care for it, Ill stop listening to it. There are obviously exceptions, but for the most part I stick with listening to music that I would call above average.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

antihero36 — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 22:28:14 GMT

Author: antihero36

Posted: 12/31/2013 03:28

Quote:

Wat

read the rest of the thread for clarification, I guess.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affili

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 22:26:20 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 03:26

antihero36 wrote:

you know, i've noticed something here. How come people rate so highly? I've noticed that 5-15 ratings are labelled to artists the individual has a grudge on. And 20-50 ratings are basically almost all skipped like they mean nothing. Then the 55-70 i've seen from here (reading from comments / feedback) means bad. Then everything after the 75 rating means I love it. Like 100 is a personal favorite, I get it. But most of the time it's all because of nostalgia. 95's are reserved for one song they didn't like, and it continues all the way down to 80.

tl;dr: Why is the good scale only represented from 80-100, and the bad is only 55-70, and the rest is basically ignored except for personal grudges (5-15)

when ratings should look more like:
1-3: bad
4-5: averag
6: good
7: great
8: amazing / best of year
9: solid / best of decade

your guys's thoughts?

Wat

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:49:08 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 01:49

Where.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:44:22 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 01:44

The Poe wrote:

Relax, man. I was joke. Maybe your suspicions are right, detective, I don't know.

No, I was joke.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:42:57 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 01:42

Relax, man. I was joke. Maybe your suspicions are right, detective, I don't know.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:36:33 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 01:36

The Poe wrote:

Actually, SilverWalrus, everyone here is the same person. BEA is basically the Truman Show, and you are Truman Burbank.

Oh don't worry, this isn't out of some strange paranoia, and I don't really care if he is the same guy as long as he comes back and is a decent presence. I just have a weird protective instinct for this community, despite the fact I'm not a mod and haven't even really been here for that long. It's one of the few internet communities I've come across that seems to be able to sustain itself despite being small as well as having a good community. I've been a part of several similar, albeit smaller communities that I loved that eventually collapsed just from not having enough new members to sustain the people leaving the community, which is awful. So even though I'm not a mod or too much of a long term presence here, I just don't want people who are going to intentionally make the forums a worse place, like Kidamnesiac. Anyways, that's just my viewpoint, hope it doesn't seem too presumptuous or self-important.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

antihero36 — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:34:21 GMT

Author: antihero36

Posted: 12/31/2013 01:34

Quote:

Well, I still think you're the same guy, but can't say I really care that much. So long as you don't shit post I guess it doesn't matter. I think I'll take a walk and listen to Boy With the Arab Strap now or something, peace.

that's cool

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:11:17 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 01:11

Actually, SilverWalrus, everyone here is the same person. BEA is basically the Truman Show, and you are Truman Burbank.

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:47:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 00:47

antihero36 wrote:

I found that on rym somewhere thought it was cool. I'm not this guy you're talking about. I just found this website after searching "best albums ever" like yesterday. Thought it was cool and joined. I guess people have the same opinions sometimes. That's not that much of a stretch to believe, huh?

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

antihero36 — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:44:13 GMT

Author: antihero36

Posted: 12/31/2013 00:44

I found that on rym somewhere thought it was cool. I'm not this guy you're talking about. I just found this website after searching "best albums ever" like yesterday. Thought it was cool and joined. I guess people have the same opinions sometimes. That's not that much of a stretch to believe, huh?

Re: Concern over the rating system here, it's way too affiliated

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 12/31/2013 00:41

antihero36 wrote:

oh ok pretty big leap in that assumption but alright.

No, it's not that big, the image you used on the first page, this one http://imgur.com/1he2Jbi, that was on the chart of the guy who I posted earlier, same address and all. Considering it only has 180 views on imgur I can't imagine it being a super popular image or anything, so if you used the exact same one it probably isn't a coincidence or anything. Plus you're addressing the exact same thing as he did when he was here, with the exact same viewpoint.