Best Ever Albums

Re: Non-Active Charts

Dingerbell — Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:55:45 GMT

Author: Dingerbell

Posted: 03/03/2014 13:55

19loveless91 wrote:

Maybe another idea here is to be able to customize charts, based on when they were last updated. So, leave the default setting at what we have now, but allow us to see what the difference would be if only charts that have been updated recently (6 months, 12 months, whatever) would count for the overall ranking.

You can do that. For example, the overall chart for all charts updated in the past year looks like this:

http://www.besteveralbums.com/makechart...=RankScore

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:37:48 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/03/2014 13:37

I can't stress enough that this isn't about charts being dated, it's about whether or not that chart is still verified as accurate by the user.

To reiterate what I said earlier, a chart made by a magazine ten years ago is likely still verified in their minds because they haven't created an updated chart - but because they show up to work in the morning to work in the magazine, they are very much aware that they have published the chart, that it is still being considered by the public as a liable source for the greatest albums, and are comfortable with that. By a publication still existing they are verifying that their chart is still accurate enough to be associated with them.

But for the average user on the website it is very different because it's simply a hobby or something to pass the time. By logging into the website they are verifying that they acknowledge their chart exists and is contributing to the overall chart, no different to when everyone at a magazine shows up to work in the morning. Since it's a hobby, it's easily forgotten.

I can honestly see no downside to this, the only people it negatively affects are those that don't even know it would be negatively affecting them, because they no longer care about overall chart (which is fine, and their chart should still be around for ratings and feedback from users etc). If someone suddenly remembers about BEA and logs in one day, their chart would becomes just as relevant as it had been because they have acknowledged it's existence.

I think it's a shame that this idea likely won't gain any momentum, but I'm glad it's been scrutinized and my thoughts have been considered.

Re: Non-Active Charts

19loveless91 — Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:00:05 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 03/03/2014 12:00

If this was something like RYM, I'd understand Romanelli, but I think charts are still a different story (as ratings). Ratings won't change for most of us, but I imagine our actual favourites (that we include on charts) will change quite frequently. So I do in fact agree with others about this issue. It's not just about not including years of released music, it's also because I see the charts as constantly changing representation of what we, the users listen to. When most of the charts that constitute the overall ranking have been left untouched since their creation, you can't really say that our overall chart is a good representation of our (collective) taste.
I do think that 6 months isn't enough though. I'd put that cut-off line at a 2 or 3 years mark.

Maybe another idea here is to be able to customize charts, based on when they were last updated. So, leave the default setting at what we have now, but allow us to see what the difference would be if only charts that have been updated recently (6 months, 12 months, whatever) would count for the overall ranking.

Re: Non-Active Charts

albummaster — Mon, 3 Mar 2014 04:07:08 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/03/2014 09:07

The whole point of what I was trying to say originally was the the only factor that is currently taken into account is whether a particular chart was created at a time where the input could be considered valid. At the moment, there's a ten year cut-off on individual greatest album charts*. After ten years, the chart stays on the site, but no longer counts towards the rankings. This policy exists already (e.g. this VH1 chart from 2001 no longer counts because it's over ten years old. (*Decade and year charts are not affected by this rule as they cover a discrete time period).

The angle I was coming in at originally was to say that if a chart is less than 5 years old it will still consider most of recorded history. If I made a chart 20 years ago, it would have missed out all albums from 1994 onwards (the whole of the 2000s). If I made a chart 10 years ago it would have missed out all albums from 2004 onwards, five years ago 2009 onwards, and one year ago it would have just missed out 2013. At what point does an overall chart become redundant? For me, I'd say if a greatest albums chart was created over 10 years ago it would be missing out a big chunk of history (which is why the current rule exists), but if we consider just one year missing from an overall chart, does that materially affect the quality of the chart?

I think it also helps to step back a bit and just ask what is the point of the overall chart & what is its purpose for visitors? I'm definitely listening to the other side of the argument that says the chart is stale, but then again I'm not convinced that the overall chart *should* move around a great deal from week to week. The chart *should* be reasonably static, but allowing for some change when it is merited. Since the start of the year, Kid A & Funeral have swapped places in the top 10. Do people expect there to be more activity than this in a two month period? If the chart was changing too much, people wouldn't be able to use it as a reference. Perhaps it does not change enough at the moment. A shorter cut-off might change that, but if we tamper too much then we start losing some statistical validity.

The argument for just taking into account charts updated within the last year, seems to me about keeping the overall chart 'fresh' (which I can relate to as it does get very boring seeing the same old albums), but it would take into account less people's opinions & miss out some very good charts (as well as some very bad ones). Of course, the more input that goes into the chart, the more statistically meaningful the result should be, so the cut-off is currently set at 10 years, but it could just as easily be five years (or some other arbitrary figure). However, I think one year is far too small as a cut-off for an overall chart. It would discount a hell of a lot of charts that are still meaningful.

Re: Non-Active Charts

HigherThanTheSun — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:52:02 GMT

Author: HigherThanTheSun

Posted: 03/03/2014 01:52

If someone doesn't even visit the site, they won't be very upset that their chart doesn't count to the overall rankings.

Re: Non-Active Charts

martintho — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 19:15:46 GMT

Author: martintho

Posted: 03/03/2014 00:15

take a site like rotten tomatoes. the value of that one lies in the number of ratings for each film. we have that system here on the BEA too. but it's not the preferred one. maybe it should be. it might make both the best ever albums and the best ever songs-lists more solid. and maybe we should encourage everyone to rate songs memberpointwise. we have a rating system. lets do it proper.
anyways: this discussion is about changing the original idea of this site and transforming it into more of a dynamic site. that would be nice for some of us regulars but bad for the sites potensial growth; the BEA would lose its value for outsiders.

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:41:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2014 23:41

Romanelli wrote:

Who are we to make that determination?

We're members of this community. In the same way that Rolling Stone magazine gets to decide who votes on their top 500 albums lists, what algorithm is used, etc., so too do we have the capacity to decide these things for ourselves. This does not make us fascists. This does not make us elitists. Giving every Tom, Dick, and Stanley who spends two minutes registering for the site a say may seem like the "nice" thing to do, but depending on what we want the chart to reflect it may not make the most sense. There needs to be a system, and yes, it's going to be arbitrary. I personally think a chart that reflects the overall tastes of the current community is the most rational; others may disagree. That's why we need to talk about it. Not only does this community (well, technically albummaster, but I like to think he runs a pretty democratic ship around here) have the right to make that determination, it has to make that determination, or else we have no system to begin with. Now, whether or not you agree with Puncture's suggestion is another matter, but I find your insistence that it is not this community's (or, once again, technically AM's) place to decide how the overall chart is generated to be pretty absurd.

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:16:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2014 23:16

Man, this is getting pretty heated. Still on the see-saw, Brandon. 😜

Re: Non-Active Charts

Romanelli — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:14:34 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/02/2014 23:14

Puncture Repair wrote:

I explained my thoughts on charts from publications ealirer in the thread, I'm afraid now you haven't bothered to read everything I've said. And again, this isn't about whether or not charts are dated, a user could log onto the site and not make any changes to their chart at all, but again, I've explained this earlier.

I don't understand where this idea that only people who use the forums would be the ones who have their chart counted, that just simply wouldn't be the case. There are a huge number of reasons people will log in to the website outside using the forums, as is proven just by looking at how many users come on to the site to simply rate album, view charts etc - that number is in the hundreds.

We are indeed creating a chart for everyone that comes on the site, not the people who don't come on the site anymore.

"Is it right that old, untouched charts should contribute as much as active users who are open to changing their opinions and are willing to explore music more?"

I read what you said. You are saying that this chart that was created in 1989 should NOT be discounted because it was not "created on a lazy Saturday afternoon by one person to one day be forgotten about." Who are we to determine that a chart that was made by a registered user who has not logged in since January of 2011 WAS "created on a lazy Saturday afternoon by one person to one day be forgotten about"? Who are we to make that determination?

From the How It Works page of BEA:

I don't agree with any of the charts, can I submit my own?

"Yes, we encourage you to do so! The My Charts functionality allows registered members to create and share their own charts with the community. No more listening to what other people say, this is your chance to have your say! Your chart will appear on the site and form part of the overall aggregate album rankings. Once the chart has been added to the website, it gets automatically cross-referenced with all of the other charts on the site making it easy for you to see who else has chosen the same albums."

Nowhere does it say that I have to keep my chart relevant in any way for it to count. And if you put something up that says you have to be an active and contributing member in order to be counted, then what's the point in taking the time to register and make a chart? This is for EVERYONE. Not a select few.

If I am a registered user, my opinion counts. My chart counts. My registration does not expire, and neither should the strength of my chart...regardless of who likes it and who doesn't.

I'm sure that there is a reasonable limit as to what would constitute a "dead account". I think a year is nowhere near that mark. I don't think that BEA has been in existence long enough to have anyone reach that mark yet. And I am certainly within my rights to believe that having the user community suggest this is not a good thing.

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:07:21 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2014 23:07

Romanelli wrote:

I'm just saying that this is a topic that I find disturbing. I see people wanting to limit whose input is important and whose isn't...and I really don't care for it. And I believe that by people wanting to do that, they are, in effect, saying that they do feel they are better than others...that their opinions matter more, and that because they log in regularly that they should have more weight on the overall chart than those who don't.

I just think you're generalizing too much. More active users play a bigger role in the site's growth and development, so perhaps they think they should have a bigger say in it's content. That seems to natural to me. It's not the same as saying that they're better in general or even concerning music, just that they are more involved in BEA and therefore put more time into maintaining their charts. I suppose you could look at that as a form of elitism, but a reasonable one, IMO. You wouldn't make someone president of a club if they never showed up to the meetings.

That's not to say that this suggestion is the right thing to do -- it really depends on what AM wants the chart to reflect. Given that there are all sorts of biases already built in to the chart (age bias, income bias, native language bias, etc.), I think keeping the algorithm as simple as possible is good.

Re: Non-Active Charts

Romanelli — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:58:17 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/02/2014 22:58

sp4cetiger wrote:

:?

Sorry, Romanelli, I can usually go along with your reasoning on these things, but I really hate the tenor of your posts here. Nobody is saying the active users are "better" than anyone, they're just more active. The fact that BEA has become a community is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if you may feel like you're not a part of it (you are).

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:57:54 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2014 22:57

Romanelli wrote:

This site was not designed to require people to have to update their charts within a certain amount of time. This site was designed for people to come, make a chart, and then do whatever they want with it. Again...what do you want to do with the Rolling Stone 80's chart? It was made in 1989. Do you want that chart to not count because it's old and hasn't been updated in your lifetime?

As for "creating an overall chart for the users"...I think this stinks. You want to punish people who don't come here as often as you do so that your chart has more say. That stinks. And who are you to say that if I make a chart and don't touch it for 5 years that it's not relevant to ME? YOU don't get to make that determination...I do.

It's bad enough that the entire list of the highest rated user charts (I believe there are 4 in the first 10 pages that are not forum regulars...and 2 are on page 10) are those charts of the "we post on the boards, we're a community" charts. Those charts are the highest rated on the site because the message board regulars see to it that they are. The forum already owns how many pages of the top rated charts...now you want to dictate what constitutes a valid chart? You want to dictate whose charts count and whose do not? That stinks. I'm sorry...that really stinks.

We are creating an overall chart for EVERYONE who comes to this site...not just for the 20 or so people who post on the forums. I don't know where this sudden desire to dictate what goes on the overall and what doesn't came from...but I think it's way out of line.

Re: Non-Active Charts

Romanelli — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:54:34 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/02/2014 22:54

Swedenman:

"The point isn't to discount the charts that are dated. The point is to only count charts that the user in question has put serious thought into and to ensure the overall chart reflects the actual tastes of the BEA community."

Who are we do make the determination of what thought has been put into a chart? And who are we to dictate what constitutes the "BEA community"?

"What!? Nobody is suggesting anything like that and I'm not sure how you figure this change would lead to that. I'd like to hear an elaboration on this."

This is EXACTLY what it sounds like. How far is the step from having the charts that you don't think should count because of age from having the charts that you simply don't like being discounted? People get this put through, and they'll want more as soon as they realize that the charts still aren't what they want them to be. Something like this sets a bad precedent. You don't see it because you're in favor of it.

"Again, the point isn't to weed out the dated charts. Puncture Repair already addressed this point, so I won't say anymore."

How else would you determine which charts don't get to count?

"Why? Please help me understand the purpose of the overall chart if it's not to reflect the tastes of the current BEA community."

When did BEA become the private domain of a small handful of users? The BEA charts should reflect the tastes of anyone who cares to create an account and make a chart. You don't get to say what limits there are on who is part of the "BEA Community" and who isn't. Totally unfair of you to think that anyone here should be able to.

"How small do you imagine this would be? Everyone who has logged in within the past year would still be able to contribute toward the overall rankings. This is hardly a small handful."

Do you have to log in to see your own chart? Do you have to log in to see other charts and get album recs? Why one year? And who are we to say that anything over a year loses that privelege?

"The only distinction here is that a user's say is only counted if that user actually cares about his/her own say."

You have no way of determining this.

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:53:48 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2014 22:53

Romanelli wrote:

It's bad enough that the entire list of the highest rated user charts (I believe there are 4 in the first 10 pages that are not forum regulars...and 2 are on page 10) are those charts of the "we post on the boards, we're a community" charts. Those charts are the highest rated on the site because the message board regulars see to it that they are.

😕

Sorry, Romanelli, I can usually go along with your reasoning on these things, but I really hate the tenor of your posts here. Nobody is saying the active users are "better" than anyone, they're just more active. The fact that BEA has become a community is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if you may feel like you're not a part of it (you are).

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:49:38 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2014 22:49

😐 Romanelli, there are more than twenty of us. And this has nothing to do with the forum, just those who come on the site at all.

Also of course the highest rated charts are going to be of the regulars, they're the ones that are presented more regularly, their chart is always one click away, thus they're rated by more people...

I don't understand your reasoning at all. Also nothing stinks, websites can't stink. Good thing I'm an emoticon and don't have a nose. 😉

Edit: Or maybe I do understand your reasoning...shit. Lemme off this fucking see-saw! XD

Re: Non-Active Charts

Romanelli — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:41:34 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/02/2014 22:41

Puncture Repair wrote:

This isn't about charts dating, and I think it's unfair disregarding my idea as something that will snowball out of control - no rational person would see this idea being applied as an excuse to push it further to the point that your chart only counts if 'the people on the message boards have decided they don't like you'. This idea is not extreme, and it is not elitist, that is the reason that the given time is so generous, and the requirements to have your chart relevant again so small.

How is it elitist that a new user to the site can have as much influence on the overall ranking as anyone here? The site would not in anyway be dictated by a 'very small handful of people' - thousands of different users log in everyday, and that's all they would have to do to keep their chart relevant for an entire year.

They may have contributed once, but like I said before, and as swedenman addressed, if they haven't even logged in for over 12 months, the site is no longer relevent to them, and we are creating an overall chart for the users. And as I can't say enough, all that needs to be done is to log in, we do this everyday without even thinking, and hundreds of users on this site probably have their username remembered, so they will only have to visit the website - that simple action makes you just as relevant as the thousands of others that have done the same for the next 12 months. That is not asking to much from anyone.

People's opinions and tastes change, and the overall chart should reflect that human element.

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:22:28 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2014 22:22

I agree with Puncture again. I feel like a see-saw. 🤣

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:22:00 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2014 22:22

Romanelli wrote:

The point isn't to discount the charts that are dated. The point is to only count charts that the user in question has put serious thought into and to ensure the overall chart reflects the actual tastes of the BEA community.

Romanelli wrote:

Also, would it really be fair to discount someones chart just because they haven't updated it? What's next...we're discounting your chart because the people who post on the message boards have decided that they don't like it? Or you?

What!? Nobody is suggesting anything like that and I'm not sure how you figure this change would lead to that. I'd like to hear an elaboration on this.

Romanelli wrote:

And what about the non user charts? The RS Best Albums Of The 80's chart is dated 1989. Do we automatically discredit that because it was made before most of the users on these forums were even born? If you take away the counting of user charts beyond a certain date, then don't you also have to take away counting of charts by major publications beyond that same date? I think not.

Again, the point isn't to weed out the dated charts. Puncture Repair already addressed this point, so I won't say anymore.

Romanelli wrote:

I think that if someone comes here, makes a chart, and never comes back, their chart should count. Like it or not, that person has contributed to BEA by adding their opinion. I don't think it's right for us to say that his opinion "expires". And I think it's really wrong to say that your opinion counts only if you stay on the site and contribute regularly.

Why? Please help me understand the purpose of the overall chart if it's not to reflect the tastes of the current BEA community.

Romanelli wrote:

If this happens, I believe that the overall chart will be dictated by a very small handful of people. I will not support that.

How small do you imagine this would be? Everyone who has logged in within the past year would still be able to contribute toward the overall rankings. This is hardly a small handful.

I daresay I disagree with just about everything else you said, though I feel it would be redundant to address it at all. What is remotely elitist about this? New users and old users have an equal say. The only distinction here is that a user's say is only counted if that user actually cares about his/her own say.

Feel free to elaborate because I can't really get on board with anything you've said.

EDIT: Yeah, basically everything Puncture said.

Re: Non-Active Charts

Anonymous — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:20:30 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/02/2014 22:20

Romanelli wrote:

I have to agree with AM on this one, and WAY beyond. I don't think that charts should be discounted just because they may be dated a bit, or even a lot (which, given the age of this site, none should qualify for that)...and I think 12 months, if there were to be a cutoff date, is MUCH to little. Also, would it really be fair to discount someones chart just because they haven't updated it? What's next...we're discounting your chart because the people who post on the message boards have decided that they don't like it? Or you? And what about the non user charts? The RS Best Albums Of The 80's chart is dated 1989. Do we automatically discredit that because it was made before most of the users on these forums were even born? If you take away the counting of user charts beyond a certain date, then don't you also have to take away counting of charts by major publications beyond that same date? I think not. I think that if someone comes here, makes a chart, and never comes back, their chart should count. Like it or not, that person has contributed to BEA by adding their opinion. I don't think it's right for us to say that his opinion "expires". And I think it's really wrong to say that your opinion counts only if you stay on the site and contribute regularly.

If this happens, I believe that the overall chart will be dictated by a very small handful of people. I will not support that.

This idea smacks of an elitist attitude. I think it's also, maybe not directly intentionally, a way of saying that the people who are here in the right here and right now should have all of the say.

What this sounds like to me is that we want the overall charts to reflect the opinions of those who spend the most time here. I think this may be the most wrong suggestion I have ever seen presented here, and if this were to be implemented, I would have serious concerns about the validity of the overall chart. This thread is saying that certain opinions that meet a designated guideline would be automatically disregarded, and I think that is really, really wrong...and I think it would lead to even more guidelines to narrow the field of whose opinions count.

If this is a vote...I say HELL no.

Re: Non-Active Charts

Mdemauri — Sun, 2 Mar 2014 16:55:38 GMT

Author: Mdemauri

Posted: 03/02/2014 21:55

Romanelli has some very valid points. I've swung back the other way now. You can customize the overall chart anyway, so what's it matter if a few people log on, create a chart, never to be heard from again? Will it really affect the integrity of the overall chart? Probably not.