Best Ever Albums

Re: Inactive Users

GARY — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:11:57 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 08/29/2011 19:11

itsit wrote:

I know, I'm suprised too!

🤣

.

Re: Inactive Users

alelsupreme — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:05:09 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 08/29/2011 19:05

I know, I'm suprised too!

Re: Inactive Users

GARY — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:01:00 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 08/29/2011 19:01

I see we have a new site administrator 🤣

Re: Inactive Users

alelsupreme — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:56:32 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 08/29/2011 18:56

4 or 5 years would be good, but don't go deleting charts without reason.

Re: Inactive Users

GARY — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:51:43 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 08/29/2011 18:51

albummaster wrote:

can people please grow up? thank you.

Thank you Albummaster 😁

Re: Inactive Users

albummaster — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:31:16 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 08/29/2011 18:31

i think five years is probably about right for member lists, but I think the effect on the overall chart would probably not be as big as some people might think. (granted, something needs to be in place anyway.)

Re: Inactive Users

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:23:48 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/29/2011 18:23

Taric wrote:

Who's going off-topic now...

This is still a health discussion.

I support that charts after a x-amount of time are out of date and not relevant for the overall chart.
Maybe ten years is a bit too long for internet-standards, where everything goes a little bit faster
and one year is too short.

I'm not a fan of deleting charts though, so they should become active when an user logs back in or updates his or her chart.

Very curious what will happen with the top 100.

Agree

the charts shouldn't be deleted, they just shouldn't be taken into account for the overall chart after say 5 years of inactivity?

Otherwise we will have albums like The Suburbs in the top 10 😮

Re: Inactive Users

Hayden — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:14:21 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 08/29/2011 18:14

albummaster wrote:

can people please grow up? thank you.

😁 Good call.

Re: Inactive Users

albummaster — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:04:01 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 08/29/2011 18:04

can people please grow up? thank you.

Re: Inactive Users

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:49:01 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/29/2011 17:49

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

what about the older members who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to new music?

What about the younger members who who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to old music?

.

not relevant because if they're still listening to new music they'll have a reason come back and update their chart.

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

Why did you find it necessary to use the word "completely" ?

Does one not either get "the point" or not get "the point" ?

Anyway, so you are saying that young members listen to new music therefore making their charts more relevant than older members?

I sure hope this is not.

I have come across numerous younger people who listen to older music more than newer music. And older people who mostly listen to newer music.

It would seem that you just want to rid the older peoples charts of any relevancy so as to elevate the, IMO, already overrated newer music.

So, what I'm saying is, according to what your "point" is, that maybe we should also remove the charts from the younger members who don't listen to older music.

.

I'm actually saying the exact opposite...this thread is about making charts that haven't been updated for a while NOT count to the overall chart...I'm saying that's unfair as I imagine lot of older members don't come back to update their charts because they don't listen to much new music...but imo their charts should still count.

try and pay attention next time you're reading.

19loveless91 wrote:

Nah no disrespect, but I do think you missed the point.. I think what he meant was that some people aren't really interested in discovering new music anymore so their chart just stagnates.. On the other hand if people are interested in hearing new stuff and releases at least their chart will change (ie they will be "active" users) even if they don't care for older music.

^this is my point...and users who aren't interested in hearing new stuff shouldn't be penalized by having their charts not count to the overall chart...or we'll see a bias towards newer music in the overall chart.

UMMM...Chase....... Why did you delete where you said

"it's like talking to a 6 year old" 🤔

And now you are telling me to

"pay attention next time I'm reading" 🤔

Well, looks to me like we have yet ANOTHER poster who disrespects me, TELLS me what to do, and then expects me to just ignore it 🙄

.

did this guy REALLY just ignore my whole post so he could bitch about me telling him to pay attention?

(EDITED by albummaster - I don't want to see somebody called this word again.)

Re: Inactive Users

Taric — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:47:19 GMT

Author: Taric

Posted: 08/29/2011 17:47

Who's going off-topic now...

This is still a health discussion.

I support that charts after a x-amount of time are out of date and not relevant for the overall chart.
Maybe ten years is a bit too long for internet-standards, where everything goes a little bit faster
and one year is too short.

I'm not a fan of deleting charts though, so they should become active when an user logs back in or updates his or her chart.

Very curious what will happen with the top 100.

Re: Inactive Users

GARY — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:29:36 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 08/29/2011 17:29

Chase wrote:

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

what about the older members who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to new music?

What about the younger members who who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to old music?

.

not relevant because if they're still listening to new music they'll have a reason come back and update their chart.

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

19loveless91 wrote:

Re: Inactive Users

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:20:49 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/29/2011 17:20

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

what about the older members who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to new music?

What about the younger members who who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to old music?

.

not relevant because if they're still listening to new music they'll have a reason come back and update their chart.

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

19loveless91 wrote:

Re: Inactive Users

albummaster — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:49:44 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 08/29/2011 16:49

Xavygravy wrote:

I have a feeling that a large contributor in the overall charts is the fact that many users just join the site, put Radiohead as No.1, and then never return.
There are A LOT of these users. Many have been around for up to 1000+ days, but have little to no 'member points' aside from 'size of chart' points.

Something should be done about these inactive users.
Here's what I propose based on what was suggested here http://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/vi...p;start=10:
-User Charts don't contribute to overall charts until the user is Level 1 (10 points)
-Users inactive for more than a year should be given a warning email, and then deleted if the user doesn't log into the site within a month or two
-exceptions should be given to the above rule if the user is Level 2 (500 points) or higher, or is a premium member

I feel this will make for a more accurate overall chart by getting rid of / not counting users who sign up and leave, but allowing users who forgot about the site to return.

Also, one more quick suggestion/question, how much are the 'official' charts (e.g. Rolling Stone, NME, etc.) worth in relation to user charts? I think it would be a good idea to have these charts weighted slightly more, given that they were compiled professionally, sometimes by up to 50 people, and therefore should be worth more than just one random's opinion. My suggestion is that these charts have not 50x the weighting, but more like 2x-4x the weighting. There are less than 20 of these 'official' charts, but once again I think it would help shape a more accurate overall chart.

Thoughts?

yes, I think something does need to happen, though I'm not really a fan of deleting people's charts. The way that it works for official charts is that after ten years the points get nullified and the same would happen for user charts after the same time period once the site reaches that age. Ten years is a long time, and maybe that does need to be decreased a little, but I think that one year is too short as I don't think people's choices would vary that much from one year to the next (in terms of greatest albums ever).

It would be good for people that haven't visited in a while to come back, but at the same time we don't want to spam people. I think a warning email is a good idea, but I'm not sure what the threat might be. Perhaps just a plain reminder that the site still exists or maybe the points could be depreciated from year to year depending on how recently the chart was updated.

In terms of official lists, when you see the ratings for official lists versus member charts, there is a case for saying that official lists are no stronger than individual member charts and therefore why should they be more heavily weighted?

Re: Inactive Users

19loveless91 — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:15:13 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 08/29/2011 16:15

Nah no disrespect, but I do think you missed the point.. I think what he meant was that some people aren't really interested in discovering new music anymore so their chart just stagnates.. On the other hand if people are interested in hearing new stuff and releases at least their chart will change (ie they will be "active" users) even if they don't care for older music.

Or maybe I missed the point 🤔

Re: Inactive Users

GARY — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:06:33 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 08/29/2011 16:06

Chase wrote:

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

what about the older members who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to new music?

What about the younger members who who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to old music?

.

not relevant because if they're still listening to new music they'll have a reason come back and update their chart.

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

Re: Inactive Users

GARY — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:40:47 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 08/29/2011 15:40

Chase wrote:

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

what about the older members who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to new music?

What about the younger members who who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to old music?

.

not relevant because if they're still listening to new music they'll have a reason come back and update their chart.

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

I think you completely missed the point of my post

.

Re: Inactive Users

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:24:45 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/29/2011 15:24

GARY wrote:

Chase wrote:

what about the older members who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to new music?

What about the younger members who who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to old music?

.

not relevant because if they're still listening to new music they'll have a reason come back and update their chart.

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

Re: Inactive Users

GARY — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:20:04 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 08/29/2011 15:20

Chase wrote:

what about the older members who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to new music?

What about the younger members who who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to old music?

.

Re: Inactive Users

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:08:14 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/29/2011 15:08

what about the older members who just make their chart and don't log back in because they don't really listen to new music?