Best Ever Albums

Re: Year charts

albummaster — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:13:40 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/27/2012 14:13

19loveless91 wrote:

there aren't that many of those that would still try to fill out the complete chart, no matter what they think of the albums they put on the chart.

agree, for most people that is true.

19loveless91 wrote:

One more thing: what level would you have to be to be allowed to post a year chart? As I said at first, maybe initially you would allow only a 20 album year chart (but definitely not 10), and then maybe expand that to 40 when a member reaches a higher level. Maybe not the best idea, but it sure does limit the number of people that would be able to "flood the system". + it's those, highest ranking members, that have earned the most points for data moderation.

Level 6, and you're right, I'd overlooked your last point so I guess it's less of an issue really.

Re: Year charts

albummaster — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:29:48 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/27/2012 13:29

RFNAPLES wrote:

I just checked all my decade charts and the largest single years had only 18 albums each (1957, 1968, and 1969). At this point I don't see the need for year charts since you can easily see those choices by drilling. Looks like the only thing year charts would do for me is add points to the album selections rank score and waste time and band width.

Some people want them, and some people don't. It has been asked for in the past, and people are always wanting to add a chart for the current year. Regards a waste of time, you could say the same about spending *any* time on the internet, surfing is just a leisure activity for a lot of people, and I guess this is a leisure site where people come to waste their time 😉 I think year charts will add something more to the site, and people can always choose not to make them, and/or not to look at them.

Romanelli wrote:

What if you limited year charts to 20, and allowed the most recent year ended (in this case 2011) to be 50? At the end of 2012, you reduce all of the 2011 charts to 20 and allow the 2012 charts to be 50, then do the same thing a year later?

That way, the year charts aren't too big, and people can do a top 50 for the most recent year if they want to. But make it count because at years end, 30 are going away.

🤔 That still leaves the issue of adding all the album details for a lot more albums (probably). I don't know if I'm being talked into this, but maybe we could start off with 50 and see how it goes since there seems to be more people who want this than don't. If it becomes unmanageable, it could be culled back to 20. I remember being a bit concerned when decade charts were added, but it's actually turned out okay. The average size of a decade chart right now is slightly under 50 entries (nowhere near 100). The same thing would probably happen with year charts (I hope!), so the average size might end up being half of that (i.e. about 25).

Re: Year charts

19loveless91 — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:21:15 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 03/27/2012 13:21

I'm talking about one person's POV. I doubt I even heard 100 1980s albums so far, but even if I did, there would be no use of putting them all in the chart, because plenty of those albums would have no real appeal for me. Of course that doesn't mean that there aren't a hundred great albums from that decade, and you know that there are certain users already here, that would have trouble trimming their selection down to just one hundred. And yes, there are far less people who have listened to that many albums, but I really do think that there aren't that many of those that would still try to fill out the complete chart, no matter what they think of the albums they put on the chart.

One more thing: what level would you have to be to be allowed to post a year chart? As I said at first, maybe initially you would allow only a 20 album year chart (but definitely not 10), and then maybe expand that to 40 when a member reaches a higher level. Maybe not the best idea, but it sure does limit the number of people that would be able to "flood the system". + it's those, highest ranking members, that have earned the most points for data moderation.

Anyway, that's my opinion on this, I'm not even advocating my interests here (cause as I said, I don't listen to that many albums and would have no problem even with 10-20 albums option), so if somebody else has something to say about this it would be nice.

Re: Year charts

Romanelli — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:05:31 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/27/2012 13:05

What if you limited year charts to 20, and allowed the most recent year ended (in this case 2011) to be 50? At the end of 2012, you reduce all of the 2011 charts to 20 and allow the 2012 charts to be 50, then do the same thing a year later?

That way, the year charts aren't too big, and people can do a top 50 for the most recent year if they want to. But make it count because at years end, 30 are going away.

Re: Year charts

RFNAPLES — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:03:13 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/27/2012 13:03

I just checked all my decade charts and the largest single years had only 18 albums each (1957, 1968, and 1969). At this point I don't see the need for year charts since you can easily see those choices by drilling. Looks like the only thing year charts would do for me is add points to the album selections rank score and waste time and band width.

Re: Year charts

albummaster — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:25:37 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/27/2012 12:25

The counter argument is that, even without year charts right now, out of those charts that I Googled, only a Britney Spears album is missing from BEA. Apologies to Britney Spears (and her fans), but I don't think BEA is worse off because of it. We would be opening the floodgates to albums of that ilk by allowing 50 albums per year. I think 100 albums per decade is much more justifiable because there are always going to be 100 decent albums in a ten year period (even in the '80s!).

On the data maintenance side of things, right now BEA has a track listing and artwork for just about every album on the site. I really don't think we (as a group) would be able to maintain that coverage if we had 50 albums per year, and I've got a real OCD problem when I see tracklistings and artwork missing here, I just hate seeing things missing/wrong! 😨 I wouldn't want to compel people to add their own data because then people do things reluctantly, and the quality suffers as a result, and people might not pick their first choices if they have to add the data themselves.

Re: Year charts

19loveless91 — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:02:44 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 03/27/2012 10:02

It depends on a person really. I don't need to have a 100 entries for a decade chart, because I haven't listened to that many albums in my life. So my 2000s decade chart includes 50 entries, all albums that I really like. If I wanted to do even a top 70 albums for that decade, I would already have to include albums that I generally don't care too much about. On the other hand you have someone like Jhereko, who obviously listens to a lot of albums and was able to make a top 50 chart for 2010 last year and still say that he missed some good ones.
Bottom line is, I doubt there will be many people that will decide to use all entries, even if they don't exactly like all of the albums they will include. And if there are some like that, there's a good chance they will do the same now with the decade charts, too (especially on the 1950s and 1960s charts)

Also, I don't think that enforcing a rule, where somebody would have to entry the data for at least some of the newly added albums is that bad, especially if we're just talking about the album cover and year of release. I mean what does it say about that particular person if (s)he won't even do that.
Just a side note here, RYM is even stricter here, I know I had to edit all of the data for an artist and an album if I wanted to add it, + I think somebody has to approve/confirm it afterwards. A lot more annoying if you ask me...

Re: Year charts

albummaster — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:08:56 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/27/2012 07:08

My own feeling about 50 is that it will lead to too many average albums being added to the site, and it will be difficult to keep on top of the data. Enforcing a data entry requirement on new additions would annoy some people, I suspect.

Looking across the internet at end of year album lists, the common chart size does seem to be 50, but are entries 21 onwards 'must-have' albums, or just 'filler'? How difficult would it be to leave these albums out? Would BEA suffer by not having them? (bearing in mind they might also appear in a decade chart)

These are some 2011 best album charts that came top on Google when I did a quick search:

Rolling Stone: (21st: Bon Iver - Bon Iver, 50th: The Lonely Island - Turtleneck & Chain)
NME: (21st: Kasabian - Velociraptor!, 50th: Jay-Z & Kanye West - Watch The Throne)
Pitchfork: (21st: Jay-Z / Kanye West - Watch the Throne, 50th: Youth Lagoon - The Year of Hibernation)
SPIN: (21st: Stalley - Lincoln Way Nights, 50th: Britney Spears - Femme Fatale)

The only albums not on BEA already are those SPIN albums. Does BEA need the full discography of Britney Spears?

Re: Year charts

19loveless91 — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:40:47 GMT

Author: 19loveless91

Posted: 03/27/2012 05:40

20 when you get to the high enough level, 40-50 when you get to the next level?

10 is useless, even if it would be enough for me currently, because if you have 100 entries for a decade chart and you fill out that one, then you only repeat the albums in the year charts.

If you're afraid of people flooding the database, maybe you could put some rule that people have to edit the data of the albums, at least the most basic ones (album cover, year of release) they added, not necessarily all of them, but like, I don't know, at least one third of them.
Now I don't know how to enforce a rule like that (maybe you don't let the chart to be submitted until they do it) but I think it would be a fair one.

Re: Year charts

RFNAPLES — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:09:54 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/27/2012 00:09

at least 20--as albummaster once said people just don't use the maximum allowed.

Re: Year charts

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:41:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/26/2012 22:41

20 is the magic number for me

Re: Year charts

Hayden — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:39:36 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 03/26/2012 22:39

I actually think a limit at 20 is even a bit high.

I think 10 would suffice. It'd also make a bit of a challenge for the users 😄 , and then the lazy people only have 1 page to go through when rating.

Also, I doubt this matters, but I'm anti-year-charts 😐 We really don't need them.

Re: Year charts

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:31:42 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/26/2012 21:31

I think 20 is good as a limit, Albummaster.... otherwise it just becomes a list of all the albums released in a given year!

I would be ok to limiting it to 10 as well to keep it inline with the decade charts!

Re: Year charts

videoheadcleaner — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:32:50 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 03/26/2012 11:32

albummaster wrote:

Nothing is set in stone at this stage, but the reason I was thinking 20 was that you are allowed a max of 100 albums in a decade chart. A year is a tenth of a decade (obviously), so you might expect a chart size of ten in a year chart to keep the ratio intact, so a chart size of twenty is comparatively generous.

If people think that will be too limiting, I'll reconsider, but the essence of the site is to highlight the best albums, and if an album can't make it to the top 20 in a given year, is it really worth including? :-k

Duly noted.

Re: Year charts

albummaster — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:09:15 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/26/2012 11:09

Nothing is set in stone at this stage, but the reason I was thinking 20 was that you are allowed a max of 100 albums in a decade chart. A year is a tenth of a decade (obviously), so you might expect a chart size of ten in a year chart to keep the ratio intact, so a chart size of twenty is comparatively generous.

If people think that will be too limiting, I'll reconsider, but the essence of the site is to highlight the best albums, and if an album can't make it to the top 20 in a given year, is it really worth including? 🤔

Re: Year charts

videoheadcleaner — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:58:29 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 03/26/2012 08:58

albummaster wrote:

Just as a heads up. 'year charts' should be ready for testing in the next week or so. The scoring system will be as per this post - http://besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=67333#67333 but I think the number of albums in a year chart might be capped at 20 because I'm a bit concerned about flooding the database with less than decent albums (I've come around to harkan's way of thinking).

I believe a mid range number like 50 might be okay. Some may say that 20 is a bit too small. Either this adds to more decision making on the parts of users rather than an influx of obscure indie pop from 2011 Australia. Granted I add a number of albums on the site but even I think 100 albums from 2011 is a bit excessive. The option is for users to choose how many they want.

The other reason I say 50 might be good is end of year lists usually have a top 50 so users may want to emulate that.

Currently I have 107 titles from 2011 in my music library. I don't think I want to add The Lonely Island's Turtleneck and Chain at number 98 on my chart. Better left to the side.

Can't wait for year charts. More time making lists and procrastinating.

Re: Year charts

albummaster — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:42:57 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/26/2012 08:42

Just as a heads up. 'year charts' should be ready for testing in the next week or so. The scoring system will be as per this post - http://besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=67333#67333 but I think the number of albums in a year chart might be capped at 20 because I'm a bit concerned about flooding the database with less than decent albums (I've come around to harkan's way of thinking).

Re: Year charts

albummaster — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:01:09 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 12/16/2011 11:01

apologies, somehow missed this post:

harkan wrote:

A while off I know but two queries I have:

1) How many albums would someone be able to have on a year chart? I feel that 100 might be excessive and the site would be flooded with obscure albums that one person out of 100,000 might have listened to.

I hear what you are saying, but just because there's 100 entries doesn't mean people have to use them all. The average size of decade charts is around 40 at the moment (& 30 for 'overall' charts).

harkan wrote:

2) Some albums release dates have varied from country to country; do we take country of origin release as the main year? Recent example is Kimbra's Vows. Released here in NZ and AUS in 2011 but is due to be released officially overseas next year.

yes, the rule has been that BEA uses the original year of release, wherever that may be, so in your example it would be 2011.

Year charts

videoheadcleaner — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:17:24 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 12/14/2011 09:17

A while off I know but two queries I have:

1) How many albums would someone be able to have on a year chart? I feel that 100 might be excessive and the site would be flooded with obscure albums that one person out of 100,000 might have listened to.

2) Some albums release dates have varied from country to country; do we take country of origin release as the main year? Recent example is Kimbra's Vows. Released here in NZ and AUS in 2011 but is due to be released officially overseas next year.