Best Ever Albums

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

videoheadcleaner — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:13:03 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 03/29/2012 11:13

Overall - definitely 100. Okay, great; 500 would allow you to be like Rolling Stone. Amazing. But besides your own choices being there to view, who will sit through them all?

Decade - 100 is the max; keep it that way.

Year - 50 as a max. Allows users to make their own mind about that year. Last 5 years I have listened to probably 150 per year, so I could make 50. However I have only listened to about 20 from 1987. Not going to put them all in.

Recently I went through my decade charts and made them more succinct. People can make up their own mind on how many. I would love to have all of my albums I own on here. But there is the collection function and who seriously cares about my 98th album of 2001 (possibly Echo and the Bunnymen's Flowers)?

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 01:18:10 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/29/2012 05:18

Jhereko wrote:

I can't even imagine how boring it would be to go through 200 albums of everyone's 🤡 and I think rather than showing 'smaller' albums it has the potential to show more of the same.

�'�

yet more of the usual Beatiofled.... how boring!

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 01:06:42 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/29/2012 05:06

I can't even imagine how boring it would be to go through 200 albums of everyone's 🤡 and I think rather than showing 'smaller' albums it has the potential to show more of the same.

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

Necharsian — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:05:05 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 03/29/2012 03:05

I think having a limit on 100 for the overall chart focuses in on "the best" rather than just a collection of great albums. The top 100 just seems to have a sort of prestige behind it.

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

RFNAPLES — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:33:40 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/29/2012 02:33

I kind of agree with you--if yearly charts of 50 are allowed why not allow one large overall chart to show all of them. But then I don't see the need for yearly charts, since one can already see the albums by year by drilling in the decade charts. Hopefully we won't need to change servers again to handle the load.

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

dwils0891 — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:23:03 GMT

Author: dwils0891

Posted: 03/29/2012 02:23

Alright... can't say I didn't try. If year charts are going to be added why not just make one big chart available to each user as well? I don't see what it would hurt? I think it would be really cool to make a greatest album chart that can compete with the likes of Rolling Stone and what not. Anyways... just an idea I see all pros and no cons. I will be happy either way though.

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

RFNAPLES — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:53:44 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 03/28/2012 20:53

I am opposed to larger charts but think albummaster's suggestion of the ability to list 4300 albums is a bit overstated. Surely one would expect a large redundancy among the charts by the same member. Wouldn't all 100 from their overall chart and all the albums from their decade charts be expected to show up in yearly charts? Of course I am presuming we have rational members. 😉

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

albummaster — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:50:20 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 03/28/2012 17:50

This has been asked for before. Personally, I'm against the idea. If people can't fit all their choices into 100 entries, then there's also decade charts, and soon to be year charts, to fit the stragglers into.

(100 albums) + (7 decades x 100 albums) + (70 years x 50 albums) = 4,300 albums.

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

Romanelli — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:12:22 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 03/28/2012 16:12

No ❗

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

dwils0891 — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:01:50 GMT

Author: dwils0891

Posted: 03/28/2012 16:01

More albums is not a bad thing. I think having bigger charts would make it more likely that someone would put a smaller name in their chart. This way we wouldn't have the Beatles, Radiohead, Bob Dylan overload as much. Those bands would still be at the top but it would make the site a little more diverse if there were more unknown bands in peoples charts. Also I just can't make a really good Best albums of all time list with just 100 albums. I don't see a negative side to this idea.

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

Xavygravy — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:57:58 GMT

Author: Xavygravy

Posted: 03/28/2012 07:57

I say yes. 😁

The only reason not to is the influx of new albums on the site, but this is controlled by restricting to higher levels.

Re: Bigger maximum Chart Size!

Hayden — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:26:27 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 03/27/2012 20:26

No. 🤡

Bigger maximum Chart Size!

dwils0891 — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:32:32 GMT

Author: dwils0891

Posted: 03/27/2012 15:32

I think that 100 is too small for a greatest albums of all time chart. It would be cool if when you reached a certain level (level 7, 8, or 9) that you could create a chart that is 200 or 250 in length. It could be limited to just one chart of that size or more. I think one would suffice but either way. I really think this would be cool and would give more incentive to reach the highest levels.