Best Ever Albums

Re: The Power of Q

GlennJolson — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:02:52 GMT

Author: GlennJolson

Posted: 06/30/2009 20:02

Thank you for your time to explain.

Re: The Power of Q

albummaster — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:16:27 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 06/30/2009 17:16

The issue is due to rounding. We only display whole numbers against each chart, but in reality for Otis Blue:

Rank Score | Chart ID
27.0 | 7
70.0 | 5
20.0 | 2
0.0 | 9
60.0 | 855
70.0 | 1050
22.5 | 889
50.0 | 1028
10.0 | 954
52.0 | 838
98.0 | 1229
57.5 | 880
28.0 | 511
70.0 | 1251

Total 635 (is the correct number)

We could display fractions of a point on the site, but for most purposes it's probably a bit overkill.

Re: The Power of Q

albummaster — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:45:14 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 06/30/2009 16:45

Hi GlennJolson, yes the links I posted were wrong but the correct charts were updated (the most recent chart contributes points and the others don't).

I don't understand what you mean by the error in rank scores. Taking your example, the 1997 chart of Q contributes zero points for all ranks. (Check out Otis Blue - http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?a=190 ranked 100 in that chart has zero points)

EDIT: just spotted what you mean. The total points that an album has received doesn't seem to add up. I'll check into it...

Re: The Power of Q

GlennJolson — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:33:13 GMT

Author: GlennJolson

Posted: 06/30/2009 13:33

Thank you albummaster for correcting the Q rankings and to RFNAPLES for his agreement on this.

There is an error in the links,

c=213 2006 is most recent
c=214 2003 is older
c=9 1997 is oldest

There seems to be a negligible error of '1' in rank scores. I do not know if the bug was there before the changes to Q. From Q 1997, rank 100 should be 636 but displays 635, rank 99 should be 372, displays 371, rank 98 should be 488, displays 487.

Another error of '1' is in my "userstats", it says 1 comment, I did not comment yet and it lists two rating, I rated one.

Re: The Power of Q

RFNAPLES — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:23:28 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 06/27/2009 22:23

I agree with your choice to eliminate the older Q charts from the rankings.

Re: The Power of Q

albummaster — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:58:31 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 06/27/2009 20:58

New Q rankings now implemented (may be a short delay until visible on the site).

http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=9 (most recent)
http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=213 (older)
http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=214 (older)

Re: The Power of Q

albummaster — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:06:44 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 06/27/2009 13:06

You are right, it does unbalance things a bit when Q have mutiple charts. We should probably just count the most recent Q chart and not all of them. I think we'll continue to list all of the Q charts (as people like looking at them) but the albums in the 'out of date' charts will have zero rank points awarded for those particular charts. We'll make this change very shortly...

We've also now corrected the multiple 'Rumours' entry that you spotted.

thanks for pointing out. much appreciated.

albummaster

Re: The Power of Q

GlennJolson — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:01:45 GMT

Author: GlennJolson

Posted: 06/26/2009 13:01

It makes a difference for the 'Recognised Chart', there are 13 charts not over 1'000. You are right for the high end of the overall chart where 'it makes very little difference' but on the low end of the overall 500 it is decisive for rankings and if an album includes or excludes in the Overall Chart.

Re: The Power of Q

maxxy — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:26:38 GMT

Author: maxxy

Posted: 06/26/2009 12:26

There are now over 1000 charts on this site, so it makes very little difference 😄

The Power of Q

GlennJolson — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:35:48 GMT

Author: GlennJolson

Posted: 06/26/2009 10:35

This is not about Star Trek or the Q Continuum. 😉

It is about the music and entertainment magazine Q and their triple influence on the 'Recognised Chart' Rank Score.

Quote:

In 1997, Q compiled their definitive list of the 100 Best Albums Of All Time.

not quite definitive because

Quote:

In 2003, Q compiled their definitive list of the 100 Best Albums Of All Time.

and again it was not definitive as

Quote:

In 2006, Q compiled their definitive list of the 100 Best Albums Of All Time.

Here is an example for one of my top favourite albums, The Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd.

ABC......Rank 1 ----> Rank Score 100

Q (1997) Rank 10 --> Rank Score 91
Q (2003) Rank 21 --> Rank Score 80
Q (2006) Rank 15 --> Rank Score 86
----------------------------------
Q Rank 10/15/21 ---> Rank Score 257

IMVHO the 'Recognised Chart' Ranks are biased. If a Rank 1 receives 100 by ABC another institution should not be able to give out 257 for lower ranks. There are two solutions, either remove the Q lists of 1997 and 2003 or multiply the Rank Score of the other ten Recognised Charts by 3 to have an overall representative 'Recognised Chart' list. I prefer the later solution because the three Q lists have their merits. Instead of

ABC......Rank 1 -----> Rank Score 100
Q Rank 10/15/21 ---> Rank Score 257

You receive

ABC......Rank 1 -----> Rank Score 300
Q Rank 10/15/21 ---> Rank Score 257
___________________________________

Another example of a favourite of mine, Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, here with a Bug. :{

ABC......Rank 20 ---> Rank Score 81

Q (1997) Rank 25 ---> Rank Score 76
Q (2003) Rank 18 ---> Rank Score 83
Q (2003) Rank 48 ---> Rank Score 53
Q (2006) Rank 68 ---> Rank Score 33
----------------------------------
Q Rank 18/25/48/68-> Rank Score 245

Rumours lists twice here in Q (2003), on 18 and 48. Correct is Rank 48 for Rumours and Rank 18 for The Holy Bible by Manic Street Preachers.