Best Ever Albums

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Anonymous — Thu, 9 May 2013 15:20:55 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/09/2013 19:20

albummaster wrote:

The problem with freezing/unfreezing charts after a certain time period is that people come and go from the site for all sorts of reasons, and this would blanket remove all charts (the more valid charts as well), so it doesn't fully achieve what we are setting out to do.

I think the majority of these types of chart are submitted by new users, so I quite like gtroda's idea of Level 1 charts not contributing, although I'd prefer to change this to Level 1 & 2 (as Level 2 can be reached by submitting your first chart).

That's a good call, getting users to contribute something worthwhile outside their chart before they can be considered.

Would this stop people signing up though? I know I first made my chart because I wanted to add the site, I'm not sure I would have been as inclined if I knew I had to work for it.

Ultimately this site is better off being pluralist.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

albummaster — Thu, 9 May 2013 04:00:11 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 05/09/2013 08:00

The problem with freezing/unfreezing charts after a certain time period is that people come and go from the site for all sorts of reasons, and this would blanket remove all charts (the more valid charts as well), so it doesn't fully achieve what we are setting out to do.

I think the majority of these types of chart are submitted by new users, so I quite like gtroda's idea of Level 1 charts not contributing, although I'd prefer to change this to Level 1 & 2 (as Level 2 can be reached by submitting your first chart).

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Defago — Wed, 8 May 2013 23:29:17 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 05/09/2013 03:29

gtroda wrote:

Most of the extreme charts that I've seen tend to be someone who shows up, creates one chart, and disappears. What if accounts with no activity in the past 18 months get frozen and their charts don't count for the ratings any more?

Or what if Level 1 users' charts don't count for the overall rating? You must obtain Level 2 in order for your chart to count.

This. Only maybe 18 months is too long, perhaps 6 months would be enough. As soon as you pop back in, your chart unfreezes once again.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Anonymous — Wed, 8 May 2013 23:22:31 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/09/2013 03:22

I like the idea of weeding out the extreme charts, but I'm not crazy about using ratings to do it. Then it just becomes another popularity contest to make your chart reflect what you think others will like. People can rate charts low because they don't like certain albums or as a way to get their album over the next one or something. I think it would limit diversity in charts rather than encourage it.

Most of the extreme charts that I've seen tend to be someone who shows up, creates one chart, and disappears. What if accounts with no activity in the past 18 months get frozen and their charts don't count for the ratings any more?

Or what if Level 1 users' charts don't count for the overall rating? You must obtain Level 2 in order for your chart to count.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Evandar — Wed, 8 May 2013 06:56:20 GMT

Author: Evandar

Posted: 05/08/2013 10:56

Jhereko wrote:

here's a couple of extreme examples

http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=1910
http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=7299

and I mean not only is it pointless and boring, it affects all the charts (especially the year ones) because anything on a main chart gives a decent score to the albums on there.

Personally, I would go further than just that message and make any main chart that contains more than 10% of any artist null and void to the rankings. Just my opinion but if you have to have 5 or more albums from the same artist on your chart...you're probably not listening to enough music. Even my favourite artist who has about 16 valid albums...the most I've had on any of my main chart's is 2.

Those example are ridiculous indeed. I have to object to the bolded part, though. I think I have like 16 Bob Dylan albums in my top 100, yet I'm sure I've listened to a 4-digit number of albums throughout my lifetime. Not my fault Dylan is so far above most other artists. :p

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

albummaster — Wed, 8 May 2013 05:01:02 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 05/08/2013 09:01

I was thinking a way to reduce the impact of these types of chart would be to somehow take into account a chart's rating when calculating the points awarded for each chart entry. Lower rated charts, such as these, would then not have such an effect on the scores.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Anonymous — Wed, 8 May 2013 02:22:06 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/08/2013 06:22

here's a couple of extreme examples

http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=1910
http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=7299

and I mean not only is it pointless and boring, it affects all the charts (especially the year ones) because anything on a main chart gives a decent score to the albums on there.

Personally, I would go further than just that message and make any main chart that contains more than 10% of any artist null and void to the rankings. Just my opinion but if you have to have 5 or more albums from the same artist on your chart...you're probably not listening to enough music. Even my favourite artist who has about 16 valid albums...the most I've had on any of my main chart's is 2.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

paladisiac — Tue, 7 May 2013 17:09:46 GMT

Author: paladisiac

Posted: 05/07/2013 21:09

Romanelli wrote:

i agree. No message is going to change the fact i heart genesis or whoever else.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Anonymous — Tue, 7 May 2013 13:35:11 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/07/2013 17:35

Jhereko wrote:

It's an anti-fanboy measure which is a great thing in my book.

This.

I fanboy as much as I want all over the forums (*cough* Ghostface *cough* Flaming Lips *cough* Dylan *cough* Blu *cough* Roc Marci *cough* Prince *cough*), but as someone who finds looking at a chart with ten albums by the same artist really quite boring - not to detract from the honesty of those charts, but rather the entertainment I take in reading them - why would I want to fill my chart up with numerous albums by a select group of artists? I love hundreds and hundreds of albums, and below about #40 on my chart it's all a pretty arbitrary game of pot-luck depending on how I feel on any given day. If I can't even make my mind up on which albums deserve to be there, I figure I may as well restrict it to one album per artist so that at least everyone reading it isn't sitting there going, "Christ, did he really need a seventh Ghostface Killah album on that list?". It's not as though I think there's a great deal of difference in quality between my third favourite Flaming Lips album and an album I love by a band I'm not so keen on. I don't like reading fanboy charts, and this gentle push away from said fanboyism (and I think it's important to remember that it is only a mild-mannered suggestion) is only trying to curb such behaviour. Just look at TrekkiELO's chart and tell me that makes for fun reading. It might be his honest assessment, but I don't think a little pop-up that says "hang about mate, you do realise that you've only got ELO albums on this chart right?" really does any damage. You can choose to ignore it (as the aforementioned TrekkiELO obviously did). Variety is the spice of life, my friends. The pop-up doesn't read "NOT HIPSTER ENOUGH! ABORT! ABORT!", so why it bothers anyone is quite beyond me. However you choose to make your chart, feel free. If you want to be totally honest and include every Beatles album because you think they deserve to be there, so be it - I'll find it a bit boring, but that should be of little concern to you. If you want to fill your chart with lesser-known gems that you think others might stumble across and learn to love as you have then do that. There is no right or wrong way (except RFNAPLES' bizarre objective way), and as albummaster said the message was simply to discourage people from making certain types of charts that skew the ratings. Long story short, I'm all for that. Apologies for tl;dr.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Anonymous — Tue, 7 May 2013 13:34:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/07/2013 17:34

Yes very interesting in top 1 album of this site there's one Radiohead album and that's 100%.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

martintho — Tue, 7 May 2013 13:13:25 GMT

Author: martintho

Posted: 05/07/2013 17:13

Jasonconfused wrote:

My mistake. I did miss your point."

here's a funny thing: in thebesteveralbums top twenty there is 5 beatles albums. that's 25%.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Anonymous — Fri, 3 May 2013 02:04:53 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/03/2013 06:04

It's an anti-fanboy measure which is a great thing in my book.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

CaptainFicus — Fri, 3 May 2013 00:30:12 GMT

Author: CaptainFicus

Posted: 05/03/2013 04:30

BEA told me to listen to more old music
ha! no one can tell Captain Ficus what to do!
..that being said i'm probably going to do that.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Dingerbell — Wed, 1 May 2013 17:30:30 GMT

Author: Dingerbell

Posted: 05/01/2013 21:30

A few things to discuss in this topic, I feel.

Firstly, I'm very against "one album per artist", and I've made my stance very clear in my chart description. Basically, your chart should be what you feel are your favourite albums of all time, and therefore you should not restrict your true tastes. Giving one album per artist could give a very poor misrepresentation of your tastes in music. For example, if you have a Kanye West album at number one, then it could be generalised that you liked all of the West's material, whereas a Bob Dylan album could be at number five, but there could be many Bob Dylan albums that you liked that would take up positions 5-10 in your real chart. You might not ever like any other hip-hop music, but some may think that you do. So one album per artist doesn't really represent what your tastes in music are.

Secondly, there's the argument for whether you should be able to have as many albums as you want by an artist in a chart. I say yes, why not, if it is a true representation of your tastes. Even if you've only heard albums by Pink Floyd, the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, then you could still rate them how you choose, despite not hearing many other albums, as you can sort any album as long as you've got something to compare it directly to.

Finally, there's the argument for the power of the magazines. Generally, the reason why they are rated so high in the magazines is because they are pretty universally liked. Even if OK Computer would be your 30th favourite album, it would still average to be very high in the charts due it's pretty universal respect and admiration. Something that is liked by a lot of people is more likely to be liked by yourself, surely? Even then, the point that the magazines control this is still valid. I mean, if a magazine gives a good review, you would generally- if you respect the reviewers taste and agreed with them in the past- be more inclined to listen to that album than one that is rate poorly, even if you would prefer the one that was rated poor. Because, you can only give your opinion on an album after it's been listened to.

Sorry if the post doesn't make sense, and excuse any non sequitur claims, as I've not proof-read.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

EyeKanFly — Wed, 1 May 2013 13:45:22 GMT

Author: EyeKanFly

Posted: 05/01/2013 17:45

Romanelli wrote:

I agree with this, I'd rather see "true" 100 best albums charts. The one album per artist thing is useful if you're trying to show off your variety, which is great for other people to see the chart and maybe pick up a few albums they hadn't heard of before. If I want to discover as much music as possible, limiting the amount of albums per artist/year/country/whatever might be better, but if I want the best idea of an individual's taste in music, then I'd like no limits.

That being said, the charts can be fun to read either way.

And to reference what albummaster said, Rolling Stone and Pitchfork all have lots of people who get together to make those charts, they're not compiled by individuals, so it's almost impossible not to get a great variety. I would think that the BEA overall is more analogous to RS/Pf's charts, whereas individual user charts are more analogous to the individuals who get together to make RS/Pf's charts.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Romanelli — Wed, 1 May 2013 09:55:41 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 05/01/2013 13:55

Jasonconfused wrote:

My mistake. I did miss your point. I'm actually in awe that this actually happened... the site is trying to tell you you have too much of an artist on your chart? How absurd. You make a very good point. I'm actually a bit embarrassed that a message like that is being sent. It's literally saying, "Hey, make your chart more diverse so the other users will be more entertained when they look at your chart. Sorry if you have to be dishonest with yourself, but too bad."

To me, this is no worse than going to a chart and seeing "One album per artist. I do this to allow for more diversity". I don't care about how diverse you can show me you are...I want you to honestly tell me what you think the 100 best albums of all time are. If the album you think is the 10th best of all time is by the same artist as the album at #2, then I'm reading through 90 albums that are ranked incorrectly...for the sake of "diversity". That's my opinion, of course...I can't make anyone do their charts the way I would prefer.

You may not like the suggestion (which is not a demand) that says you may not want to have a 100 album chart with 20 by the same band, but like the one band per artist thing, no one is forcing anyone to adhere to either of these things...if you want one album per artist, that's your thing. Likewise, no one is stopping you from making a top 70 chart with nothing but The Fall on it. Whatever works for you. If you don't like the message, ignore it. Regardless of that message, people are going to do with their charts what they are going to do. The message changes nothing whether it's there or not.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

albummaster — Wed, 1 May 2013 04:31:54 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 05/01/2013 08:31

The message isn't designed to force people to change their charts, it is just to remind them that their chart might not be rated very highly if it is not very varied. The message is not forcing anybody to do anything, and it can just as easily be ignored.

A lot of members here, if they see a top 10 consisting of albums from just one band in a 'greatest albums in history' chart, would probably/rightly think the chart hadn't been well thought through, and the comments and ratings on those charts would likely reflect this. The end result is that new users are discouraged from contributing further and they leave the site (I've seen this happen).

No professional publication would publish charts that aren't varied. If you saw Pitchfork (or whoever) publishing a greatest albums in history chart swamped with albums by one or two artists, it would not be thought well of either, and would likely be treated as a joke (I think the threshold here is 20%, so that would be 20 albums by one artist in a chart of 100 entries; and it wouldn't happen in a professional publication, even with The Beatles).

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Anonymous — Wed, 1 May 2013 04:17:45 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/01/2013 08:17

Some people may say Rolling Stone, NME and ... don't have any sort of impact on them but you live in a world that its classics have been decided by those magazines. When you have this feeling that Beatles, Radiohead or Pink Floyd albums are chart-worthy material but your other favourites are not, you ARE under the impact of those magazines even if you've not ever heard of em. You may say only those artists are your favourites and you've not listened to or liked other artists that much; then that's a huge problem because there is like hundreds of thousands of albums out there and you just put albums by 10 artist in your chart? None of them satisfies you? Are you that perfect that among hundreds of thousands of albums you are just satisfied with the works of, say, ten artists? Then you may respond that you cannot bother to listen to more artists; So where this enthusiasm to make charts comes from? Everything you have to say with your chart have been told before unless the only function of your chart is to show it to your friends to let them know what you listen to. If that's the function for you then you cannot be possibly annoyed by the message because it doesn't take your friends into account and you don't care about other users and ratings, then so be it.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Jasonconfused — Wed, 1 May 2013 00:49:08 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 05/01/2013 04:49

Mercurydylan89 wrote:

No no no! It doesn't say that either. Look at the comment AM just posted. That explains the reason for it existing.

Yea I saw that. So if people actually think their top ten albums are Radiohead and Beatles albums, they should be changed anyway for the sake of the rankings?? Now, if these are second or third accounts by one individual and they are purposely trying to skew the rankings, that's a different matter completely.

Re: best ever albums or coolest ever albums

Mercury — Wed, 1 May 2013 00:21:57 GMT

Author: Mercury

Posted: 05/01/2013 04:21

Jasonconfused wrote:

No no no! It doesn't say that either. Look at the comment AM just posted. That explains the reason for it existing.