Best Ever Albums

Re: Larger Charts

Facetious — Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:38:02 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 02/03/2012 11:38

Robert Anton Wilson wrote:

Albummaster is always cool

Don't we all know that already (expect for possibly BestEverList)?

Re: Larger Charts

Robert Anton Wilson — Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:41:17 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 02/03/2012 01:41

Albummaster is always cool

Re: Larger Charts

Cryptozoologist — Sat, 1 May 2010 12:31:25 GMT

Author: Cryptozoologist

Posted: 05/01/2010 16:31

I had started a topic on this but deleted it after realizing this already existed.

albumaster's idea is cool.

Re: Larger Charts

albummaster — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:44:43 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 04/30/2010 08:44

badfaith, I agree with most of your points about why people want bigger charts. If after allowing charts of 100 albums, does that stop the demand? No, because people will then want 200 albums. I don't think the problem is the chart size limit, I think it is because once people have created their chart, they want to do something more here on BEA. So, no matter what the chart-size limit, some people will always reach it. The thing for some people is that they love so many albums, they cannot possibly fit them *all* into a single 'best ever' chart! 😉

I think a better answer to the chart-size issue is to allow people to create multiple (and different types of) charts so they can pigeon hole their albums into e.g. a decade chart, a genre chart, a year chart etc. This would be a better idea than having an extra long chart which gets a bit wishy-washy or disjointed towards the end because people want to do lots of things wthin the same chart.

Basically, the next set of major features that will be developed can be summarised as: genre charts, moderation system, multiple charts per user.

This will increase the user engagement (alluded to by Freddie55) and give people more to do here on BEA.

As mentioned previously on the forum, bigger/more charts means a lot more background administration work for the administrator (me!) in keeping the site working correctly, hence the proposed changes will be implemented in the above sequence to allow the site to scale better as it becomes more popular (so that it requires less administration per user).

The above was always the road-map in my head (and I have mentioned genres before and I have never ruled out bigger charts), but my 'day job' is taking up most of my time leaving not a lot enough time for BEA (although I have spent a lot of time recently creating RSS feeds to syndicate on other sites).

I really want to write these new features because the site now gets quite a lot of traffic, but on the other side I cannot afford to entirely give up my day job to do this because BEA doesn't financially allow this, so it's more a labour of love to me than a proper business that I have to fit into my spare time.

The above roadmap requires a lot of development work (probably several months of my 'free' time which I need to find outside of my day job) to develop the new features. I really value everybody's feedback and these changes *will* get done, it just takes a bit of time to do some of these things. So, please be patient and understand.

RE: a single page per chart, the reason it is spread over the different pages is to do with performance (to reduce network and database i/o, especially on high volume pages).

Re: Larger Charts

richardmbeaverii — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:36:23 GMT

Author: richardmbeaverii

Posted: 04/30/2010 04:36

Yeah, it would be nice to have a larger chart at sometime, whenever the updates and what not are finished. or the new system.

The one whole long list idea is nice too. Not necessarily the entire page, but in a scrollable "box". Yeah, good.

Re: Larger Charts

RFNAPLES — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:09:34 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/10/2010 13:09

badfaith wrote:

thirdeded!

Also, when you look at 'my chart' and you get the whole chart, you still have to 'view on website' to see comments/ratings, which takes you back to ten at a time.

Perhaps blend these two aspects?

Agree

Re: Larger Charts

badfaith — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:53:06 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 04/10/2010 10:53

thirdeded!

Also, when you look at 'my chart' and you get the whole chart, you still have to 'view on website' to see comments/ratings, which takes you back to ten at a time.

Perhaps blend these two aspects?

Re: Larger Charts

Freddie55 — Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:00:10 GMT

Author: Freddie55

Posted: 04/09/2010 17:00

RFNAPLES wrote:

I too find clicking through all the chart pages a burden. Can't we see all the pages at once like we can when we use the My Chart tab? My mouse scroll works a lot faster than the page refresh.

I second that!

Re: Larger Charts

RFNAPLES — Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:52:18 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/09/2010 16:52

I too find clicking through all the chart pages a burden. Can't we see all the pages at once like we can when we use the My Chart tab? My mouse scroll works a lot faster than the page refresh.

Re: Larger Charts

Freddie55 — Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:25:31 GMT

Author: Freddie55

Posted: 04/09/2010 15:25

My 2 cents. It is onerous now to click through 5 chart pages so that I can give an honest rating of someone's chart or see what changes they've made. I would end up with carpal tunnel if I had to click through 10 pages every time I wanted to look at a chart.

If the site administrator is looking for more work to do, I would prefer a second stream of charts restricted to releases in the current year and limited at 20 selections. That would keep me more engaged with the site because I listen to current music much more than oldies and my all-time faves rarely change.

Re: Larger Charts

badfaith — Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:54:08 GMT

Author: badfaith

Posted: 04/09/2010 12:54

Just a thought albummaster...

You allow the charts compiled by magazines and respected music journals to feature in the aggregate score don't you?

but these are all 100 albums or more themselves, and some members have less... and as long as this is the case, the data will always be skewed, only when EVERY chart on the site has an equal number of albums to draw from to comprise the aggregate score, can there be an accurate representation of average chart position.

If VH1 puts an album at No.78 for instance, precisely because it has 100 selections to make, but they would perhaps place it relatively higher had they only 50 selections to make, being more parsimonious in this situation, or even placing that album relatively lower in a larger chart, the placement of an album is not just based on it's absolute position in the compiler's estimation, but in the context of the size of the chart.

When compiling my chart, as I'm sure other members have also experienced, there are not just those albums which just bubbled under the top 50, but often a choice between 2 or even 3 albums for a place, meaning many albums that would have made it higher in our charts are absent altogether, especially if you've a broad taste in music, and want to represent different styles of music, you may decide that of those 3 rock albums you would like to include, you have no space then for the jazz album, or the folk, or country album etc. you love, so to be more representative of your tastes, you sacrifice albums, and overall this can mean some albums may drop significantly in the aggregate chart.

I realise this is the point and method of discerning the best albums in the common estimation, but if the chart sizes they are drawn from are unequal then so are the results.

I also see you must have a limit on chart sizes, because some members posses more albums than god, and would only exacerbate this problem, and make it more unequal, but I think your decision to increase the chart sizes must be based on when a certain percentage of all charts contributing have attained the 50 maximum, this being a signal that the increase is warranted.

Perhaps if you also factored into the equation the frequency of activity by members, so this assessment is not hampered by long lost members or those that submitted a chart of 10 albums say a year or two back, and haven't visited since- (if there are a large number of these charts the site in this respect stands still)

But it does seem more and more members are calling for this increase now.

Re: Larger Charts

RFNAPLES — Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:58:39 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/08/2010 02:58

Thanks for your response. Guess we will wait.

Re: Larger Charts

albummaster — Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:22:08 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 04/07/2010 18:22

If we double the size of the charts, it will double the amount of work that happens behind the scenes to keep the data on this site clean and tidy (e.g. tracklistings, artwork, release years, weeding out duplicate entries, incorrect spellings when new albums are added etc).

For the site to work smoothly and correctly, it needs to have correct data. To double the size of the charts, we'd have to build a moderation system which allows members to change data themselves so that the site scales better otherwise we'd never be able to keep on top of keeping the data clean and tidy.

A moderation system is planned for the site but it is quite a big piece of development work and there are also other changes that are higher in the queue such as the long awaited 'genre' charts so bigger charts will not happen in the short-term.

Re: Larger Charts

RFNAPLES — Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:59:43 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/06/2010 17:59

less than 3% 🫢

Re: Larger Charts

Charicature — Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:52:04 GMT

Author: Charicature

Posted: 04/06/2010 17:52

I'll second that! Then again, I've been seconding that ever since the chart size was increased to 50 🤣

Thing is, albummaster said it would be contrary to the point of picking your top albums...but for someone like you, Naples, I don't think it would. 100 would be, what - 1% of your collection? 😉

Larger Charts

RFNAPLES — Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:37:44 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/06/2010 13:37

I'm ready for larger member charts. 18 or the top 20 member charts are maxed out. How about increasing optional chart size to 100?