100 Great Albums that BEA Forgot - Music - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Necharsian

Best Ever User

Gender: Male

jhuik wrote:

I thnk if someone has only 50 on their chart it should rank the same as the bottom 50 of a top 100 chart. If someone comes to the site and whips off a chart with only 41 picks because they don't care enough to fill it out, it should (at best) rank the same as the bottom 41 of a regular 100 album chart. Hope that's clear. Not sure it's worth albummaster's time.

There are other reasons to have a chart <100 other than not caring though.

badseed

Gender: Male

Age: 36

Location: FL

Nina Simone

I'm probably about to start pushing her up my year and decade charts. I need to re-do my top 100 primarily because she needs to be in it. One of those growers where I listened once just so I could put it on my charts, then I saw the documentary and now I'm enamored. Her highest album is currently #1429:

Pastel Blues by Nina Simone

But the more I listen, the more I realize she's one of the rare artists where you could pick a different favorite album every day of the week, possibly even for two weeks, and it wouldn't even seem that outlandish. What an amazing talent.

jhuik

BOSS

Gender: Male

Age: 60

Location: K-Dubz, just west of the 6ix, ON

Necharsian wrote:

There are other reasons to have a chart <100 other than not caring though.

If you're suggesting that people game the site (or what are you suggesting?), an algorithmn change like the one I suggested above would be the fix needed. Of course I don't really know what I'm talking about, though.

Another idea is that user charts count for more based on user's activity on the site (I can't be the first to suggest this but...) An idea of how to do this would be to break the site down into, say, top 1000 users (legitimately reasonably active people), then everyone else's charts don't count toward the overall rankings as much.
_________________
Top Canadian songs, keyless entry remotes, home care, whatever...

Satie

The problem is what is "activity?" There's a bunch of fucking ghosts who don't even have avatars or forum posts but have somehow garnered tens of thousands of points. I feel like if it made my chart weigh more on the overall ratings that I would spend a lot more time farming mod points than I do now.

jhuik

BOSS

Gender: Male

Age: 60

Location: K-Dubz, just west of the 6ix, ON

permafrost wrote:

The problem is what is "activity?" There's a bunch of fucking ghosts who don't even have avatars or forum posts but have somehow garnered tens of thousands of points. I feel like if it made my chart weigh more on the overall ratings that I would spend a lot more time farming mod points than I do now.

I may be wrong but I would think that the Top Members list is not easy to game. You're #186 as of right now because of mod points. Incidentally, then (or not, considering the context of this discussion), why are you such an active member and you can't come up with more than 22 best ever albums? That always drives me batty when I see that.
_________________
Top Canadian songs, keyless entry remotes, home care, whatever...

Satie

Well, if you had bothered reading the description of my chart, it's a work in progress. I really tire of seeing 100 albums thrown together without explanations of why, and in my case, it's doubly important to support my choices because everyone assumes that I'm being ~a contrarian~ or something for not having canon rock and pop on my chart as much as the next guy. Thus, I don't put a new album on there until I have a couple paragraphs written about it. The whole top 100 is roughly drafted up in a word doc, but I know that if I just throw it all on, I'll never gather the motivation to fill in the blanks with descriptions.

And I'm not saying it's "gaming the system" to have 30,000 mod points. That's obviously a huge amount of legwork that helps bolster the database. All I mean to say is that activity comes in different forms and that list of Top Overall Users averages it out decently, but if we're going to weigh activity for anything besides the little perks that come with levels, I think some people would be kind of irked to have their chart matter less despite being part of the active community on the forums when some guy is just completely shutting out the world and building up a huge database of stuff.

jhuik

BOSS

Gender: Male

Age: 60

Location: K-Dubz, just west of the 6ix, ON

Anyway, back on topic... I see this is a fruitful exercise and I see that I should actually split my chart up into several... There's a big difference in discussing established artists who are surprisingly absent vs. hipster and cool artists who don't rate.
_________________
Top Canadian songs, keyless entry remotes, home care, whatever...

Necharsian

Best Ever User

Gender: Male

jhuik wrote:

If you're suggesting that people game the site (or what are you suggesting?), an algorithmn change like the one I suggested above would be the fix needed. Of course I don't really know what I'm talking about, though.

No Im just saying that some people prefer smaller charts. Whenever I get around to completing my overall chart, I am likely sticking with a Top 50 rather than 100. No reason to bump the points lower if you ask me.

jhuik

BOSS

Gender: Male

Age: 60

Location: K-Dubz, just west of the 6ix, ON

Ha! I just don't understand that. To me the whole point of this site is to list your favourite albums and fill out your list as soon as you can. When I was stuck at the 40-only and/or 50-only charts I did all I could to get to level 4,. To each his own, as they say.
_________________
Top Canadian songs, keyless entry remotes, home care, whatever...