Although the current algorithm works for calculating more accurate year charts, I'm not sure I'm all for the idea of holding possible top 1000 entries from entering for a whole year. As in, I'd much rather see the effect on the overall chart than year specific ones, though I can't speak for others.
What's everyone else's perspective on this?
E: I realise I didn't really explain myself well. I mean that for 2015 albums, points are only given from decade and year charts and not overalls, meaning that 2015 albums have a small effect on the overall _________________
EDIT: Meaning I prefer the current method, in case there was any confusion. _________________ 2021 in full effect. Come drop me some recs. Y'all know what I like.
Last edited by Skinny on 03/22/2015 21:50; edited 1 time in total
I prefer the new system to the old one, but I'd most prefer separate point counts for each type of chart (overall, decade, year). That way there'd be no more need for arbitrary scaling factors (like overall entries being worth 5 x decade charts) or arbitrary time cutoffs (like this one, where albums from the past year not counting when they're on overall charts).
Not entirely. I'm unhappy with the overall chart system, because I can't imagine many people "abusing" the system with overall charts. If overall charts gave a small amount of points based on the time of year it is, I'd be happy with that. But giving no points doesn't seem right. Still, it's not my algorithm, and I really don't have any reason to complain. All I want to see is the charts improve, and it's still too early in the year for one chart to decide the system with an overall.
as i have stated earlier, where i threw in an example of the minor damages of the old way, i'm against it and here's an example: susanne sundfor's latest is currently holding a #9 position on the 2015. then you click on susanne sundfor to check out her catalog and find that her new album is the least popular of hers and THEN you scroll down to check her best songs according to the contributors of bea and find not to your surprise if you are familiar with the suspect-the-worst-algorhythm that the four "best" songs are from the "worst" LP. this might to say the least appear somewhat curious and unserious for the random visitor of this wonderful site.
Things much better this way. If the hottest album of the moment is still hot next year, it'll deserve it's place (in the same way as everything else). The overall chart has to take a longer term view of things.
martintho wrote:
as i have stated earlier, where i threw in an example of the minor damages of the old way, i'm against it and here's an example: susanne sundfor's latest is currently holding a #9 position on the 2015. then you click on susanne sundfor to check out her catalog and find that her new album is the least popular of hers and THEN you scroll down to check her best songs according to the contributors of bea and find not to your surprise if you are familiar with the suspect-the-worst-algorhythm that the four "best" songs are from the "worst" LP. this might to say the least appear somewhat curious and unserious for the random visitor of this wonderful site.
You could sort the bestography by average rating and things would look more consistent but the issue you are highlighting only affects albums from the current year.
...I'd most prefer separate point counts for each type of chart (overall, decade, year). That way there'd be no more need for arbitrary scaling factors (like overall entries being worth 5 x decade charts) or arbitrary time cutoffs (like this one, where albums from the past year not counting when they're on overall charts).
I like this solution quite a bit, actually. _________________ follow me on the bandcamp.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
SuedeSwede
Skinny
Patman360
Norman Bates
albummaster
craola
