[Toto456]

I Need a top 200 at least, isn't enough for me, i listen so much music and a top 100 for me is nothing.

What do you think?

[SquishypuffDave]

Custom charts solve this fine for me. I also like being forced to be selective. Makes the chart feel like a showcase rather than just a personal database. Art is the frame, so they say.

[Applerill]

[19loveless91]

[Puncture Repair]

Honestly I'm of the opinion 100 is too many, as least for most people, including me. I've currently rated just over 1,000 albums, so my top 100 represents about a 10th of all the music I've heard - that's high. Can I really say 10% of all the albums I've heard I believe should be in a list of my absolute favourites? For those who have heard even fewer albums, that percentage is even higher.

A number of people here have heard maybe five times the number of albums I have, and even then can you have 100 favourites? A chart like the Rolling Stones top 500 I feel is justified because it represents a body of people, not just one person. A chart should be something that's really quite personal and selected, it shouldn't start listing your 7/10 albums three quarters of the way down. There's a large number of charts here that have given up writing notes on their albums maybe half-way down because they're not passionate enough to find the time.

Also I'm willing to bet so few people actually look down someone's entire chart, especially considering the number of charts on the site. Everyone is far more interested in the top ten, top twenty choices of a user, and then maybe if they're interest is piqued they might start going further. Someone would really have to admire a user's opinion to begin scrolling down a list of 300 albums, noting each one.

And that's what a chart is for the most part - a public announcement of your favourite albums. As soon as you start listing beyond that, I feel like it becomes a personal mission rather than something you're expecting the world to find the time and read. So if it is for personal reasons, I can't relate to someone who would want to deliberate over the quality of their 314th and their 313th album, which when you're that far down a list, seems pretty arbitrary.

[craola]

i think 100 is perfect. it's a nice, rounded-off sort of number.
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.

[Necharsian]

I kind of agree with Puncture, though I think for a bit different reasons.

I'm in the glacier-slow process of making my chart, and I will be whittling it down to 50. Not because I can't make it 100 (I definitely have 100 albums that I love), but just because I prefer it to be more condensed. I like the look of a smaller overall chart, and I think it's really made me think a lot more of what I want to put on it. Leaving albums off is difficult but necessary. I've been deleting and adding the same albums for months in an effort to figure out if they really should be there.

The ranking of albums on my chart is fairly loose, and in honesty I think I just move albums around based on how that page of 10 looks to me. Rather than "album 43 is a smidge better than 44" it's more like "this looks right at 43".

And yeah I wouldn't want charts to be over 100. As Dave said, custom and decade charts help this in a less daunting way.

[CA Dreamin]

I can understand the users who've listened to thousands of albums wanting to stretch their overall chart to 200 or 250. But like Puncture says, that is a lot for another user to scroll through, and custom lists solve that dilemma. And getting the necessary points shouldn't be a problem. If you've listened to and rated that many albums, getting to 5,000 points should be easy.

I think 100 is cool for overall, decade, and custom lists. However, I think it's too many for year lists.

[alelsupreme]

This has just made me realise my "favs" (including my "just outside top 100" list) comprise a sixth of all the albums I've ever heard 🫢
_________________

Romanelli wrote:

We're all fucked, lads.

[Lowkey]

i wouldn't mind the chart size taking viagra, but i'm cool with 100.