I guess I'll have to start rating individual tracks now... I've probably done fewer than 10 track ratings since I got here. 😨
Thanks for all the effort you're putting in, by the way! While it admittedly might take years of statistical analysis, creative programming and data collection, I remain confident that by the end of it all we'll be able top positively confirm that Go 2 by XTC was the best-ever album all along.
This is a cool idea. I like the idea of using track ratings to help rank albums.
But...a couple of things.
First of all: you're using average track ratings from albums. 8 of your top 10 albums all have 5 or fewer tracks. 11 of your top 20. So, the question must be asked: does your formula favor popular (on BEA) albums with fewer tracks? Are you considering the number of tracks per album in your calculations? The number of albums in your top 20 suggests that maybe the higher ranked albums with fewer tracks might have an unfair advantage.
Also. And I know this from having watched this site closely for more than a decade. There are a number of users on BEA. I don't know how many there are, but I know they exist in some kind of significant numbers. There are users here who will rate an album, say, a 4. And then. that same user will rate every track on the album a 4 as well. Why? Because it's quick and easy and it gets you points. It happens here, and I've been seeing it happen for years. Which begs the question...how accurate are track ratings? (You can look it up...my total number of ratings on BEA is 0.)
For me...the best way to accurately see which albums are the best is to take the album as a whole. Which also includes, how good are the individual tracks...but as a whole. I'm going to trust the ranking of an album based on its chart position...based on what users say it should be ranked at as a whole...over individual track ratings. I believe in track ratings. I really do. For individual reasons. But I also believe that it depends on who is doing the rating. Some guy who rates every track on the album the same is not doing any of us any favors. He's simply taking his album rating and multiplying it by 8 or 10.
So, for me, the ultimate test for where an album is ranked is just ONE. Where do you put it on your chart? That's what BEA is. That's WHY it exists. CHARTS. Track ratings are not going to give you a picture of what someone thinks of an album overall...but their chart will. I know that ratings are a part of what happens here. But I can't trust song ratings. What about the guy who loves a song and rates it a 100 and ignores the rest of the album because he never listened to it? There are probably thousands of albums here with only one or two songs rated, the rest have none. Song ratings are great for you yourself...but I would never consider an album great because it has one or 3 tracks that people think are great. And I know that several people rate all songs equally on albums, which makes it untrustworthy for me.
EXAMPLE: You have In Rainbows in your top 10. The top rated track is Reckoner at 93. The lowest rated is Faust Arp at 85. But what's really telling is that Reckoner has 1,283 ratings. Faust Arp has 914 ratings. That's a difference of 369 ratings.
... _________________ I'm leaning on the threshold
Of her mystery
And crashing through the walls
Of dying history
So, for me, the ultimate test for where an album is ranked is just ONE. Where do you put it on your chart? That's what BEA is. That's WHY it exists. CHARTS. Track ratings are not going to give you a picture of what someone thinks of an album overall...but their chart will. I know that ratings are a part of what happens here. But I can't trust song ratings. What about the guy who loves a song and rates it a 100 and ignores the rest of the album because he never listened to it? There are probably thousands of albums here with only one or two songs rated, the rest have none. Song ratings are great for you yourself...but I would never consider an album great because it has one or 3 tracks that people think are great. And I know that several people rate all songs equally on albums, which makes it untrustworthy for me.
Chart by average track rating is an interesting exercise (& thanks for raising it as a topic), but agree 100% with the above, plus the issue with skits etc highlighted in the original post, plus a shedload of other reasons why average track rating is fairly flawed as a general system for rating an album as a whole. (I'll look at making decimals more consistent across different pages - hadn't spotted that before (although rounded rating out of 100 is pretty granular already).
I do rate tracks. But I agree it is kind of silly, especially if the track ratings are used to judge the entire album. So Good Morning, Good Morning is considered to be the weakest track on Sgt. Pepper. And I agree, (just as A Day In The Life is rated the best one, and I would say it is something close to objective truth). On the other hand, would Sgt. Pepper be a better album if the had included Penny Lane or Strawberry instead of it? I do not think so. Great albums need weaker tracks to let the good ones shine even more. That is why Greatest Hits albums do (very often) not really work
There are albums though, where one weak track ruins the entire album. I can’t listen to Pet Sounds because of Sloop John B. _________________ When the stewardess is near do not show any fear.
To me, this is doing a different exercise than trying to find the best albums. Interesting to look through. Also Sloop John B slander will not be tolerated!
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
II
MadhattanJack
Romanelli
albummaster
Liedzeit
MrIrrelevant
