Chart points for small charts - Suggestions

eclab Newsomite/Morrisonian Profile

I assume this question has been asked before, but why on earth do 1 album charts count for 100 points for the only album? I think it says a lot more about the quality of an album if someone who has come up with a top 100 chart places it at the top. I don't get why someone who casually joins the site, adds their favourite album, and never shows up again, should cause 100 points to go that album.

I think the top album on a chart should get as many points as there are albums on that chart. Am I wrong?

JMan

I second this opinion. But wouldn't it take a lot of rearranging of the top album statistics?

Well, I'm up for anything as long as OK Computer isn't number 1.

Cymro2011 The Beatles were objectively average Profile
In a deep, dark bubblegum graveyard

JMan wrote:

I second this opinion. But wouldn't it take a lot of rearranging of the top album statistics?

Well, I'm up for anything as long as OK Computer isn't number 1.

thirded.

MrFrogger Where am I Profile
Oakland

Yea, that sounds pretty good

Defago Your Most Favorite User Profile
Lima

Another cool thing to implement would be to consider only chart which have been recently updated (6 months, 1 year?). There are a lot of charts which were created years ago and the user left after creating it and never updated it, and they still contribute to the overall.

moojakptorei

How about instead of this:
"Rank score = ((n - (r - 1)) ÷ n) × w

where:
w = Chart weight (Overall charts: 100, Decade charts: 20*, Year charts: 5*, Custom charts: 0).
n = Total number of entries in the chart.
r = Album's rank within the chart."

We have:

Rank Score = ((n - (r - 1)) ÷ n) × w - (r/n+1 x w)

Therefore an album with a rank of 1 in a chart of one entry would get 50.
If the chart had 3 entries then #1 would get 75, #2 would get 50 and #3 would get 25.
Number 1 in a chart of 9 would get 90.
Basically, the more entries you have, the closer the rank score of the top entry gets to 100.

Behrus58 Profile

isn't it better to effect the level of the user too ?

U know someone who is level 7 knows a lot more albums that other's do. So the ratings are closer to what the reality is !

Anyway ! just a suggestion

moojakptorei

Behrus58 wrote:

isn't it better to effect the level of the user too ?

U know someone who is level 7 knows a lot more albums that other's do. So the ratings are closer to what the reality is !

Anyway ! just a suggestion

No, I think everyone's opinion should be equal as music is all subjective anyway.

useless

Behrus58 wrote:

isn't it better to effect the level of the user too ?

U know someone who is level 7 knows a lot more albums that other's do. So the ratings are closer to what the reality is !

Anyway ! just a suggestion

That is not absolute. Somebody who is Level 7 could achieve that from posting a lot in the forums or doing a lot of moderation stuff.

Mother Nature's Son Profile

Defago wrote:

Another cool thing to implement would be to consider only chart which have been recently updated (6 months, 1 year?). There are a lot of charts which were created years ago and the user left after creating it and never updated it, and they still contribute to the overall.

I'm much more into this than the original suggestion.
_________________
"The Beatles, the greatest band known to mankind." - Bismah Mughal