best ever albums or coolest ever albums - Suggestions

Guest

Yes very interesting in top 1 album of this site there's one Radiohead album and that's 100%.

Guest

Jhereko wrote:

It's an anti-fanboy measure which is a great thing in my book.

This.

I fanboy as much as I want all over the forums (*cough* Ghostface *cough* Flaming Lips *cough* Dylan *cough* Blu *cough* Roc Marci *cough* Prince *cough*), but as someone who finds looking at a chart with ten albums by the same artist really quite boring - not to detract from the honesty of those charts, but rather the entertainment I take in reading them - why would I want to fill my chart up with numerous albums by a select group of artists? I love hundreds and hundreds of albums, and below about #40 on my chart it's all a pretty arbitrary game of pot-luck depending on how I feel on any given day. If I can't even make my mind up on which albums deserve to be there, I figure I may as well restrict it to one album per artist so that at least everyone reading it isn't sitting there going, "Christ, did he really need a seventh Ghostface Killah album on that list?". It's not as though I think there's a great deal of difference in quality between my third favourite Flaming Lips album and an album I love by a band I'm not so keen on. I don't like reading fanboy charts, and this gentle push away from said fanboyism (and I think it's important to remember that it is only a mild-mannered suggestion) is only trying to curb such behaviour. Just look at TrekkiELO's chart and tell me that makes for fun reading. It might be his honest assessment, but I don't think a little pop-up that says "hang about mate, you do realise that you've only got ELO albums on this chart right?" really does any damage. You can choose to ignore it (as the aforementioned TrekkiELO obviously did). Variety is the spice of life, my friends. The pop-up doesn't read "NOT HIPSTER ENOUGH! ABORT! ABORT!", so why it bothers anyone is quite beyond me. However you choose to make your chart, feel free. If you want to be totally honest and include every Beatles album because you think they deserve to be there, so be it - I'll find it a bit boring, but that should be of little concern to you. If you want to fill your chart with lesser-known gems that you think others might stumble across and learn to love as you have then do that. There is no right or wrong way (except RFNAPLES' bizarre objective way), and as albummaster said the message was simply to discourage people from making certain types of charts that skew the ratings. Long story short, I'm all for that. Apologies for tl;dr.

paladisiac
= music

Gender: Male
Location: Denver

Romanelli wrote:

To me, this is no worse than going to a chart and seeing "One album per artist. I do this to allow for more diversity". I don't care about how diverse you can show me you are...I want you to honestly tell me what you think the 100 best albums of all time are. .

i agree. No message is going to change the fact i heart genesis or whoever else.
_________________
fav artists NOW | ALL-TIME favs | i listen 2 more music than u so u don't have 2!

Wombi

here's a couple of extreme examples

http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=1910
http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=7299

and I mean not only is it pointless and boring, it affects all the charts (especially the year ones) because anything on a main chart gives a decent score to the albums on there.

Personally, I would go further than just that message and make any main chart that contains more than 10% of any artist null and void to the rankings. Just my opinion but if you have to have 5 or more albums from the same artist on your chart...you're probably not listening to enough music. Even my favourite artist who has about 16 valid albums...the most I've had on any of my main chart's is 2.

albummaster
Janitor

Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin

I was thinking a way to reduce the impact of these types of chart would be to somehow take into account a chart's rating when calculating the points awarded for each chart entry. Lower rated charts, such as these, would then not have such an effect on the scores.

Evandar

Jhereko wrote:

here's a couple of extreme examples

http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=1910
http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=7299

and I mean not only is it pointless and boring, it affects all the charts (especially the year ones) because anything on a main chart gives a decent score to the albums on there.

Personally, I would go further than just that message and make any main chart that contains more than 10% of any artist null and void to the rankings. Just my opinion but if you have to have 5 or more albums from the same artist on your chart...you're probably not listening to enough music. Even my favourite artist who has about 16 valid albums...the most I've had on any of my main chart's is 2.

Those example are ridiculous indeed. I have to object to the bolded part, though. I think I have like 16 Bob Dylan albums in my top 100, yet I'm sure I've listened to a 4-digit number of albums throughout my lifetime. Not my fault Dylan is so far above most other artists. :p

gtroda

I like the idea of weeding out the extreme charts, but I'm not crazy about using ratings to do it. Then it just becomes another popularity contest to make your chart reflect what you think others will like. People can rate charts low because they don't like certain albums or as a way to get their album over the next one or something. I think it would limit diversity in charts rather than encourage it.

Most of the extreme charts that I've seen tend to be someone who shows up, creates one chart, and disappears. What if accounts with no activity in the past 18 months get frozen and their charts don't count for the ratings any more?

Or what if Level 1 users' charts don't count for the overall rating? You must obtain Level 2 in order for your chart to count.

Defago
Your Most Favorite User

Gender: Male
Age: 31
Location: Lima

gtroda wrote:

Most of the extreme charts that I've seen tend to be someone who shows up, creates one chart, and disappears. What if accounts with no activity in the past 18 months get frozen and their charts don't count for the ratings any more?

Or what if Level 1 users' charts don't count for the overall rating? You must obtain Level 2 in order for your chart to count.

This. Only maybe 18 months is too long, perhaps 6 months would be enough. As soon as you pop back in, your chart unfreezes once again.

albummaster
Janitor

Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin

The problem with freezing/unfreezing charts after a certain time period is that people come and go from the site for all sorts of reasons, and this would blanket remove all charts (the more valid charts as well), so it doesn't fully achieve what we are setting out to do.

I think the majority of these types of chart are submitted by new users, so I quite like gtroda's idea of Level 1 charts not contributing, although I'd prefer to change this to Level 1 & 2 (as Level 2 can be reached by submitting your first chart).

Puncture Repair

albummaster wrote:

The problem with freezing/unfreezing charts after a certain time period is that people come and go from the site for all sorts of reasons, and this would blanket remove all charts (the more valid charts as well), so it doesn't fully achieve what we are setting out to do.

I think the majority of these types of chart are submitted by new users, so I quite like gtroda's idea of Level 1 charts not contributing, although I'd prefer to change this to Level 1 & 2 (as Level 2 can be reached by submitting your first chart).

That's a good call, getting users to contribute something worthwhile outside their chart before they can be considered.

Would this stop people signing up though? I know I first made my chart because I wanted to add the site, I'm not sure I would have been as inclined if I knew I had to work for it.

Ultimately this site is better off being pluralist.