10th Place for The White Album (By The Beatles) - Music

Puncture Repair

StreetSpirit wrote:

At first, I didn't like this idea because it's too elitist. But on the other hand, it may give users more incentive to contribute to the site, make the site better, and make the overall chart better. But I don't know. If implemented, it could really backfire. But I do know if the White Album leaves the Top 10, I'll be one of the first ones applauding. It's good, but it's one of the most overrated albums of all time.

Honestly I think it would have the opposite effect. The main incentive to sign up to BEA is to have an equal contribution to the overall chart - make your own little mark. If I learnt that I'd have to commit even further, I probably would have abandoned the site long ago, the idea that my opinion on popular music is somehow less valid because I haven't committed my time to a website I created an account on abritarily would turn me off. Even the idea that my posts on the forum were probably overlooked because I didn't have 1k posts made me hesistant to start using the forums - people want to immediatly make that mark, not spend time rising to the top. Being able to expand your chart and create decade/year charts is a great incentive that gives just a small power perk to those who are really dedicated, without making things elitist, I don't think we need any more than that.

craola
crayon master

Location: pdx

Puncture Repair wrote:

Honestly I think it would have the opposite effect. The main incentive to sign up to BEA is to have an equal contribution to the overall chart - make your own little mark. If I learnt that I'd have to commit even further, I probably would have abandoned the site long ago, the idea that my opinion on popular music is somehow less valid because I haven't committed my time to a website I created an account on abritarily would turn me off. Even the idea that my posts on the forum were probably overlooked because I didn't have 1k posts made me hesistant to start using the forums - people want to immediatly make that mark, not spend time rising to the top. Being able to expand your chart and create decade/year charts is a great incentive that gives just a small power perk to those who are really dedicated, without making things elitist, I don't think we need any more than that.

All totally valid.

Personally, I could throw my stones at either shore. On the one hand, the list we have is pretty boring and predictable. This is coming from someone who has listened to just about everything in the top-100 though. Having said that, nearly all of them are good albums. They may be a far cry from my own ideals, but they're good nonetheless.

On the other hand, if I were a new user to this site and saw a handful of strong albums I had never heard before, I would have some incentive to discover new music. If the greatest albums list was weighted, I'd keep it relatively small. Say for every 1000 points a user accumulates, the weight of their picks is worth 5% or 10% more. That way, those who contribute less still have a voice and a valid opinion, but those most invested in this site get a little more say. I suppose that's a little elitist...and I hate that side of the coin. But I think it's more in the spirit of servicing the people who frequent the site, you know? What's the point if some passerby loves seeing all The Beatles in the top hundred if they never come back?

In the end, the list is what it is. It's just a list, and I hardly ever look at it. I spend more time looking at individual charts and custom charts.
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

albummaster wrote:

I think the problem is that people are probably looking at the existing chart for ideas (or as a reference) when creating their own which is possibly causing some albums to be over-picked.

Haha, not me. I wasn't at all influenced by the overall chart. I've kept a Top Albums list for a few years as a text document. Then I joined BEA, and simply plugged my list in. I really hope other BEA users aren't too influenced by the overall. Because that would be extremely dishonest if people faked their charts just because they feel certain albums are too highly or lowly ranked on the overall. Then again, an individual has only teeny tiny effect on it. However, we've read craola's controversial idea on that...
_________________
on such a winter's day

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Puncture Repair wrote:

Honestly I think it would have the opposite effect. The main incentive to sign up to BEA is to have an equal contribution to the overall chart - make your own little mark. If I learnt that I'd have to commit even further, I probably would have abandoned the site long ago, the idea that my opinion on popular music is somehow less valid because I haven't committed my time to a website I created an account on abritarily would turn me off. Even the idea that my posts on the forum were probably overlooked because I didn't have 1k posts made me hesistant to start using the forums - people want to immediatly make that mark, not spend time rising to the top. Being able to expand your chart and create decade/year charts is a great incentive that gives just a small power perk to those who are really dedicated, without making things elitist, I don't think we need any more than that.

craola wrote:

All totally valid.

Personally, I could throw my stones at either shore. On the one hand, the list we have is pretty boring and predictable. This is coming from someone who has listened to just about everything in the top-100 though. Having said that, nearly all of them are good albums. They may be a far cry from my own ideals, but they're good nonetheless.

On the other hand, if I were a new user to this site and saw a handful of strong albums I had never heard before, I would have some incentive to discover new music. If the greatest albums list was weighted, I'd keep it relatively small. Say for every 1000 points a user accumulates, the weight of their picks is worth 5% or 10% more. That way, those who contribute less still have a voice and a valid opinion, but those most invested in this site get a little more say. I suppose that's a little elitist...and I hate that side of the coin. But I think it's more in the spirit of servicing the people who frequent the site, you know? What's the point if some passerby loves seeing all The Beatles in the top hundred if they never come back?

In the end, the list is what it is. It's just a list, and I hardly ever look at it. I spend more time looking at individual charts and custom charts.

I like how this thread went from the White Album to 'Should BEA be a hierarchy?' But I'm like you, craola. I rarely look at the overall chart. And I spend most of my time on here looking at individual charts and artist's pages.

It's totally hypothetical, but if the more dedicated users carried more weight, it should be very small, and based on level and not points because a select few users have over 50,000 points. But it's up to the people who run the site, and it's probably never gonna happen. However, I'd like to know how the very top users (the Level 8 users) feel on the issue. They've listened to way more music than most users, and they've put a lot of time and effort into the site (modifying it, contributing to forums, etc.). And they did so because they care. And yet their charts carry the same weight as the Joe Schmos who created an account, submitted a chart, and never logged on again.
_________________
on such a winter's day

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

StreetSpirit wrote:

However, I'd like to know how the very top users (the Level 8 users) feel on the issue. They've listened to way more music than most users, and they've put a lot of time and effort into the site (modifying it, contributing to forums, etc.). And they did so because they care. And yet their charts carry the same weight as the Joe Schmos who created an account, submitted a chart, and never logged on again.

I feel that in no way whatsoever should any one users chart ever carry more weight, have more meaning, and weigh the overall more than any one else's chart. It's bad enough that the list of the top charts on site are about 99% exclusively the ones made by those who happen to frequent the forums...if you made the top user charts matter more than others, this place would go completely to hell faster than you could say In The Aeroplane Over The Sea.

Absolutely no to any part of this suggestion at all.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

sp4cetiger

StreetSpirit wrote:

It's totally hypothetical, but if the more dedicated users carried more weight, it should be very small, and based on level and not points because a select few users have over 50,000 points. But it's up to the people who run the site, and it's probably never gonna happen. However, I'd like to know how the very top users (the Level 8 users) feel on the issue. They've listened to way more music than most users, and they've put a lot of time and effort into the site (modifying it, contributing to forums, etc.). And they did so because they care. And yet their charts carry the same weight as the Joe Schmos who created an account, submitted a chart, and never logged on again.

I like the current system, just because it makes the overall chart easy to interpret and uses the maximum amount of data; that is, it's just the favorites of the entire BEA userbase. The chart is terrible music-wise... at least compared to most recognized charts. But it's simple, and it emphasizes individual charting, the site's primary feature.

If you're interested in getting recs from high-level users, you can use the customization feature, btw (I strongly encourage this for newcomers).

RepoMan

Romanelli wrote:

I feel that in no way whatsoever should any one users chart ever carry more weight, have more meaning, and weigh the overall more than any one else's chart. It's bad enough that the list of the top charts on site are about 99% exclusively the ones made by those who happen to frequent the forums...if you made the top user charts matter more than others, this place would go completely to hell faster than you could say In The Aeroplane Over The Sea.

Absolutely no to any part of this suggestion at all.

so glad I'm drinking again. Very Happy

tonight I'm enjoying a nice Gumballhead from Munster, IN.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

StreetSpirit wrote:

However, I'd like to know how the very top users (the Level 8 users) feel on the issue. They've listened to way more music than most users, and they've put a lot of time and effort into the site (modifying it, contributing to forums, etc.). And they did so because they care. And yet their charts carry the same weight as the Joe Schmos who created an account, submitted a chart, and never logged on again.

Romanelli wrote:

I feel that in no way whatsoever should any one users chart ever carry more weight, have more meaning, and weigh the overall more than any one else's chart. It's bad enough that the list of the top charts on site are about 99% exclusively the ones made by those who happen to frequent the forums...if you made the top user charts matter more than others, this place would go completely to hell faster than you could say In The Aeroplane Over The Sea.

Absolutely no to any part of this suggestion at all.

That's honorable of you to say that. But nobody was suggesting it. Craola, myself, and a few others were merely speculating 'What if?' But I don't know if the other Level 8 users would agree. If I were Level 8, I might feel differently. But I'm not. I'm Level 5 and I'm fine with it. It would take me years to get to 8. Wait, how did we get on this subject? I thought this thread was about the White Album, which was why I clicked on it. Has it left the Top 10 yet?
_________________
on such a winter's day