Year charts

Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
19loveless91
mag. druž. inf

Slovenia
  • View user's profile
  • #11
  • Posted: 03/27/2012 05:40
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
20 when you get to the high enough level, 40-50 when you get to the next level?

10 is useless, even if it would be enough for me currently, because if you have 100 entries for a decade chart and you fill out that one, then you only repeat the albums in the year charts.

If you're afraid of people flooding the database, maybe you could put some rule that people have to edit the data of the albums, at least the most basic ones (album cover, year of release) they added, not necessarily all of them, but like, I don't know, at least one third of them.
Now I don't know how to enforce a rule like that (maybe you don't let the chart to be submitted until they do it) but I think it would be a fair one.
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male

Location: Spain

Site Admin
  • View user's profile
  • #12
  • Posted: 03/27/2012 07:08
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
My own feeling about 50 is that it will lead to too many average albums being added to the site, and it will be difficult to keep on top of the data. Enforcing a data entry requirement on new additions would annoy some people, I suspect.

Looking across the internet at end of year album lists, the common chart size does seem to be 50, but are entries 21 onwards 'must-have' albums, or just 'filler'? How difficult would it be to leave these albums out? Would BEA suffer by not having them? (bearing in mind they might also appear in a decade chart)

These are some 2011 best album charts that came top on Google when I did a quick search:

Rolling Stone: (21st: Bon Iver - Bon Iver, 50th: The Lonely Island - Turtleneck & Chain)
NME: (21st: Kasabian - Velociraptor!, 50th: Jay-Z & Kanye West - Watch The Throne)
Pitchfork: (21st: Jay-Z / Kanye West - Watch the Throne, 50th: Youth Lagoon - The Year of Hibernation)
SPIN: (21st: Stalley - Lincoln Way Nights, 50th: Britney Spears - Femme Fatale)

The only albums not on BEA already are those SPIN albums. Does BEA need the full discography of Britney Spears?
19loveless91
mag. druž. inf

Slovenia
  • View user's profile
  • #13
  • Posted: 03/27/2012 10:02
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
It depends on a person really. I don't need to have a 100 entries for a decade chart, because I haven't listened to that many albums in my life. So my 2000s decade chart includes 50 entries, all albums that I really like. If I wanted to do even a top 70 albums for that decade, I would already have to include albums that I generally don't care too much about. On the other hand you have someone like Jhereko, who obviously listens to a lot of albums and was able to make a top 50 chart for 2010 last year and still say that he missed some good ones.
Bottom line is, I doubt there will be many people that will decide to use all entries, even if they don't exactly like all of the albums they will include. And if there are some like that, there's a good chance they will do the same now with the decade charts, too (especially on the 1950s and 1960s charts)

Also, I don't think that enforcing a rule, where somebody would have to entry the data for at least some of the newly added albums is that bad, especially if we're just talking about the album cover and year of release. I mean what does it say about that particular person if (s)he won't even do that.
Just a side note here, RYM is even stricter here, I know I had to edit all of the data for an artist and an album if I wanted to add it, + I think somebody has to approve/confirm it afterwards. A lot more annoying if you ask me...
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male

Location: Spain

Site Admin
  • View user's profile
  • #14
  • Posted: 03/27/2012 12:25
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
The counter argument is that, even without year charts right now, out of those charts that I Googled, only a Britney Spears album is missing from BEA. Apologies to Britney Spears (and her fans), but I don't think BEA is worse off because of it. We would be opening the floodgates to albums of that ilk by allowing 50 albums per year. I think 100 albums per decade is much more justifiable because there are always going to be 100 decent albums in a ten year period (even in the '80s!).

On the data maintenance side of things, right now BEA has a track listing and artwork for just about every album on the site. I really don't think we (as a group) would be able to maintain that coverage if we had 50 albums per year, and I've got a real OCD problem when I see tracklistings and artwork missing here, I just hate seeing things missing/wrong! Anxious I wouldn't want to compel people to add their own data because then people do things reluctantly, and the quality suffers as a result, and people might not pick their first choices if they have to add the data themselves.
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male

Age: 76

Location: Durham, NC, USA
United States
  • View user's profile
  • #15
  • Posted: 03/27/2012 13:03
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
I just checked all my decade charts and the largest single years had only 18 albums each (1957, 1968, and 1969). At this point I don't see the need for year charts since you can easily see those choices by drilling. Looks like the only thing year charts would do for me is add points to the album selections rank score and waste time and band width.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES
Romanelli
Bone Swah
Gender: Male

Location: Broomfield, Colorado
United States

Moderator
  • View user's profile
  • #16
  • Posted: 03/27/2012 13:05
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
What if you limited year charts to 20, and allowed the most recent year ended (in this case 2011) to be 50? At the end of 2012, you reduce all of the 2011 charts to 20 and allow the 2012 charts to be 50, then do the same thing a year later?

That way, the year charts aren't too big, and people can do a top 50 for the most recent year if they want to. But make it count because at years end, 30 are going away.
19loveless91
mag. druž. inf

Slovenia
  • View user's profile
  • #17
  • Posted: 03/27/2012 13:21
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
I'm talking about one person's POV. I doubt I even heard 100 1980s albums so far, but even if I did, there would be no use of putting them all in the chart, because plenty of those albums would have no real appeal for me. Of course that doesn't mean that there aren't a hundred great albums from that decade, and you know that there are certain users already here, that would have trouble trimming their selection down to just one hundred. And yes, there are far less people who have listened to that many albums, but I really do think that there aren't that many of those that would still try to fill out the complete chart, no matter what they think of the albums they put on the chart.

One more thing: what level would you have to be to be allowed to post a year chart? As I said at first, maybe initially you would allow only a 20 album year chart (but definitely not 10), and then maybe expand that to 40 when a member reaches a higher level. Maybe not the best idea, but it sure does limit the number of people that would be able to "flood the system". + it's those, highest ranking members, that have earned the most points for data moderation.

Anyway, that's my opinion on this, I'm not even advocating my interests here (cause as I said, I don't listen to that many albums and would have no problem even with 10-20 albums option), so if somebody else has something to say about this it would be nice.
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male

Location: Spain

Site Admin
  • View user's profile
  • #18
  • Posted: 03/27/2012 13:29
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
RFNAPLES wrote:
I just checked all my decade charts and the largest single years had only 18 albums each (1957, 1968, and 1969). At this point I don't see the need for year charts since you can easily see those choices by drilling. Looks like the only thing year charts would do for me is add points to the album selections rank score and waste time and band width.

Some people want them, and some people don't. It has been asked for in the past, and people are always wanting to add a chart for the current year. Regards a waste of time, you could say the same about spending *any* time on the internet, surfing is just a leisure activity for a lot of people, and I guess this is a leisure site where people come to waste their time Wink I think year charts will add something more to the site, and people can always choose not to make them, and/or not to look at them.

Romanelli wrote:
What if you limited year charts to 20, and allowed the most recent year ended (in this case 2011) to be 50? At the end of 2012, you reduce all of the 2011 charts to 20 and allow the 2012 charts to be 50, then do the same thing a year later?

That way, the year charts aren't too big, and people can do a top 50 for the most recent year if they want to. But make it count because at years end, 30 are going away.

Think That still leaves the issue of adding all the album details for a lot more albums (probably). I don't know if I'm being talked into this, but maybe we could start off with 50 and see how it goes since there seems to be more people who want this than don't. If it becomes unmanageable, it could be culled back to 20. I remember being a bit concerned when decade charts were added, but it's actually turned out okay. The average size of a decade chart right now is slightly under 50 entries (nowhere near 100). The same thing would probably happen with year charts (I hope!), so the average size might end up being half of that (i.e. about 25).
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male

Location: Spain

Site Admin
  • View user's profile
  • #19
  • Posted: 03/27/2012 14:13
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
19loveless91 wrote:
there aren't that many of those that would still try to fill out the complete chart, no matter what they think of the albums they put on the chart.

agree, for most people that is true.

19loveless91 wrote:
One more thing: what level would you have to be to be allowed to post a year chart? As I said at first, maybe initially you would allow only a 20 album year chart (but definitely not 10), and then maybe expand that to 40 when a member reaches a higher level. Maybe not the best idea, but it sure does limit the number of people that would be able to "flood the system". + it's those, highest ranking members, that have earned the most points for data moderation.

Level 6, and you're right, I'd overlooked your last point so I guess it's less of an issue really.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2


 

Jump to:  
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


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
The “Year Charts” section of the ... Jameth Suggestions
Year Charts Repo Suggestions
Overall, decade and year charts follo... Shadow23 Suggestions
[ Poll ] Suggestion about year charts. Smithy98 Music
End of year charts 2012 GeevyDallas Music

 
Back to Top