Non-Active Charts

[Guest]

I agree with Puncture completely. Wish their wasn't so much negativity towards his idea. I mean, what if once the person who hadn't logged in in a long time logged back in, their chart would count again? I think twelve months as Lethal proposed is a good cut-off date.

Also, samistake2ice, nobody said anything about their chart being deleted, just that it wouldn't count to the overall rankings.

[Goodsir]

[Precedent]

[Puncture Repair]

[Mdemauri]

As a newbie, I agree with this too. It should benefit the constant users of this site. I checked this site out for a couple months before creating an account, then waited a few more months before being pro-active. I think that users who keep more up to date charts would result in a more realistic overall chart. I know my chart is going to change after my first attempt and if I never came back to this site, why would I care if my chart counted or not?

[sp4cetiger]

I suppose an intermediate solution would be a chronological weighting system, where charts are given a certain amount of weight based on how recently they've been updated. This way you keep your entire sample of charts, but you favor the ones created by active and new users.

Using the customize feature, it looks like a one-year cutoff would roughly cut the sample in half and a six-month cutoff gives about one third the sample size. Although that leaves plenty of data for the top 10, the smaller sample will matter a great deal further down the chart.

[Romanelli]

I have to agree with AM on this one, and WAY beyond. I don't think that charts should be discounted just because they may be dated a bit, or even a lot (which, given the age of this site, none should qualify for that)...and I think 12 months, if there were to be a cutoff date, is MUCH to little. Also, would it really be fair to discount someones chart just because they haven't updated it? What's next...we're discounting your chart because the people who post on the message boards have decided that they don't like it? Or you? And what about the non user charts? The RS Best Albums Of The 80's chart is dated 1989. Do we automatically discredit that because it was made before most of the users on these forums were even born? If you take away the counting of user charts beyond a certain date, then don't you also have to take away counting of charts by major publications beyond that same date? I think not. I think that if someone comes here, makes a chart, and never comes back, their chart should count. Like it or not, that person has contributed to BEA by adding their opinion. I don't think it's right for us to say that his opinion "expires". And I think it's really wrong to say that your opinion counts only if you stay on the site and contribute regularly.

If this happens, I believe that the overall chart will be dictated by a very small handful of people. I will not support that.

This idea smacks of an elitist attitude. I think it's also, maybe not directly intentionally, a way of saying that the people who are here in the right here and right now should have all of the say.

What this sounds like to me is that we want the overall charts to reflect the opinions of those who spend the most time here. I think this may be the most wrong suggestion I have ever seen presented here, and if this were to be implemented, I would have serious concerns about the validity of the overall chart. This thread is saying that certain opinions that meet a designated guideline would be automatically disregarded, and I think that is really, really wrong...and I think it would lead to even more guidelines to narrow the field of whose opinions count.

If this is a vote...I say HELL no.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

[Guest]

You know, when you think about it, I suppose once you leave the site your legacy doesn't add to the chart. I find that to be a problem. Like, who wouldn't want joannajewsom's chart to count? That is actually a really big problem, in addition to what Romanelli said (though the argument that the next step is for the forum regulars to choose which charts count or whatever he said is kinda silly)

So, at first I was really really in agreement with Puncture, but Romanelli has swayed me the other way. Tricky tricky. Though...Puncture's idea would discourage saying the best albums of all time circa 1980 applies to the best albums of all time circa 2014. Discourages set-in-stone, canonical albums, which I think is what we ideally want to deconstruct so as to actually create a living breathing user-created list.

[martintho]

damn! forgot to log in and it's been 12 months. now i'll have to build my chart from scratch again. and i also forgot to fill in my lottery numbers. the world is hard on morons like myself. i guess gilbert o'sullivan wonders now why he suddenly declined so rad on the ranks. ok, now i'm silly. actually i once suggested something similar to this (thread), but now i'm mor into Romanelli's view. we have the customize-ability for the purpose of seeing charts from different perspectives. and if this is really about having greater albums than Revolver and OK Computer up there, well...i have news for you mr P; ther ain't no greater albums out there, period. and why is charts made by members who constantly change their minds any better than those from the persistant ones?

[Guest]