|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
|
- #231
- Posted: 04/29/2010 13:49
- Post subject: Re: Two lists I have always wanted to add
|
| RFNAPLES wrote: | | That chart imposed a ten-year rule—nothing on the list was recorded after 1992, which the author thought was a pretty good cut-off point since a decade seemed to be a pretty fair statute for immortality (which he realized was kind of a Cooperstown approach to the whole thing). |
yes, good spot. we'll leave that one then (all charts need to have the same underlying basis to be comparable, that's why the criteria exist). actually, this chart has been suggested before by californication, but I'd forgotten (it was a while ago) - http://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/vi...mp;start=0
RE: spell-checker - happy to investigate but, tbh, quite happy without one. I'll see how easy it is to add but since we are all in different parts of the world, a one size fits all approach might not work too well (american v english spellings, lots of band/album names which won't appear in dictionaries, slang, abbreviations etc). a dictionary might not be very effective (and could end up being annoying).
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Charicature
Age: 49
Location: Vermont
|
- #232
- Posted: 04/29/2010 15:51
- Post subject: Re: Two lists I have always wanted to add
|
| albummaster wrote: | | RE: spell-checker - happy to investigate but, tbh, quite happy without one. I'll see how easy it is to add but since we are all in different parts of the world, a one size fits all approach might not work too well (american v english spellings, lots of band/album names which won't appear in dictionaries, slang, abbreviations etc). a dictionary might not be very effective (and could end up being annoying). |
Yeah, I'd be against it. I'm American, but I have a habit of using the English spelling on words like colour and honour. Not always, but often enough. Automatic spell checkers always call me on it and don't understand I WANT to spell the words that way.
_________________
<(: @  >
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
- #233
- Posted: 04/29/2010 18:37
- Post subject:
|
I see the spelling checker as completely optional. Use it only when you want, don't really care whose English you use. You wouldn't want the spell checker to run in the background just on demand, either optionally for any highlighted word/s or for the entire post. It would not be infallible but it could help some of us look at little more professional if desired.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
- #239
- Posted: 05/23/2010 09:32
- Post subject:
|
Noticed that the Virgin chart is not shown as a recognized chart yet (see customize overall chart). Also questioning the authenticity of the 2000 chart (vs. the 1998). Perhaps it shouldn't be recognized after all--2000 paperback cover doesn't bare Virgin trademark and is out-of-print while the 1998 book is still in print.
Question on recognized charts. By definition they must be all-time charts without genre qualifiers. I believe some charts were excluded because they eliminated some recent years. What is the difference between a chart published in 2010 showing the greatest albums from 1950 to 2000 and an all-time chart published in 2000? They both eliminate the last 10 years; one by publication date, the other by design.
This also begs the question, how long should a chart be "recognized?" We have already eliminated the older versions of the Q chart but how current should the recognized charts be? For instance, MOJO chart was published in 1995. Surely not too current and missing at least the last 15 years producing a bias towards the older "classics."
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
albummaster
Janitor
Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin
|
- #240
- Posted: 05/23/2010 14:32
- Post subject:
|
No, it doesn't show on that page yet but it will do as soon as the stats have been refreshed.
We chose the 2000 version because it was the latest available chart by that source (no logo, but contains the word 'Virgin' in the title and was published by Virgin Books). I didn't realize it was out of print, but so is the magazine Melody Maker which also has a chart on this site.
When the site started in 2005, we seeded the intial data from a number of sources and Mojo was one of them. There are only three charts on here compiled before the year 2000 (Guardian, Mojo & Q), but there are over 1,500 member charts compiled after 2005.
The reason the Q charts only have one scoring version is that each BEA member gets one vote. Rather like a member revising their own chart multiple times, the older Q version is replaced by their newset selections.
Yes, there is undoubtedly an age bias because the longer the site exists, older albums will gain more and more votes making it more difficult for a newer album to break through (although In Rainbows and others have done so despite this). On the other hand, newer albums are likely to be more in the consciousness of most people and so may be favoured on newer lists. This is particularly true for a lot of our members who are younger than twenty and did not grow up with The Beatles (or anything from the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s) and so will favour the music they grew up with (i.e. 1990s and 2000s).
At some point, it might be appropriate for us to introduce something to ignore charts older than x years, but I'm not sure if we have reached that stage yet. I'd personally rather wait until we have a larger pool of member charts and then we could maybe look at ignoring member charts not updated in the last year (or such-like). Recognised lists are rarer and more difficult to find, if we had an age rule here, our pool of recognised charts would be tiny or non-existent.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
