Non-Active Charts - Suggestions - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Puncture Repair

Romanelli wrote:

This site was not designed to require people to have to update their charts within a certain amount of time. This site was designed for people to come, make a chart, and then do whatever they want with it. Again...what do you want to do with the Rolling Stone 80's chart? It was made in 1989. Do you want that chart to not count because it's old and hasn't been updated in your lifetime?

As for "creating an overall chart for the users"...I think this stinks. You want to punish people who don't come here as often as you do so that your chart has more say. That stinks. And who are you to say that if I make a chart and don't touch it for 5 years that it's not relevant to ME? YOU don't get to make that determination...I do.

It's bad enough that the entire list of the highest rated user charts (I believe there are 4 in the first 10 pages that are not forum regulars...and 2 are on page 10) are those charts of the "we post on the boards, we're a community" charts. Those charts are the highest rated on the site because the message board regulars see to it that they are. The forum already owns how many pages of the top rated charts...now you want to dictate what constitutes a valid chart? You want to dictate whose charts count and whose do not? That stinks. I'm sorry...that really stinks.

We are creating an overall chart for EVERYONE who comes to this site...not just for the 20 or so people who post on the forums. I don't know where this sudden desire to dictate what goes on the overall and what doesn't came from...but I think it's way out of line.

I explained my thoughts on charts from publications ealirer in the thread, I'm afraid now you haven't bothered to read everything I've said. And again, this isn't about whether or not charts are dated, a user could log onto the site and not make any changes to their chart at all, but again, I've explained this earlier.

I don't understand where this idea that only people who use the forums would be the ones who have their chart counted, that just simply wouldn't be the case. There are a huge number of reasons people will log in to the website outside using the forums, as is proven just by looking at how many users come on to the site to simply rate album, view charts etc - that number is in the hundreds.

We are indeed creating a chart for everyone that comes on the site, not the people who don't come on the site anymore.

Romanelli

Bone Swah

Gender: Male

Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

sp4cetiger wrote:

Sorry, Romanelli, I can usually go along with your reasoning on these things, but I really hate the tenor of your posts here. Nobody is saying the active users are "better" than anyone, they're just more active. The fact that BEA has become a community is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if you may feel like you're not a part of it (you are).

I'm just saying that this is a topic that I find disturbing. I see people wanting to limit whose input is important and whose isn't...and I really don't care for it. And I believe that by people wanting to do that, they are, in effect, saying that they do feel they are better than others...that their opinions matter more, and that because they log in regularly that they should have more weight on the overall chart than those who don't.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

sp4cetiger

Romanelli wrote:

I'm just saying that this is a topic that I find disturbing. I see people wanting to limit whose input is important and whose isn't...and I really don't care for it. And I believe that by people wanting to do that, they are, in effect, saying that they do feel they are better than others...that their opinions matter more, and that because they log in regularly that they should have more weight on the overall chart than those who don't.

I just think you're generalizing too much. More active users play a bigger role in the site's growth and development, so perhaps they think they should have a bigger say in it's content. That seems to natural to me. It's not the same as saying that they're better in general or even concerning music, just that they are more involved in BEA and therefore put more time into maintaining their charts. I suppose you could look at that as a form of elitism, but a reasonable one, IMO. You wouldn't make someone president of a club if they never showed up to the meetings.

That's not to say that this suggestion is the right thing to do -- it really depends on what AM wants the chart to reflect. Given that there are all sorts of biases already built in to the chart (age bias, income bias, native language bias, etc.), I think keeping the algorithm as simple as possible is good.

Romanelli

Bone Swah

Gender: Male

Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

Puncture Repair wrote:

I explained my thoughts on charts from publications ealirer in the thread, I'm afraid now you haven't bothered to read everything I've said. And again, this isn't about whether or not charts are dated, a user could log onto the site and not make any changes to their chart at all, but again, I've explained this earlier.

I don't understand where this idea that only people who use the forums would be the ones who have their chart counted, that just simply wouldn't be the case. There are a huge number of reasons people will log in to the website outside using the forums, as is proven just by looking at how many users come on to the site to simply rate album, view charts etc - that number is in the hundreds.

We are indeed creating a chart for everyone that comes on the site, not the people who don't come on the site anymore.

"Is it right that old, untouched charts should contribute as much as active users who are open to changing their opinions and are willing to explore music more?"

I read what you said. You are saying that this chart that was created in 1989 should NOT be discounted because it was not "created on a lazy Saturday afternoon by one person to one day be forgotten about." Who are we to determine that a chart that was made by a registered user who has not logged in since January of 2011 WAS "created on a lazy Saturday afternoon by one person to one day be forgotten about"? Who are we to make that determination?

From the How It Works page of BEA:

I don't agree with any of the charts, can I submit my own?

"Yes, we encourage you to do so! The My Charts functionality allows registered members to create and share their own charts with the community. No more listening to what other people say, this is your chance to have your say! Your chart will appear on the site and form part of the overall aggregate album rankings. Once the chart has been added to the website, it gets automatically cross-referenced with all of the other charts on the site making it easy for you to see who else has chosen the same albums."

Nowhere does it say that I have to keep my chart relevant in any way for it to count. And if you put something up that says you have to be an active and contributing member in order to be counted, then what's the point in taking the time to register and make a chart? This is for EVERYONE. Not a select few.

If I am a registered user, my opinion counts. My chart counts. My registration does not expire, and neither should the strength of my chart...regardless of who likes it and who doesn't.

I'm sure that there is a reasonable limit as to what would constitute a "dead account". I think a year is nowhere near that mark. I don't think that BEA has been in existence long enough to have anyone reach that mark yet. And I am certainly within my rights to believe that having the user community suggest this is not a good thing.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

Goodsir

Man, this is getting pretty heated. Still on the see-saw, Brandon. Razz

Guest

Romanelli wrote:

Who are we to make that determination?

We're members of this community. In the same way that Rolling Stone magazine gets to decide who votes on their top 500 albums lists, what algorithm is used, etc., so too do we have the capacity to decide these things for ourselves. This does not make us fascists. This does not make us elitists. Giving every Tom, Dick, and Stanley who spends two minutes registering for the site a say may seem like the "nice" thing to do, but depending on what we want the chart to reflect it may not make the most sense. There needs to be a system, and yes, it's going to be arbitrary. I personally think a chart that reflects the overall tastes of the current community is the most rational; others may disagree. That's why we need to talk about it. Not only does this community (well, technically albummaster, but I like to think he runs a pretty democratic ship around here) have the right to make that determination, it has to make that determination, or else we have no system to begin with. Now, whether or not you agree with Puncture's suggestion is another matter, but I find your insistence that it is not this community's (or, once again, technically AM's) place to decide how the overall chart is generated to be pretty absurd.

martintho

martintho

take a site like rotten tomatoes. the value of that one lies in the number of ratings for each film. we have that system here on the BEA too. but it's not the preferred one. maybe it should be. it might make both the best ever albums and the best ever songs-lists more solid. and maybe we should encourage everyone to rate songs memberpointwise. we have a rating system. lets do it proper.
anyways: this discussion is about changing the original idea of this site and transforming it into more of a dynamic site. that would be nice for some of us regulars but bad for the sites potensial growth; the BEA would lose its value for outsiders.

Last edited by martintho on 03/03/2014 01:59; edited 1 time in total

HigherThanTheSun

Gender: Male

Age: 33

Location: UK

If someone doesn't even visit the site, they won't be very upset that their chart doesn't count to the overall rankings.
_________________
Shut up mate you're boring!

albummaster

Janitor

Gender: Male

Location: Spain

Site Admin

The whole point of what I was trying to say originally was the the only factor that is currently taken into account is whether a particular chart was created at a time where the input could be considered valid. At the moment, there's a ten year cut-off on individual greatest album charts*. After ten years, the chart stays on the site, but no longer counts towards the rankings. This policy exists already (e.g. this VH1 chart from 2001 no longer counts because it's over ten years old. (*Decade and year charts are not affected by this rule as they cover a discrete time period).

The angle I was coming in at originally was to say that if a chart is less than 5 years old it will still consider most of recorded history. If I made a chart 20 years ago, it would have missed out all albums from 1994 onwards (the whole of the 2000s). If I made a chart 10 years ago it would have missed out all albums from 2004 onwards, five years ago 2009 onwards, and one year ago it would have just missed out 2013. At what point does an overall chart become redundant? For me, I'd say if a greatest albums chart was created over 10 years ago it would be missing out a big chunk of history (which is why the current rule exists), but if we consider just one year missing from an overall chart, does that materially affect the quality of the chart?

I think it also helps to step back a bit and just ask what is the point of the overall chart & what is its purpose for visitors? I'm definitely listening to the other side of the argument that says the chart is stale, but then again I'm not convinced that the overall chart *should* move around a great deal from week to week. The chart *should* be reasonably static, but allowing for some change when it is merited. Since the start of the year, Kid A & Funeral have swapped places in the top 10. Do people expect there to be more activity than this in a two month period? If the chart was changing too much, people wouldn't be able to use it as a reference. Perhaps it does not change enough at the moment. A shorter cut-off might change that, but if we tamper too much then we start losing some statistical validity.

The argument for just taking into account charts updated within the last year, seems to me about keeping the overall chart 'fresh' (which I can relate to as it does get very boring seeing the same old albums), but it would take into account less people's opinions & miss out some very good charts (as well as some very bad ones). Of course, the more input that goes into the chart, the more statistically meaningful the result should be, so the cut-off is currently set at 10 years, but it could just as easily be five years (or some other arbitrary figure). However, I think one year is far too small as a cut-off for an overall chart. It would discount a hell of a lot of charts that are still meaningful.

19loveless91

mag. druž. inf

If this was something like RYM, I'd understand Romanelli, but I think charts are still a different story (as ratings). Ratings won't change for most of us, but I imagine our actual favourites (that we include on charts) will change quite frequently. So I do in fact agree with others about this issue. It's not just about not including years of released music, it's also because I see the charts as constantly changing representation of what we, the users listen to. When most of the charts that constitute the overall ranking have been left untouched since their creation, you can't really say that our overall chart is a good representation of our (collective) taste.
I do think that 6 months isn't enough though. I'd put that cut-off line at a 2 or 3 years mark.

Maybe another idea here is to be able to customize charts, based on when they were last updated. So, leave the default setting at what we have now, but allow us to see what the difference would be if only charts that have been updated recently (6 months, 12 months, whatever) would count for the overall ranking.