What I perceive as a flaw in the rankings

[panman36]

Looking at the points awarded to a Top 50 list I see that a #1 album is awarded 100 points, while a #50 album only gets 2. This means that if album "A" has one person with it at #1 and album "B" has 50 people with it at #50 it would have the same ranking on the site.

I believe that in this case album B should have a much higher ranking.

This could easily be solved by the points ranging from 20 to 100, couldn't it? In this case five #50s would equal one #1. Or if this is too much, 10 to 100 would be 10:1.

Do people agree that this would be better? Obviously similar adjustments could be made to Top 40 and 100 lists.

It would also lessen the impact of a group of people plotting to boost some goofy album by putting it #1 on their list if that only cancels out five or ten #50 picks.

[Guest]

I can't say that 5 #50 rankings equaling 1 #1 ranking seems fair. I'm pretty content with the current system. It has flaws, but any changes would create other issues.

[panman36]

Would it? Well if there's any support for my idea, my simple solution would be to add a number to the original equation, such as 10 or 20. Adding 20 would create a point system from 22-122. Adding 10 would be 12- 112. etc.

Edit: I see my formula would have to be tweaked for decade and year charts. But somebody with a greater math mind than me could probably solve that

[meccalecca]

While I sort of agree that a #1 album can be weighted heavily. I think it's fair. I find that it helps some lesser known but cherished albums get some deserved attention. For example. There might be a record that 10 users hear. All of them place it at #1. Should that album be buried beneath a mediocre album a lot of people liked but didn't love? Not to say I don't love my #50 album almost as much as my #1
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

[panman36]

[albummaster]

It doesn't sound negative to me. There are infinite ways in which the algorithm could work & the current method is not perfect. Even on other sites, where entirely different methods are used, I don't think anyone can say that the perfect algorithm for determining the best of anything has been found.

The problem with crowd sourcing algorithms is that the input going into them is not always valid, people do not judge everything in the same way & there are often other motives for a person to over/under value something in order for their particular choice to do better than another. The problem with all rating & ranking systems is how to dampen this noise without affecting the underlying outcome.

The customise chart feature provides a way for people to view the rankings with a range of other criteria. I could certainly add something to that page to allow the scores to be calculated differently, but in terms of changing the core algorithm, this would only happen if there was some demonstrable proof that one method was significantly better than another.

[panman36]

Here's a thought... what if the score of a persons chart had an effect on the amount of points that person's chart picks receive? For example someone whose chart has a rating of 85/100 could have their top pick receive 85 points and someone with a less popular chart would only have their top pick receive 65 points or whatever.

I didn't intend for this to be pointed out as a flaw. I just didn't want to make a separate thread for this silly little thought. But I do like the idea that by rating someone's chart you could have an effect on the overall rankings in some small way

[panman36]

Ah but here's a suggestion I'm more serious about. In an effort to "level up" on this site, the current system, which awards two points for each comment or post, encourages lots of quick thoughtless responses.

I think it would be much better to give 1/2 point per comment or post, then another 1/2 point for each 20 words or something like that. I like to hear more than just "dude, nice list" or "love this song", and I think people should get rewarded for that.

However, I have no idea if implementing such a system would be difficult.

Edit: But max out at 2 or 3 points. Wouldn't want to encourage mindless rambling either#-o

[albummaster]

I've had similar thoughts before about combining ratings and rankings. Ultimately, there are infinite ways to do this, so there's also a customise chart page where people can play around with different parameters & metrics.

Regards points per comment, this is going to be reduced to one point per comment in a forthcoming update, with comments in the off-topic forums not counting at all.