Can we do something about this BEA? - Music

creator

Age: 36
Location: chicago

newbands1 wrote:

since I've been here since 2011 that I had already listened to all of the top500 already.Idk I've been here sometime and the overall chart has more or less been the same with a few 2010's album creeping in.You would think as more members join that the overall chart would get better.

It's best to ignore the overall chart. Many users adopt the one-album-per-artist rule, which skews the data. If you're searching for new music, find a user who has similar tastes and scout their decade charts for recommendations.

newbands1

Gender: Male

btw i enjoy other albums from almost all of the artists i mentioned.Turn on the bright lights is on my chart.Dookie still gets plays once in a while.Coldplay's first two albums and Muse Origin,Absolution are still enjoyable to me.

Precedent

I thought you liked new bands

newbands1

Gender: Male

Yes when I joined the site.That was what I wanted and I continue to seek new music.My favourite bands used to be Fall out boy,avenged sevenfold,and whatever other crap that was goes on warped tour.As u can see that has changed

Guest

creator wrote:

Many users adopt the one-album-per-artist rule, which skews the data.

I suspect that the actual effect the one-album-per-artist rule has on the top 500 is so minimal as to barely matter. I'd say that rabid fanboys filling their charts with every album by their favourite bands, including the poorer albums, has much more of an influence on the overall chart.

ButterThumbz
I always used to wonder if she wore false ears

Gender: Male
Age: 53
Location: O'er the hills and far away

lethalnezzle wrote:

I suspect that the actual effect the one-album-per-artist rule has on the top 500 is so minimal as to barely matter. I'd say that rabid fanboys filling their charts with every album by their favourite bands, including the poorer albums, has much more of an influence on the overall chart.

I really don't get the whole idea that creating a chart with the widest variety of music possible has some kind of negative impact. Bunch of Nigel Farages!

TracyJacks

Gender: Female

I think prefereces and therefore the charts and ratings of the registered users but non-forum users are very different from the musical tastes of forum regulars. This is why there are albums on the BEA Overall Charts which most of the forum regulars wouldn't put so high at all.

Sometimes newer albums get faster points than a couple of older albums, too. The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway is #1 in 1974 but it's only #234 on the overall, Favourite Worst Nightmare is #7 in 2007, #212 on the overall.

I don't think it's necessary to change this in any way even if the overall chart doesn't often reflect the forum regulars opinion. The Overall Chart reflects what this site is about: to register, to create charts and to rate albums. The forum is like a 'plus'.

sp4cetiger

lethalnezzle wrote:

I suspect that the actual effect the one-album-per-artist rule has on the top 500 is so minimal as to barely matter.

Probably true, the forum community is a very small slice of the overall pie.

Quote:

I'd say that rabid fanboys filling their charts with every album by their favourite bands, including the poorer albums, has much more of an influence on the overall chart.

Immediately made me think of this:

http://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/vi...456#244456

Is it sad that some of my fondest early memories of BEA involve a JMan trainwreck?

albummaster
Janitor

Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin

TracyJacks wrote:

Sometimes newer albums get faster points than a couple of older albums, too. The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway is #1 in 1974 but it's only #234 on the overall, Favourite Worst Nightmare is #7 in 2007, #212 on the overall..

I think the main reason for this is that there is a 'recency effect', with newer albums being recalled easier by site members. Evidence of this is that there are more 2000s charts than 1970s charts, and more year charts for 2007 than for 1974 which inflates the score for newer albums. Something I might look at is weighting each year and decade differently to try & even out this effect, but this may then cause other adverse effects e.g. if a year is particularly bad, a score could be unfairly inflated etc. It's a difficult problem to solve properly with the current ranking system.

RepoMan

albummaster wrote:

I think the main reason for this is that there is a 'recency effect', with newer albums being recalled easier by site members. Evidence of this is that there are more 2000s charts than 1970s charts, and more year charts for 2007 than for 1974 which inflates the score for newer albums. Something I might look at is weighting each year and decade differently to try & even out this effect, but this may then cause other adverse effects e.g. if a year is particularly bad, a score could be unfairly inflated etc. It's a difficult problem to solve properly with the current ranking system.

The bad year in music myth! There really are no bad years in music at least nothing so egregious that it could cause an adverse effect on your ranking system. IMHO.