Chart Formula Suggestions

[baystateoftheart]

A lot of members who haven't been active in a long time are still having a big effect on the charts. As a result, the charts are slow to adapt to changes in member taste. I propose that once a member chart goes five years without being updated, it should no longer apply toward the overall rankings.

I also propose that users at higher levels should have more weight to their charts, implemented by a multiplier to point totals. For instance:

Level 1 = x1
Level 2 = x1.1
Level 3 = x1.2
Level 4 = x1.3
Level 5 = x1.4
Level 6 = x1.5
Level 7 = x1.6
Level 8 = x1.7

These proposed changes would be for the default chart. If people wanted to see a chart without these effects, they could use the "Customize Overall Chart" feature.

Interested to hear everyone else's thoughts on these suggestions.
_________________
Add me on RYM

[Luigii]

Just caught this. And yes, this is cool. Would give an incentive to new people and maybe old users can come back from this.

[albummaster]

Currently, greatest album charts updated over ten years ago do not contribute to the rankings (year and decade charts are not affected since they cover discrete time periods and are not affected by the passage of time (no new albums can be released once a period is over).

A thought I've had for quite a while is to decay the points of a chart over the X year period so that a chart is worth more points when it is newly created to when it is a few years old and possibly missing some newer releases (the decay does not necessarily have to be linear). This might be a reasonable way of removing the effect that you describe. I'm personally not in favour of weighting the points towards higher level members because I see everybody's opinion as equally valid and it shouldn't really be based on how many points you've received.

[baystateoftheart]

[albummaster]

Decade charts already work in the same way but omitted to mention . I think there are other ways of attracting people to the community (e.g. by modernising & improving the site, adding new features etc). I just feel adding more weight at the top of the tree is not overly democratic and there are plenty of people here for whatever valid reason don't feel the need (or don't have the time) to chase points and their voice shouldn't be deemed inferior.

[baystateoftheart]

[albummaster]

Decade charts updated while a decade is still in progress only get a proportion of the available points e.g. a 2010s chart created today only achieves approx 80% of the maximum since the decade is approx 80% complete. Once the decade is over, that same chart will still only achieve 80% of the maximum since it was not created at the end of the decade. In addition, the points of that chart would never be decayed since the chart covers a discrete period in time (unlike a 'greatest ever' chart).

[Puncture Repair]

[albummaster]

[baystateoftheart]

This is what the chart looks like with a five-year expiration date for all charts: https://www.besteveralbums.com/makechar...=RankScore

Two new albums in the top 10, five new albums in the top 50, and ten new albums in the top 100 are not insignificant changes, and at the same time, are not too drastic of an overhaul. There was no way to make only overall charts expire in the custom chart.

If we are going with AM's decay idea, instead of a hard expiration date, what would be a good half-life? I'm thinking one or two years.

EDIT: Ok I'm really confused. How can To Pimp A Butterfly fall from #60 in the overall to #74 in a custom chart with a five year expiration date when it was released less than five years ago? 100% of its points are from the last five years, so going down in rank should be impossible. Something must be wrong here.
_________________
Add me on RYM