Not ranked albums don't appear of the overal year charts - Suggestions

NickVolos
Segnahc Reve4

Gender: Male
Location: Land of the Argonauts, Centaurs and other such creatures

Hello,

There are a number of albums that do not appear of the overall yearly site charts because they are not in any user's chart. For example: Love Is Alive And Well by Kim Fowley. Al lot of these albums do have user ratings. Is it possible to include them to the overall year charts? Maybe the album ratings could influence the ranking algorithm so they can be included.

Thanks!
_________________
"And can’t you see you’re in on it?
You were born though you need not
And is that not some cause
For worship, being born among these trees?"

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

NickVolos wrote:

Hello,

There are a number of albums that do not appear of the overall yearly site charts because they are not in any user's chart. For example: Love Is Alive And Well by Kim Fowley. Al lot of these albums do have user ratings. Is it possible to include them to the overall year charts? Maybe the album ratings could influence the ranking algorithm so they can be included.

Thanks!

Here are the top rated albums of this site (as opposed to top ranked). Perhaps you can find it here?

https://www.besteveralbums.com/toprated...hp?o=album

Hayden

Location: CDMX

I'd be for it. Unsorted null non-charted albums appearing below the 0-points 1 chart rank would be fine. There's tonnes. If you go to the decade-sort feature we have the total number of albums in those years/decades logged, but it only shows those personally charted on the actual charts.

Always up for seeing more music on our charts.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

NickVolos wrote:

Hello,

There are a number of albums that do not appear of the overall yearly site charts because they are not in any user's chart. For example: Love Is Alive And Well by Kim Fowley. Al lot of these albums do have user ratings. Is it possible to include them to the overall year charts? Maybe the album ratings could influence the ranking algorithm so they can be included.

Thanks!

You answered your own question. If an album isn't on any user chart, then it has 0 points. Thus it can't be on an overall chart. If you want Love is Alive and Well to appear on the overall Best Albums of 1967, then add it to your personal Best of 1967 chart.
_________________
on such a winter's day

baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash

Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts

Seth and StreetSpirit, he's asking for albums that aren't in the charts but have received votes to be added to the end of the charts. In other words, using average rating as a tie-breaker after points. I agree with Nick and Hayden that's it's a good idea.
_________________
Add me on RYM

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

I shudder to think of what the number of albums on this site would be that are not on any charts...it's gonna be a huge number.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash

Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts

So what is the problem with this idea, if any? Does it create meaningful logistical challenges? Just want to make sure the opposition is not coming from reflexive resistance to change.
_________________
Add me on RYM

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

My take:

If an album is not on any charts on the site, and the overall site charts are based on the accumulation of all the smaller charts on the site, then why would an album that is not on any chart (overall, decade or year) belong on any of those overall charts?

How many albums have ratings that are simply drive by's? People who have run through a gang of albums and just rated them for points accumulation? How many albums have ratings without having even been heard? And if this were to happen...how many non rated albums would then be given drive-by ratings just so that they would show up on the overall chart?

The purpose of the site is not to give us sortable lists of every album in the world. The purpose of the site is to help determine, via charts, what are the best ever albums. What you are talking about here is taking albums that, out of the thousands of users charts (overall, decade and years), and the imported charts from outside of BEA, are not on any charts and tacking them onto the end of the overall charts so that you can see their ratings.

If you want an album included in the overall charts, then put it on one of your charts. Otherwise...it really doesn't belong there. My objection is to including albums that thousands of users have chosen NOT to include on their own charts on the overall site charts. They do not belong there. And realistically...the vote is unanimous that they don't.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

babyBlueSedan
Used to be sort of blind, now can sort of see

Gender: Male

I mostly agree that if a user likes an album they will put it on a chart, but keep in mind that new users can't create decade or year charts. It doesn't seem out of the ordinary that a new user has more than 100 albums they like, so until they level up there could be albums that don't fit into any of their charts. This could be a way to get those albums on a list until the time that user can add the albums to a decade or year chart.

This doesn't seem like it would even be that noticeable. The overall chart is already capped at 10000 entries, all of which are in a chart. This would only affect albums that have a score of 0, so only the very ends of year charts, and some decade charts, would change. Personally I would never scroll that far to find albums but maybe some users would.

Romanelli wrote:

How many albums have ratings that are simply drive by's? People who have run through a gang of albums and just rated them for points accumulation? How many albums have ratings without having even been heard? And if this were to happen...how many non rated albums would then be given drive-by ratings just so that they would show up on the overall chart.

This seems like a week argument because users can already add albums they haven't heard to a chart, which not only promotes the album more but gives it more points. So I don't see how this would make the system any more exploitable.
_________________
And it's hard to be a human being. And it's harder as anything else.

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

babyBlueSedan wrote:

I mostly agree that if a user likes an album they will put it on a chart, but keep in mind that new users can't create decade or year charts. It doesn't seem out of the ordinary that a new user has more than 100 albums they like, so until they level up there could be albums that don't fit into any of their charts. This could be a way to get those albums on a list until the time that user can add the albums to a decade or year chart.

Thus...the incentive to level up. The more involved a user is, the more charts they can make that effect the overall.

Quote:

This seems like a week argument because users can already add albums they haven't heard to a chart, which not only promotes the album more but gives it more points. So I don't see how this would make the system any more exploitable.

If you have an album that is not on a chart, and has not been rated, why not rate it simply so that you can see it on an overall chart?

Quote:

This doesn't seem like it would even be that noticeable. The overall chart is already capped at 10000 entries, all of which are in a chart. This would only affect albums that have a score of 0, so only the very ends of year charts, and some decade charts, would change. Personally I would never scroll that far to find albums but maybe some users would.

Then why would we need to take valuable site space to add something that would be that far down the scale of visibility? Don't we have better things to be advocating for?
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...