Great site, one problem (or) Critics vs. the people.

[seraphlaim]

Just wanted to add that i agree with RFNaples. My original post wasn't due to an album not being available for my chart but one that i couldn't even star rate. One of my favorite bands right now is a french underground black metal band that has not business in my top 40 or even top 100 very likely but maybe the site is still a place i could expose that band to users on the site. Does this go against the vision of the site itself?

It really isn't a big deal. I can send a pm to someone or something but perhaps the vision for the site also limits the possiblity of the site. And whay does the guy do who doesn't have the Lester Bangs educution on rock history? I might have 6 Beatles albums on my chart but does the site really want to exclude a guy who thinks a Trashcan Sinatras record is in his top 40 or Moose or Some indie Thrill Jockey crap? Why alienate people? Seems that anything should be game. It will just make the site more inclusive and therefore better.
_________________
The greatest wonder is the realization of a question one has not yet asked .

[joannajewsom]

You both make good points, RFNAPLES and seraphlaim. I'm not staunchly opposed to the idea of adding albums to the site via other means than putting it on your chart. It goes against an aspect of the site which I enjoy, but it doesn't hurt. I just don't think that an album buried in a favorites list, and not on a chart, is going to really get any attention. It's a user's chart which gets looked at.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I've never browsed anyone's favorite list because I figured anything they highly recommend would be on their chart (even though I'm sure they have more than 40 albums they love). Also, if an album were on their favorite list, it would obviously be on someone's chart already, so I figure there aren't any true revelations sitting on someone's favorites list right now.

On the other hand, maybe if albums could be added to the site without being put on a chart, that could offer an incentive to actually look at people's favorites list. On the third hand, if albummaster is going to open up the site to such vast expansion, it might as well be turned into an extensive database like rateyourmusic/allmusic. Right now, I like the idea that an album has to be on a chart to be on the site; it makes it seem as if it has earned its right to be here.

To seraphlaim, I don't think this site is alienating people. I'm sorry you feel as if it has the potential to do so. Anything is game. If you want to add some French underground black metal, go for it! You choose to have six Beatles albums on your chart, preventing the lesser-known stuff to get exposure. Not that you should compromise your true "best ever" list to promote lesser-known works, but it seems like you're criticizing the site for showing favoritism to more popular bands but that's exactly what you're doing with your own chart.

Overall, I think an increase to the size of the charts would be the perfect compromise. It would stick to the vision of the site, which I like (I'm sure others will back me up on this); it would also provide an opportunity to have just about all of your favorites out their in the open, on your chart, instead of buried on a favorites list.

[albummaster]

I agree pretty much entirely with joannajewsom here. *you* choose which albums appear on this site, so if *you* choose to go the popularist route through your choice of your albums then that is your choice. If we set a size limit that is too high, we are going to end up in a position where it's more and more difficult to find the best albums on this site through the sheer volume. But having said that, if 40 isn't enough albums to express your individuality then we have to do something to address it.

I'm not against increasing the limit (it was doubled from 20 not so long ago), it's just finding that balance where the chart-size isn't so small that it's restrictive but not too big that the site loses focus. At the same time, the aim is not to alienate people. Perhaps we could have a system where more senior/active members are 'rewarded' by bigger chart sizes?

[seraphlaim]

I certainly was not volleying some attack that this site is alienating people. I was considering a hypothetical.

Also, it isn't with any degree of pain that I conceed 5 (actually not 6, although a Lennon solo album is also included) Beatles albums make up part of my 40. I also balk at the notion that doing this was my choice. I mean of course ultimately its anyones choice but also I feel when collecting for these kinds of lists you are more acknowledging the music that has chosen you and also at the same time acknowledging the artists and albums that have most shaped your idea of what pop music is. Its not as if I said, "I'm going to include 5 Beatles albums here; what shall they be". I surveyed my bank of memory of the best music I've ever heard and 5 of them were Beatles records. Perhaps it seems irrelevant to some to split hairs on my personal process in choosing my 40 but I feel its an important distinction.

More, I found that many of my 40 albums are albums I no longer listen to regularly. They are albums you pull out occasionally to reaffirm yourself as a music lover but music is a journey and most of the albums one would put in a top 40 were visited, appreciated and learned from long ago. They go into our memory as a library of reference for future music listening.

The point is, I am in favor of expanding the list to allow for broader reference. For selfish reasons I'd prefer the expansion not be available by seniority only. Remember of course, that just because a list can go to 100 doesn't mean that it has to. Those comfortable with 40 album lists can keep them. If there is anything that the site might do by seniority maybe it could be to weight senior members lists heavier than newbies like me. Thanks.
_________________
The greatest wonder is the realization of a question one has not yet asked .

[RFNAPLES]

[seraphlaim]

By recognized charts do you mean journalistic charts, the critics charts? Please expound. If so, why would it the size of the chart reflect the appropriate weight? Rolling Stone has a 500 list chart included on the site. Did that chart receive less weight than smaller lists? If not, why would our charts receive less weight based on their size?

You also inadvertantly brought up a good point. If user charts are to be limited (at all much less to 40) shouldn't the same standard be applied to the critics charts that are considered for entry? What ever weighing system that is being used to include critics charts of all different sizes should certainly be able to be applied to ours.

This is the real niche of this site. To my knowledge its the only site that allows us wannabe music critics to stand shoulder to shoulder with those actually employed as such. However, that niche will remain attractive only as long as consideration remains equal.
_________________
The greatest wonder is the realization of a question one has not yet asked .

[albummaster]

Let me just jump in and say that user charts are equal to recognised/professional lists in terms of weighting. Regardless of chart size, the top-ranked album in any chart will receive 100 points. The formula is explained on another thread, but the real point here is that all charts contribute an equal weighting to the overall standings. RS's 500, for example, receives the same weighting as any other chart and, for information, only the top 100 albums in RS's chart are on this site (not the whole 500.)

So, the question becomes should member lists be increased to 100 albums to give parity with the 'professional' lists?

On the one side, this could lead to more variety, but on the other side (the side I am worried about), it could (not in all cases) lead to 'weaker' charts with less quality music and the whole concept of the site just gets a bit lost. Not everybody can rattle off 100 albums off the top of their head, less so 100 *great* albums.

If this does happen, I think rather than jump straight to lists of 100, we'd probably implement this in steps (say start at 50 and then move upwards gradually to see how things bed in.)

[joannajewsom]

I think 50 would be a good number. I'm also all for the idea of senior members getting more slots, and not just because I'm a senior member. I think this would definitely help increase activity on the forums, and voting/commenting on each other's charts.

One issue I have with letting charts go up to 100, besides the ones you (albummaster) mentioned, is the fear that more slots would lead to less activity/updates. Because of the relatively small number of slots (in comparison to RS's 500, for example), I find myself updating my chart very frequently. If my top 100 were on the site already, I wouldn't need to update or add anything new; it's all there, what else can I add? I would switch the positioning from time to time, I guess, but not drastically.

The less space on a chart, the more a spot on the chart is worth (in my eyes, rather than actual ranking score), and the more I actually think about what goes on my chart. Also, with a smaller number of spots, positioning is much more crucial. On a chart of 40, the difference between #32 and #38 is much bigger than, say, #72 and #88 on a chart of 100, I think. I've made lists that go up to 100 on other sites, and once I get through the first half (1-50), the albums begin to feel interchangeable as far as position is concerned.

These are just some issues that I have had myself and I feel others would have. Of course, I can't speak for everyone (maybe, to some people, the difference between 32 and 38 on a 40 chart would be just as significant as 92 and 98 on a 100 chart). Overall, it would be cool to see a wider representation of people's taste, but I think user charts would lose focus. Hopefully, people will make more use of the forums, in which they can expand and discuss in length that which their chart can not express.

[seraphlaim]

I can understand you not wanting to jump from 40 to 100 in one fail swoop. I do however believe its important for users to have the same reach as the critics lists imported onto the site. If that reach is 100, some method should be devised to allow a user to get to 100 albums. If the site wants to make it competitive, like as if you have to show you are worthy of 100, I understand. It would just be ironic that the person that was suggesting the idea, wasn't yet.

I am a list maniac and I know I will get to 100 easily without a lapse in quality. I have collected great music for 20 years through much aid of the music press and my list will look similar in fact. I say music press because not all of it is rock. Even on my 40 I have Steve Reich and John Coltrane albums. In fact, my 80 through 100s have been more labored over than the first 50 on past lists, which I believe most critical music listeners already mostly have cateloged in their heads. The best part of expanding to beyond 50 is that users will get to really think about it again. The list making gets fun again. Personally, I already know 80% of my top 200, however I also understand other might not be so OCD about this kind of thing. At the same time, the site admin should know that this site attracts intelligent selective inquisitive music listeners by its very name, much less design, so it would only serve the site to let those users stretch out with their lists.

Another point is that I assume with critics lists a #1 on a list of 40 gets 100 points just as a #1 on a list of 100 gets 100 points. The scores given from #1 to #40 are the same (100 to 60), its just that the list of 100 doles out points from 59 to 1, in addition. It would seem user lists could work the same way theirby not penalizing the user who only wants a 40 or even 20 album list.

Further, if critics lists are imported just as if they are users on the site they are being weighted lower because I assume there are more users than critics represented. If not, soon their will me. This, if it is the case is a mistake in my view. Critical representation and user representation should be averaged as seperate entities and then averaged together afterward, thus the site becomes an agrigator where to two voices are congruous.
_________________
The greatest wonder is the realization of a question one has not yet asked .

[albummaster]

I think we might look at increasing the number to 50, but perhaps just make it that the more active members are able to have more entries. We still need to work out the details regarding the implementation of this, so it won't happen straight way.

Longer term, yes perhaps we could have charts with 100 entries for more active members for those that need or want this (let's be clear here that it's not a technical limitation, it's a choice to do things this way) and we won't jump to 100 straight away for reasons stated elsewhere on this thread.

Also, just to clarify, the formula used on this site does not penalise albums on smaller lists. A top-ranked album will always get 100 points. The score for each album is documented elsewhere in the forum but just for reference: