| |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Wombi
|
- #11
- Posted: 03/29/2013 08:08
- Post subject:
|
Yes, we have a quantitative measure here instead of a flimsy qualitative one. But it's not that simple. The charts of BEA make up a much larger sample size than the BEA forums. It may be that the portion of users on the forums happen to deviate hugely from the overall charts and that on average we're on the far side of the bell curve. So when you say on the BEA forum that such and such is only #13 when it should be #12 "It's a disgrace!" you're referring to an overall chart affected by (when I last checked) almost 9000 charts. There's probably what, 40-50 regulars on the forum and another...40-50 non-regulars - at most. So maybe making those comments makes no sense to a lot of us (because our opinions have a very strong chance of not completely aligning with the overall chart either) and that's why the opinions in the controversial opinions thread that actually make more sense to me are the ones based off a consensus perceived through general qualitative means (e.g. what we read on the forums etc).
None of this even comments on the fact (as purple said) that there have been many other music sites that have used some sort of ranking and because of that people have felt justified in using different extremes of 'ratedness' on things.
Or maybe I just woke up and am over-complicating what you were trying to say, I don't know...
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad
Location: Ground Control
|
- #12
- Posted: 03/29/2013 08:46
- Post subject:
|
| Jhereko wrote: | Yes, we have a quantitative measure here instead of a flimsy qualitative one. But it's not that simple. The charts of BEA make up a much larger sample size than the BEA forums. It may be that the portion of users on the forums happen to deviate hugely from the overall charts and that on average we're on the far side of the bell curve. So when you say on the BEA forum that such and such is only #13 when it should be #12 "It's a disgrace!" you're referring to an overall chart affected by (when I last checked) almost 9000 charts. There's probably what, 40-50 regulars on the forum and another...40-50 non-regulars - at most. So maybe making those comments makes no sense to a lot of us (because our opinions have a very strong chance of not completely aligning with the overall chart either) and that's why the opinions in the controversial opinions thread that actually make more sense to me are the ones based off a consensus perceived through general qualitative means (e.g. what we read on the forums etc).
None of this even comments on the fact (as purple said) that there have been many other music sites that have used some sort of ranking and because of that people have felt justified in using different extremes of 'ratedness' on things.
Or maybe I just woke up and am over-complicating what you were trying to say, I don't know... |
Wow, you are really hung up on the fact that my opinion is that U2 should make the top 10... it's ok... it'll be alright, it is just an opinion.... haha
no I get where you are coming from and maybe you are taking it a bit too far, but then I did start a somewhat philosophical discussion on the realization that the over-generalization of something is over/underrated could be traced to the ratings people give it... instead of ONLY the magazines.
All I am saying is that it was harder before to see what the general public thought of an album, except for maybe sales, which is at times irrelevant.
Actually everything is irrelevant and doesn't matter, unless someone takes the effort to care about it. Then it is relevant to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
| |
