Non-Active Charts - Suggestions - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Puncture Repair

I mentioned this on a thread a while back, but I think it should be seriously considered as a possibility.

There are a great deal of charts on this site that are created by new users who are excited about about contributing to the overall chart, but will soon abandon the website completely. More often that not, these new charts heavily consist of albums that are already in very strong positions on the overall chart, and do nothing but segregate top-tier ranking albums from albums that may well deserve more recognition.

OK Computer, at number 1, appears in over 1,500 more charts than For Emma Forever Ago which sits at 100. That's an absurd divide even in the top 100. And when you look at the charts that rank OK Computer very highly, some haven't been updated, in some cases, in 6 years.

Is it right that old, untouched charts should contribute as much as active users who are open to changing their opinions and are willing to explore music more?

A simple(?) fix to this would be to make charts that have been long abandoned to not count towards the overall chart. It could be said that this will create an elitist few members who are the only ones able to shape the overall chart, and would alienate less active users. But I don't think this would be the case, and I think having it so that a user only needs to log in once every six months for their chart to contribute to the overall ranking. This is long enough that it's not asking too much of the user, while preventing the issue entirely. And of course, all new charts added to the site still contribute just as much as the users who have been around the site for a while.

I also don't think it's necessary to warn new users creating their chart that if they aren't active enough their chart will not count. It appears negative, and might make new users less enthusiastic to contribute. Instead, if six months goes by and they haven't logged in, chances are they don't care if it contributes or not, and if they do log in, that's enough to bring the chart back to being relevant.

Sorry if I've rambled, but I think this would be a really effective way to make (and I hate to say it) a stale and dusty overall chart, more living and breathable by those that are willing to put just a little bit of care into their charts over long periods of time.

Thoughts?

Guest

Yeah, this is a great idea. Not sure I agree entirely about the timeframes involved (I think 12 months would be a more reasonable number), but I'm all for this. Makes a lot of sense.

albummaster
Janitor

Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin

Agree with the sentiment, but also disagree about the timeframes. At the moment, BEA does have a ten year cut-off for any chart (recognised or user). This currently only affects some recognised charts created before BEA was born (BEA isn't yet 10 years old). Charts over six months old (or a year) for determining the best albums in history to my mind are still valid. I think any greatest album chart built within the past few years would take into account most of recorded history. I personally don't think the cut-off should be less than 5 years as it will affect the stability of the chart and the sample size for the site won't be as meaningful (the number of charts contributing towards the aggregate will significantly decrease).

I'm personally not against having a separate cut-off time for member charts as I think there is a lot of substance in Puncture Repair's post, but the cut-off would need to strike a balance.

martintho
martintho

i'm with albummaster on this

Goodsir

lethalnezzle wrote:

Yeah, this is a great idea. Not sure I agree entirely about the timeframes involved (I think 12 months would be a more reasonable number), but I'm all for this. Makes a lot of sense.

Puncture Repair

I think this is being approached in the wrong way.

This isn't so much about the validity of charts, but the people who create the charts. A chart that is made 5 years ago may still very well be valid, so long as the person that created that chart is still willing to verify that, and if it's not verified (which them logging into the site is enough to say it has been) then I don't think it should contribute to the chart.

Charts from publications shouldn't be affected, because they've been built by professional critics, and aren't created on a lazy Saturday afternoon by one person to one day be forgotten about. We know that they are charts created by people who really engage in the music community and have heard a huge body of work, whereas there are a great many people who will label OK Computer or Revolver as the greatest album of all time, but not be willing to explore greater music or rethink their position. Abandoned charts are toxic to the website because they are treated as though they are just as valuable to the overall rankings as a chart that may be updated once or twice a month.

This site should be created by the users, for the users. Anyone who doesn't care enough to log on at least once every 12 months should not be counted, because the overall chart is not for them.

I understand if there are problems with stability and sample size, but anything longer than 12 months is far too long to solve the issue I'm addressing.

samistake2ice
General Grievous Angel

Gender: Male
Age: 37
Location: Houston

martintho wrote:

i'm with albummaster on this

\

Im fine with there being a cut of, but i dont think it should be less than five years either. It begins to get to some what dangerous ground when we start saying that charts made by active users are more important than the "lazy sunday afternoon guy." I think the more charts you have contributing to the site the better.

Personally I would love to see my favorite albums rise higher and OK-C to fall, but I appreciate the mission of the site. Although i think it has its flaws, it's the best method i can think of.
_________________

Kiki wrote:

You're chart is sooooooooo american. It's like a diner in here.

Check out my new review/pop-culture site MAD DISTRACTION

samistake2ice
General Grievous Angel

Gender: Male
Age: 37
Location: Houston

also.... i probably came to this site 20-25 times before i signed up. I initially signed up to be one of those "lazy sunday afternoon guys" i had no intention of participating in forums or creating custom charts, but then i got hooked. My point is the avg person who visits this site probably isnt an "active user" and I think the overall chart will start to lose its validity when its completely fielded by music snobs (which most of us to some extent are) as opposed to the common man.
_________________

Kiki wrote:

You're chart is sooooooooo american. It's like a diner in here.

Check out my new review/pop-culture site MAD DISTRACTION

Puncture Repair

samistake2ice wrote:

also.... i probably came to this site 20-25 times before i signed up. I initially signed up to be one of those "lazy sunday afternoon guys" i had no intention of participating in forums or creating custom charts, but then i got hooked. My point is the avg person who visits this site probably isnt an "active user" and I think the overall chart will start to lose its validity when its completely fielded by music snobs (which most of us to some extent are) as opposed to the common man.

I was worried the idea would be perceived like this, but it should in no way be seen as elitist. I think we all created our charts on the 'lazy sunday', but we found enough value in the website to return. We should be doing everything we can to keep new users coming back to the site, and this would be one way of going about it.

And again, this isn't to seperate new users from the experienced, this is just a way to bring some freshness to the overall chart. If all the user has to do is log in, which is the least they could do, once every 12 months, that's all that needs to be done to level them with even the highest ranking members on the website.

5 years will not solve the issue because it's accumulative, and by the time one five years is cleared away, even more abandoned charts will have collated and the top 100 will be even more solidified in their positions. It's not healthy, and it's making the website bland when what we really want is users to feel more empowered that their chart can make a difference, and that it's not swamped by thousands of lost charts created by people who no longer give a damn.

samistake2ice
General Grievous Angel

Gender: Male
Age: 37
Location: Houston

I completely agree that there should be more incentive to return to the site (which is basically what your saying, and would solve this problem). I don't think that one of those "incentives" should be that your chart gets deleted if you don't comeback every year.

you raise a fair issue though.
_________________

Kiki wrote:

You're chart is sooooooooo american. It's like a diner in here.

Check out my new review/pop-culture site MAD DISTRACTION