Chart Manipulation

[albummaster]

Ok, we're part-way through making the background changes to implement Bayesian averages. I just thought it useful to post a tentative chart to show what a difference this makes:

Current top-rated albums::
1. The Very Best Of Otis Redding;"12";"94.5833";"88.4484"
2. Portrait Of A Legend 1951-1964;"15";"91";"87.0346"
3. Kind of Blue;"164";"90.6098";"90.0624"
4. The Dark Side of the Moon;"420";"90.0357";"89.8276"
5. Substance;"14";"90";"86.286"
6. Neu!;"15";"90";"86.4346"
7. Saxophone Colossus;"14";"89.6429";"86.0777"
8. Led Zeppelin IV;"345";"89.6232";"89.3827"
9. Abbey Road;"386";"89.456";"89.2446"
10. Blonde on Blonde;"197";"89.4162";"89.0138"

... using the new algorithm:
1. Kind of Blue;"164";"90.6098";"90.0624"
2. The Dark Side of the Moon;"420";"90.0357";"89.8276"
3. Led Zeppelin IV;"345";"89.6232";"89.3827"
4. Abbey Road;"386";"89.456";"89.2446"
5. Revolver;"418";"89.2584";"89.0674"
6. Blonde on Blonde;"197";"89.4162";"89.0138"
7. Wish You Were Here;"257";"89.3191";"89.0107"
8. OK Computer;"496";"89.1431";"88.9839"
9. Highway 61 Revisited;"244";"89.2418";"88.9207"
10. The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars;"210";"89.0238";"88.663"

The numbers after each title: number of ratings; mean avg rating (current metric); Bayesian avg rating (proposed metric).

The new ratings, to my mind, look more representative. A single 'extreme' vote will have less of an impact on the ratings charts (which I think is a good thing).

Bayesian average formula:
(NumRatings / (NumRatings + MinRatings)) * MeanAvgRating + (MinRatings / (NumRatings + MinRatings)) * SiteMeanAvgRating

where:
MeanAvgRating = mean average rating an album has currently received.
NumRatings = number of ratings an album has currently received.
MinRatings = minimum number of ratings required for an album to appear in the 'top-rated' chart (currently 10).
SiteMeanAvgRating = the site mean average rating for an album (currently 81).

[chrisdread]

I have already apologised to Albummaster for the upset caused by my ratings and requested that he remove them all. Honestly, I was a new member just seeing what happened if I played with the system a bit.

However, what I would like to say is that I don't quite get what right certain members think they have in saying what I do or do not like, or how highly or lowly I should rate certain bands & albums. In all truth, it is absolutely none of any of your fucking business what I rate and how I rate it.

Surely the strength of this site is in the fact that people can genuinely express their opinions about music. If I happen to think that the Beatles are hugely over-rated and have never made a good album (and I do), or that Yes are shite, Pink Floyd boring, Michael Jackson a waste of time - then it is my inalienable right, I thought, to say so.

I seriously had no intent to "game" the site, nor to boost the ratings of albums that I particularly enjoy. I was just seeing what happened. It's called experimentation and some of the narrow-minded, knee-jerk, reactionary muso-bigots might just like to try it some time!
_________________
YCDTOSA

[albummaster]

We've now modified the average rating algorithm so there will be less of an impact if one person decides to rate albums outside of the statistical norm. I hope we can now put this issue to bed.

[cartoken]

i

[cartoken]

okay, understood the points system. i don't really agree someone who have a 3picks chart should have the same amount of point for his n°2 as a 50 picks chart member.

the difference is that the 50 picks chart member will have an extra of points to allocate (94+92+90+88+86+85...etc), which is i think makes it fair for someone who made the effort to make a 50 picks chart.

about the Bayesian average, it was a really good idea !

[albummaster]