The top 100 isn't a reflection of reality

dtguitarfan wrote: Atavachron wrote: Epignosis wrote: Here is an excerpt from the review in question: I love they way that people at ProgArchives are so hesitant to give an album the full 5 star rating, the site itself even gives a type of warning when one wants to give the 5 star rating, could they be any more pretentious? Wow, so now it's pretentious to give careful thought to a Perfect Score.   Incredible, it just shows we must be doing something right.   What a hump. It is a horrible review, no doubt.  But this site is pretentious.  The system sets up for a top 100 list that isn't a reflection of reality, but is in fact a reflection of the favorites of a few VIP's.  And most people just don't want to deal with the crap they have to go through to get to the point where their opinion counts for anything on this site.

dtguitarfan wrote: Exactly - it's going to reflect what's popular.  But I challenge you to go to the top 100 for each year, then start looking at how many Facebook "likes" each band in the top 100 has and I guarantee you, you will find the number of "likes" do not match up to what makes it to the top 100 on this page.

Dean,
I hear your arguments, and admit I had some misconceptions.  However, hear me out here: think about your system. 
1) you have to review albums to really have your vote count, and it has to be 100 words or more.
So basically...you're rewarding the dudes who live in their mother's basements and have no life.  Seriously, I have known about this website since the early 2000's, but never bothered to join until a little over a year ago, and then only to rate albums.  Then I didn't really start to post in this forum until later on.  Only recently did I start to review albums, and since I have a job and a family (and a wife who rolls her eyes and says "you're on that stupid site AGAIN?!!" every time she see's me posting on here) I only bother to review the albums that I think deserve to have a voice, so basically, I'm not going to bother reviewing a mediocre or bad album unless they're way up on the chart to begin with.  And I would guess that's how most people out there are.  Most people just don't have the time to write a review.  So you're skewing the system to the people who have way to much time on their hands.
2) In order to become a collaborator, you have to review albums from many subgenres.
I would argue that this means the only people you award "collaborator" status to are people who aren't really experts in any sub-genre.  Because honestly, there are sub-genre's on this site that I would even argue shouldn't be on this site to begin with.  And other sub-genres I just don't have any interest in - I've tried, but they just aren't for me.  So I'm only going to be reviewing in a few certain sub-genres.  And that means I'll probably never be a collaborator.  But whatever, it's just a website.
3) The fact that you don't even know what a Facebook "like" is further proves my point that this site doesn't match reality.  Ok, so bands create pages on Facebook (an IMMENSELY popular social networking site that reaches out to all ages and classes - my GRANDMOTHER is even on facebook.  That's huge.  My grandmother doesn't know how to plug a mouse into a computer.  My Dad had to show her that one.).  People "like" a band's Facebook page because they want to show other people that they like them, and also because they want to see the news related to this band.  So it's a fairly good way to measure one band's popularity against another.  Ok, so what's the number 1 spot for 2011?  Discipline:
http://www.facebook.com/DisciplineBand
790 likes.  That's meagre.  Now, where's Dream Theater's latest album on this list?  18th place.  Lets see how many likes they have:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dream-Theater/7677942180
Wha?  2.5 MILLION?!!!!!  And they are 18th place?  How is this possible?  Hmm...I'm going to say it's because people who like Progressive Metal find this site to be snobbish and pretentious.... 
Seriously, I say this not because it's just my opinion, but because I also hang out in a lot of Progressive Metal circles and I've told people about this site and encouraged them to try to make their voices heard, and that is the reaction I most often get from them - they can't be bothered to get on this site because they feel that it's just a bunch of pretentious snobs.  You don't like to hear that, and I get it.  But do you honestly believe in the real world that Discipline deserves a higher spot on the top 100 list than any other album on that list for the year?  Not to say they are a bad band - they're great.  But there are MANY other releases for 2011 that deserve to be higher, and when you stack up the number of Facebook likes for these bands it just doesn't add up.


Edited by dtguitarfan - April 29 2012 at 13:22

To further back up my point on Facebook likes and the places on the 2011 list, let's look at other Progressive Metal bands on the top 100 list:
Haken, 4th place (pretty darn good for a Progressive Metal act on this site):
http://www.facebook.com/HakenOfficial
5,062 likes - not that huge, but way more than Discipline
Myrath, 19th place:
http://www.facebook.com/myrathband
19,646 likes - that's WAY more than Discipline
Arch / Matheos, 20th place:
http://www.facebook.com/archmatheos
3, 739 likes
Nightwish (not my favorite band, mind you, and I don't even think they're that progressive, however...), 59th place:
http://www.facebook.com/nightwish
...HOLY....2.8 MILLION likes?  How the heck is Discipline beating them out?  Mind you, I don't think they deserve to be very high on a Progressive list of best albums, but still, if there was any reality to this list they'd have to be #1.

I'll stop there.

dtguitarfan wrote: Dean,

I know I'm not Dean, but maybe I can save him some time, although I shouldn't have to worry about that since he obviously has no life.

dtguitarfan wrote: 1) you have to review albums to really have your vote count, and it has to be 100 words or more. So basically...you're rewarding the dudes who live in their mother's basements and have no life.  Seriously, I have known about this website since the early 2000's, but never bothered to join until a little over a year ago, and then only to rate albums.  Then I didn't really start to post in this forum until later on.  Only recently did I start to review albums, and since I have a job and a family (and a wife who rolls her eyes and says "you're on that stupid site AGAIN?!!" every time she see's me posting on here) I only bother to review the albums that I think deserve to have a voice, so basically, I'm not going to bother reviewing a mediocre or bad album unless they're way up on the chart to begin with.  And I would guess that's how most people out there are.  Most people just don't have the time to write a review.  So you're skewing the system to the people who have way to much time on their hands.

I have three children (one due to be born in two weeks), one wife, two jobs, I am enrolled in a university and taking courses, I do the cooking and grocery shopping, I cut the grass, I write and record original music (two albums so far, five more in the works), I write novels, I attend church regularly, and somehow I am still #36 on the most prolific reviewers list.  My reviews are track-by-track, so they tend to be between 300 and 1200 words on average.

dtguitarfan wrote: 2) In order to become a collaborator, you have to review albums from many subgenres. I would argue that this means the only people you award "collaborator" status to are people who aren't really experts in any sub-genre.  Because honestly, there are sub-genre's on this site that I would even argue shouldn't be on this site to begin with.  And other sub-genres I just don't have any interest in - I've tried, but they just aren't for me.  So I'm only going to be reviewing in a few certain sub-genres.  And that means I'll probably never be a collaborator.  But whatever, it's just a website.

This is simply false and Dean has already said as much.  I was not promoted to collaborator simply because I wrote reviews.  I participated in the forum, built relationships, and was eventually asked to join the Eclectic Prog Team.  I am now a Special Collaborator who can add artists.  Am I an expert in Eclectic Prog?  Nope.  That's why I don't have a tag that says "Eclectic Prog Expert."  But being an expert isn't a requirement for becoming a collaborator- being friendly, helpful, patient, and willing to learn are.

dtguitarfan wrote: 3) The fact that you don't even know what a Facebook "like" is further proves my point that this site doesn't match reality.  Ok, so bands create pages on Facebook (an IMMENSELY popular social networking site that reaches out to all ages and classes - my GRANDMOTHER is even on facebook.  That's huge.  My grandmother doesn't know how to plug a mouse into a computer.  My Dad had to show her that one.).  People "like" a band's Facebook page because they want to show other people that they like them, and also because they want to see the news related to this band.  So it's a fairly good way to measure one band's popularity against another.  Ok, so what's the number 1 spot for 2011?  Discipline: http://www.facebook.com/DisciplineBand 790 likes.  That's meagre.  Now, where's Dream Theater's latest album on this list?  18th place.  Lets see how many likes they have: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dream-Theater/7677942180 Wha?  2.5 MILLION?!!!!!  And they are 18th place?  How is this possible?  Hmm...I'm going to say it's because people who like Progressive Metal find this site to be snobbish and pretentious....  Seriously, I say this not because it's just my opinion, but because I also hang out in a lot of Progressive Metal circles and I've told people about this site and encouraged them to try to make their voices heard, and that is the reaction I most often get from them - they can't be bothered to get on this site because they feel that it's just a bunch of pretentious snobs.  You don't like to hear that, and I get it.  But do you honestly believe in the real world that Discipline deserves a higher spot on the top 100 list than any other album on that list for the year?  Not to say they are a bad band - they're great.  But there are MANY other releases for 2011 that deserve to be higher, and when you stack up the number of Facebook likes for these bands it just doesn't add up.

I fail to see how Facebook "likes" (i.e., a mere single left-click) are more reflective of this "reality" you keep referencing than the reviews of people who have listened to the music with a critical ear.  Maybe for you, Facebook is the true measure of collective opinion.  Of course, it fails to take into consideration the 5,939,507,003 people on the planet who do not have a Facebook account (including me).

In other news:

DTLOL

Horizons wrote: This must be a joke.  And the Facebook argument is one of the main reasons.

Um, no.  If you honestly think 2.5 million vs. 790 means nothing, YOU are the joke.  Wake up, the top 100 is not a reflection of reality.

Horizons wrote: You said that the Top 100 only reveals what's popular. I'm pretty sure 50k people clicking "Like" on Rush's website and having bands like Kayo Dot not even reaching 2k reveals that Facebook has the same flaw.  Stop whining about how Top 10 isn't composed solely of DT releases.

I'm not whining about that.  This discussion started in a thread where someone was trying to get another person's review removed from the site because the reviewer accused the site of being pretentious based on the paragraph that warns against giving albums 5 stars.  And I was making the point that, while the review was horrible, the "pretentious" argument is not far from the truth.  I was arguing that the system that rewards more points to people who review the albums and even more to people who have stuck around long enough to become "collaborators" is what is skewing the system.  And when I was challenged to prove my opinion, I did it in the only way I knew to bring out numbers that support my argument.  Why does Rush only have 50k?  Maybe because they've been around so long that they aren't generating enough excitement to bring in the younger crowd.  But you HAVE to admit that it is a little strange that an album whose band has only 790 "likes" on Facebook is at place number 1 for the year, while an album whose band has 2.5 MILLION likes, and that sold enough copies to make it to place #6 overall on Amazon, and place #8 on the Billboard chart, and got a grammy nomination is at place #18 on the list.  Do I think every DT album should be 5 stars?  No.  In fact I have not rated all their albums that way.  Some of their albums SUCK.

If only we could somehow arrange a worldwide poll . . . 

^ I didn't have time to check out the discussion about that particular review in much detail, but my impression was that those who were against it (Epignosis, Atavachron, Ivan) were so because it violated one of our reviewing guidelines (no comments about other people's tastes and reviews), while the one person saying that the review is rubbish (ExitTheLemming) also said that it's fine with him.

With the rest of your reply I completely agree. It should be said though that PA is somewhere at the middle of the ladder of pretentiousness, as we ourselves our looked down by others, like the guys from that forum where they said that PA is a bunch of dudes with a hard-on for Marillion (how low of us).


Edited by harmonium.ro - April 29 2012 at 17:47