Progarchives top 20 flawed-proof

It's very rare I check the charts because I believe the system that is used to compile it is flawed and corrupt and is no way a proper representation. Having just checked the charts in a long time I was astounded to see an album by a little known Polish band at number 19  ie. Riverside's 'Second Life Syndrome'. I scrolled down the charts and couldn't believe that this little known album was above so many great prog classics.

The charts are easily manipulated and that is all the proof I need!

Well, it's quite obvious that this album made it into the charts through fanboy votes rather than actual reviews - and the reviews do speak for themselves.

I'm not being harsh or unfair - there are more chants of "wonderful", "really good" and other spewing praise than constructive and helpful comments.

The problem with any chart is that it depends on what is popular, and the reasons behind the popularity of an album can simply be deduced by reading the reviews.

When you compare some of the lavish and detailled reviews given to the "Classic" prog albums, it's easy to see which albums get into the charts via fanboys and which through consumate proggers. It's thankfully clear to see that most of the chart is dominated by the progholes, which can't be a bad thing.

In short, I think Mike's algorithm is good, but it doesn't and can't take into account the fact that if only people who like it Vote for it (ie, leave a rating but no review), then it gets into the chart.

There are plenty of "no review" ratings for other bands too - but this particular album is exceptionally gifted from this perspective...

I can feel a review coming on...

^ BTW: I think it's disgusting how you manipulate the chart by issuing a ridiculous 1 star review for Terria. Frankly, I think that this is not appropriate behaviour for a collab. Go ahead if you must, but don't expect me to engage in any meaningful discussion about music with you.

'Top 100' lists and such like are all very subjective really; I doubt very much that anyone here would agree with the entire Top 100, and as such arguments over it are somewhat academic really.

However, I understand the frustration with relatively new albums thundering up the charts (remember the 'Octavarium' debacle?) from poorly written, 'this band/album is amazing' or the reverse, types. In the end, the 'Octavarium' situation a while back was solved without any problems (the collaborator reviews there especially are superbly written), and I reckon the 'fanboy'/'hateboy' reviews for the album in question will be soon taken from the site. Not having heard the album, I couldn't comment whether the album really was deserving of a place in the Top 100, but nevertheless I feel you can still sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of reviews.