What happened to TOP 100???

^I think ELP's problem is that their music hasn't aged well.

Incidentally: I just implemented the weighted avg on my website too ... I like it! You can check it out here: http://progtology.com/home/charts.xhtml ... in the list the "normal" average is displayed, but the entries are sorted using the weighted avg. The cool thing is: For each chart only the albums displayed in the list are used for the calculation of the total weight (avg n_ratings, avg avg_rating).

greenback wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: greenback wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: greenback wrote: total_score = log(f)*g^3  =  log(number_of_ratings+1)*weighted_avg_rating^3   the last thing would simply consist in making a top 100 only according to this "total_score" value.   i'm curious how the output (top 100) would look like!   That would be ... my algorithm, which had been in place right until the recent changes!   didn't you only used a non-weighted avg rating? Yeah ... I forgot whom I was talking to. Since I have no intention to engage in a hair splitting contest, I'll end it here.   well, maths are not a subjective field where personal taste matters! math is pure science, and there should not have any confrontation, on the contrary.   usually, I do not discuss maths with people because they don't understand, but you seem to have a good background in maths. after all, life's boring without maths!

What I meant was that the essence of your proposal was:

MikeEnRegalia wrote: greenback wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: greenback wrote: total_score = log(f)*g^3  =  log(number_of_ratings+1)*weighted_avg_rating^3   the last thing would simply consist in making a top 100 only according to this "total_score" value.   i'm curious how the output (top 100) would look like!   That would be ... my algorithm, which had been in place right until the recent changes!   didn't you only used a non-weighted avg rating? Yeah ... I forgot whom I was talking to. Since I have no intention to engage in a hair splitting contest, I'll end it here.

"You are through with the past, but the past ain't through with you!" 

 

now this is what gives f(x,y) = log(x)*y^3

 http://static.rateyourmusic.com/images/one?id=271875&size=f

 

Edited by greenback - July 13 2007 at 14:40

^^ Oh, I don't take the list that seriously, I'm just surprised that ELP, a band most prog critics rate very highly has such a poor showing here.

Sofagrisen wrote: greenback wrote: there are many possible algorithms that would give good results.   coming from my imagination:   taking in consideration:   partial_album_score1 = f(number_of_ratings) where f could be a cubic root curve or a log function   partial_album_score2 = g(avg_rating_of_album) where g could be the famous weighted average discussed in this thread.   Thus, the total score of an album could be expressed as:   total_score = log(f)*g^3  =  log(number_of_ratings+1)*weighted_avg_rating^3   the last thing would simply consist in making a top 100 only according to this "total_score" value.   i'm curious how the output (top 100) would look like!   It looks like a very good algorithm to me, far better than the one we have now. I have tested it some. Was this the old one? :P

Edited by greenback - July 13 2007 at 13:15

greenback wrote: there are many possible algorithms that would give good results.   coming from my imagination:   taking in consideration:   partial_album_score1 = f(number_of_ratings) where f could be a cubic root curve or a log function   partial_album_score2 = g(avg_rating_of_album) where g could be the famous weighted average discussed in this thread.   Thus, the total score of an album could be expressed as:   total_score = log(f)*g^3  =  log(number_of_ratings+1)*weighted_avg_rating^3   the last thing would simply consist in making a top 100 only according to this "total_score" value.   i'm curious how the output (top 100) would look like!

It looks like a very good algorithm to me, far better than the one we have now. I have tested it some. Was this the old one? :P

Edited by Sofagrisen - July 13 2007 at 12:21

andu wrote: I agree with you but I find this a matter of nuance, so to respond to your question, I find nothing wrong in the algorithm which favors the A album (for the reasons I mentiooned in my previous post). The point is that by bringing the A album to attention, it will get more  ratings, and unless everybody rates it *****, it will decrease in general rating (just like you explain it) and will sink to the place it (supposedly) deserves. By this we all gain - both you who think the B album should get a top spot and I who want to promote the A album as worthy. Of course this does not work if we're all biased&frustrated over top positions. I think this is the point of the new algorithm and that you should not be worried, as it has included it's own correction mechanism.

I am sorry, but that correction mechanism will only work to a very moderate degree.

We have an album A and B, again. :P Both albums have 500 votes. You know two facts about the score of them. The rating of album A is 4,5. In the case of album B you only know its rating was 4,5 when it had 50 votes. What do you guess the rating of album B is now? My guess would be about 4,15.

The point is, this show how important the amount of votes is for the rating of an album, and that it must be taken very much into consideration. There is simply a vast difference between a 4,5 album and a 4,15 album, and there is absolutely no doubt which album should be ranked higher…

I don’t think you would be in doubt either. But the argument has nothing to do with popularity. It has all to do with the average behaviour of ratings. If I had everything my way I would like to see a unique regression analysis on every album, actually, but I realize that is a bit too much to ask. :P

Edited by Sofagrisen - July 13 2007 at 11:11