What happened to TOP 100???

laplace wrote: I agree with Sofagrisen; I would also like the top 100 chart to represent possible rating outcomes in parallel dimensions.

You show such incredible understanding of my argument, that was exactly what I meant. Also we should take into account what possible alien civilisations will probably like. This might be done by observing which music is being preferred by aliens in science-fiction movies. Star Wars or Star Trek would be good places to start collecting empirical evidence.

Edited by Sofagrisen - July 13 2007 at 10:30

andu wrote: Sofagrisen wrote: Albums like The Sky Moves Sideways, Blackwater Park, Remedy Lane vs albums like The Silent Corner And The Empty Stage, Elegant Gypsy, Cantofabule (Cantafabule), Be Live, Essere O Non Essere?... I happen to like the latter albums a lot more, and to find them more significant to prog-rock, despite being a lot less known, thus the new algorithm making some justice (btw I like the new algorithm). If there are others who think like this - and I have reasons to believe so, then I think you should reconsider your stand.

It's not about what one personally like more, it is about numbers.

Let's say album A has 50 votes and a rating of 4,5 and that album B have 150 votes and a rating of 4,4. Which should be higher listed? The way I think when approaching this, is that I ask: If they had equally many votes, which album would have the better rating? In this case, if album A had 150 votes, its rating would probably be lower than the rating of album B, therefore album B should be higher listed. I must base this conclusion upon earlier albums in the same range. What is the average 150 votes rating of an album which had a rating of 4,5 at 50 votes? My guess is something like 4,3, which is based upon casual observation.

Edited by Sofagrisen - July 13 2007 at 09:46

Just keep working them angels Rich, you'll get there.

How much more weighted are the collab reviews? I agree there should be a difference between reviews and just ratings but if there must be a gap between collab and non, it should be very small.

This top 100 is impressively laughable! certainely due to "abusive ratings"

Edited by philippe - July 13 2007 at 09:10

^ true. What irritated me about your previous posts was that you seemed to blame the algorithm ... it's obvious that the biggest problem for the accuracy of charts is not the algorithm, but abusive ratings.

^ I just finished reading all of it...let's see how buried this post is when I get home

Sofagrisen wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Do you keep daily snapshots of the chart? I don't and I don't think many other people do, so I guess you're alone on this one. What saddens me though is that you continue to say things that aren't true, or at least aren't based on facts - but you make it look like they are. No, sorry, I don't keep snapshots. I have followed the development in the ratings of Fear of a Blank Planet fairly closely though, which makes it possible for me to tell you the development in its score, only from memory though. :( (I have been thinking about studying ratings development more closely though.) The thing is you can see it on all albums. As they get more votes, their score become lower. The more votes they get, the less significant the effect becomes though. When Riverside releases their new album we will see an excellent example of it. If it is a very good album, as I hope, one might see a development in average score like this: 1 vote: 5 10 votes: 4,85 50 votes: 4,55 100 votes: 4,40 200 votes: 4,30 Basically you can see the same development in all albums. To me it’s not about quality (ratings) vs. popularity. It is about predicting quality, rather. If it was true ratings were stable and that when an album received more votes its ratings would basically be the same, then yes, the number of ratings should be taken out of the equation. But because basically all albums get lower ratings with more votes, the main concern of an algorithm should be take this fairly into account. This is by the way the kind of things one should have studied before one makes an algorithm, the way ratings usually behave. I am sorry if you people haven’t seen this effect, but it is very much real, and you will see it soon enough in the next new high scoring album with many votes.

Long post, short answer: Of course the problem you describe is not related to the ranking algorithm at all. It's simply because the higher a prog metal album (or modern prog rock album) climbs in the top 100, the more negative "hateboy" reviews/ratings it receives. That's because initially those who don't like prog metal or modern prog aren't aware of them album, but the more prominently it is featured in charts, the more attention is drawn towards it, and the more the prog "hardliners" try to push these albums down the chart.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Do you keep daily snapshots of the chart? I don't and I don't think many other people do, so I guess you're alone on this one. What saddens me though is that you continue to say things that aren't true, or at least aren't based on facts - but you make it look like they are.

No, sorry, I don't keep snapshots. I have followed the development in the ratings of Fear of a Blank Planet fairly closely though, which makes it possible for me to tell you the development in its score, only from memory though. :( (I have been thinking about studying ratings development more closely though.) The thing is you can see it on all albums. As they get more votes, their score become lower. The more votes they get, the less significant the effect becomes though. When Riverside releases their new album we will see an excellent example of it. If it is a very good album, as I hope, one might see a development in average score like this:

1 vote: 5
10 votes: 4,85
50 votes: 4,55
100 votes: 4,40
200 votes: 4,30

Basically you can see the same development in all albums. To me it’s not about quality (ratings) vs. popularity. It is about predicting quality, rather. If it was true ratings were stable and that when an album received more votes its ratings would basically be the same, then yes, the number of ratings should be taken out of the equation. But because basically all albums get lower ratings with more votes, the main concern of an algorithm should be take this fairly into account.

This is by the way the kind of things one should have studied before one makes an algorithm, the way ratings usually behave. I am sorry if you people haven’t seen this effect, but it is very much real, and you will see it soon enough in the next new high scoring album with many votes.

Edited by Sofagrisen - July 13 2007 at 06:50

Sofagrisen wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: "because as albums get more ratings they will fall on the lists"This is simply not true. "It is easiest for albums just above the minimum level of reviews to do well in this list, while as they get more reviews, they will drop drastically"Pure nonsense ... sorry!BTW: Of course if you're talking about albums with very low ratings (below the average rating of all the PA albums) then it's true ... the more reviews they have, the more they will drop. All because the more reviews an album has, the higher the *weight* of its average rating will be - in other words, the more will its average rating affect the ranking. Fear of a Blank Planet had about 4,5 in rating when it had 50 votes. That would have given it something like a 35th place in the list. Currently the album is in 69th place. Do you think this makes sense? Another example is Elegant Gypsy by Al Di Meola vs. Second Life Syndrome by Riverside. The first album is in 39th place with 4,47 and 47 votes, the second in 42th place with 4,33 and 271 votes. First I ask, did not SLS have a better rating when it had just 47 votes? Secondly, can you imagine Elegant Gypsy with a better rating than 4,33 with 271 votes? My guess is it would have a score at about 4,25. That's why it is absurd Elegant Gypsy is higher in the list, based on the numbers.

Do you keep daily snapshots of the chart? I don't and I don't think many other people do, so I guess you're alone on this one. What saddens me though is that you continue to say things that aren't true, or at least aren't based on facts - but you make it look like they are.

Dirk wrote: ...So writing 30+ reviews in this manner shows huge commitment to the site.Consequently i think these reviews shouldn't be counted as twice as much but 5 times as much as other reviews let alone ratings without reviews.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and I know that was just a side-comment in regards to your earlier discussion, so sorry for snipping and not taking your whole argument into consideration.

While it does show commitment to the site (it's commitment to music (prog) -- and sharing one's knowledge and passion that counts -- and those qualities are shared by most of the serious reviewers I would think, but not everyone can devote themselves to this site), I disagree with the idea of weighting 'site staff' reviews so highly.  No one should be the arbiter of good and bad taste, and opinions on music are to a  large extent matters of taste. Sure it helps when not only reviewing, but rating too if you know more -- since one will draw comparisons to better define perceived quality.  Experience counts, but opinions are divided.  Perhaps if more criteria were brought into play on how to judge an album's worth, it might help a bit, but as enjoyment of music is subjective...

If you look through staff (collabs, admin, reviewers) reviews/ ratings you'll notice that they don't find consensus.  Nor do they all agree on rating methodology.  So one collab give an album a 5 while another gives it a 2.  As we all are, they are entitled to their opinions.  Now which opinion is more valid?  Both equally so, as is everyone who made an honest attempt to review it.

I imagine that, on the whole, they are more likely to think through their ratings, and of course experience helps.  Incidentally, should their initial reviews be weighted so highly when they lacked the experience?

The weighting is, of course, not intended as a reward for their hard work at this site, but to try to make the overall rating of an album a better guide for the public.  There has been much abuse of the system, and this may well have helped to alleviate this to an extent.  They are generally more reliable, I think.  There are many great reviews by non-staff.  I wonder if a system could be brought into place to recognise that in the weightings (a non-staff reviewer may not contribute much, but may show consistent quality)... Hmm, that's a digression, and just a  thought.

Anyway, that 5X system would skew the ratings too much.  Imagine a little reviewed album that five regular members consider a masterpiece and one collab considers junk.  It would not be fair on the other reviewers who took the time to review it (and one wants to encourage people to review), would not be fair on the band I tend to think, and would not be fair to the general music community.

There are some reviewers here whose tastes are similar to my own, and some whose are not -- same for others. Vive la difference.  I've come to know which reviewers, staff or not, I can largely trust.  I often use the "band" pages and top lists for help when looking for recommendations, not surprisingly (though a streaming music mp3 if available is more likely to sway me) -- it gives the ratings of each of the albums. 

Now I don't care about the number of ratings when choosing to view the top 500, or whatever number I choose, albums of any particular genre, but I do often look to the point value before clicking on a link to check out the album.  In some cases, some collabs have gone against general opinion (say with a  limited number of reviews) and that has dropped the average considerably, but I've still purchased the album because of a thoughtful non-collab review, or a streaming mp3.

Ultimately, only we know if an album is good (as in good for us), but the ratings have proved a very useful guide.  Giving a weighting of 5 times what normal members can give it would make these top lists a less useful guide for me, and would discourage some non-staff members from posting their reviews.

I do think that site staff tend to put more effort into their reviews than many others.

Incidentally, I have a fairly good musical knowledge but have chosen not to rate or review here at this time since it IS a lot of work (and my work is writing; that would seem too much like work).

Kudos to all the people who have shown their commitment to this fine site, and for progressive music generally, with all their work.