What happened to TOP 100???

Hercules wrote: I'm pretty new around here, but I was a maths lecturer and researcher so I know a fair bit about algorithms and I don't see what the weighting factor is here and why it's needed. Surely number of reviews should count as it reflects the width of ownership of an album? Personally, I hate the top100. I don't need anyone to tell me what's best; I know - well, in my opinion anyway. I say acrap the whole thing.

I don't care much for the top 100 (all genres) list either.  It would be fun if we could set that list to reflect our own top 100 albums -- pure quality, subjectively speaking.  

I do make use of the top lists frequently. however.  I often check out the lists by  subgenre and/or year (usually I find 100 albums too limiting, so I set it at a higher number).  Great reference.

I don't care much about the placement of the albums, but I do like the rating to be reflective of how individuals have rated it. I've discovered many bands only rated and reviewed once, but the displayed rating in the list has swayed me to check them out.  I've generally found the overall rating more reliable for my tastes when few people have rated and reviewed it.

I like the idea of a change to the algorithm, but wish that albums with few ratings better reflected the ratings.

For instance:

VORTEX Les Cycles De Thanatos

has three ratings, one non-collab review/rating with a 5, one rating only of 5, and another giving it 4.  Under the old system, I believe that would have given it a 4.75/ 5.  Now it is given a rating of 3.81/ 5.  The band's other album has two ratings only and should average 4, but instead gets a 3.59.

The accurate rating according to the ratings is more important to me than the placement in the lists (both when going through lists or checking the band pages, cause that's all affected). Love that you can see the ratings without reviews now -- great addition.

Like the old system, high marked albums with a  few reviews are not getting a very high placement, but this time around it's dropped, or bumped because the actual ratings are being affected in a non-useful and misleading way.

The top 100 list is more aligned with my tastes now than before, but the changes go well beyond that, which has made the album ratings a less-useful guide for me (the band pages, essential albums lists, the various lists and filters one can use...).

Yep, the top 100 on the home-page is the least of my concern.  It is a useful beginners guide, I think, though.

yargh wrote: "Be objective as possible - ie not to give a high mark just because I like it." This makes no sense, since whether or not I like the album is the only basis I have for rating it.  Albums have no objective value.

To warrant a 4 or 5 star rating the album in question should be equal to the best albums in that particular sub-genre (not necessarily the whole genre - it is unworkable to compare a Post-rock album with a Symph-prog album). How you judge that is down to the individual, but I see plenty of instances where 5-stars are awarded to albums that are not even regarded as one of the best by that particular artist. That is what I meant by being Objective.

 

yargh wrote: "Not to review albums by bands I don't like - I still don't get why people do that - if a band you do like releases a bad album then give it a low mark by all means, but a low mark to a good album by a band you cannot abide? wtf?  "   I don't agree with this one at all.  I am a prog fan.  If a prog band consistently does work that I think is mediocre or poor, I'm perfectly justified in giving consistently low ratings.  If they ever release an album that is good, I'll give it it's due.  Plus, negative reviews are more fun to write.

That's not quite what I said - I was refering to the low marks given by people to albums that consistantly get 4 and 5 stars from other reviewers. To me that says that the reviewer in question did not give a valid assessment of the album and was simply voting against the artist in general - it even suggests that the reviewer hasn't even listened to the album.

Negative reviews may be more fun to write, but they are also extremely easy to write when judgement is clouded by a negative opinion of the artist.

Edited by darqdean - July 11 2007 at 16:29

Does anyone else find it strange that the top prog album is supposed to be a parody of prog albums? 

progismylife wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: M@X wrote: I can remove the EPS/DVD and LIVE from the list in the homepage and in the TOP MENU link that points to the TOP 100 ... But when use click on all ALBUMS/ALL GENRES , thoses should be listed You could remove them from the main list and call it "Top 100 Prog Studio Albums" (also remove the proto-prog/prog-related while you're at it ), and then add another list which contains only live albums. Or maybe make it three lists: 1. Top 100 Prog Studio Albums 2. Top 50 Prog Live Albums/DVDs 3. Top 20 Proto-Prog/Prog-Related Albums/DVDs No disrespect intended for live albums, DVDs or proto-prog/prog-related ... but such a division (100/50/20) helps to show the focus of the website.

Easy Livin wrote: The number of reviews and the ratings are the only factors taken into account for the algorithm.   The weighting simply give more emphasis to reviews by Prog reviewers and Collaborators, and to ratings which include a written review. This was done in response to the general distaste for ratings without reviews.

I'm curious ... how does the number of reviews affect the ranking? It seems like it was removed completely ... the average is the only thing that counts now.

russellk wrote: Here's what will happen. In the months before the next Dream Theater album comes out it will be reviewed by fanboys from their low-quality illegal downloads and appear in the top 10. Then, when the community sees this, it will attract dozens of 1-star reviews and disappear off the top 500. That is exactly what would have happened to Systematic Chaos under this new system. NOT under the old system! I ask: is that what you want?

Yes, this is what i want (i'm not speaking for others). I can't be the prime judge of DT i know Images and words and Scenes from Metropolis, they're very good albums and they should certainly be in top 100. I have a feeling that DT is past their prime now judging from what i read here and the few times i heard Octavarium. Is it really necessary that all their albums should  be in top 100? , i  don't think so. It's much more useful imo that PFM and Bacamarte are in here, not as universally well known but very much praised by too few people.

Right now there is an album from S.B.B on 15th position. I've never heard of this band but i'll at least read up on them. Top 100 has certainly become a lot more interesting to check out as it is now.  If you want a popularity contest you should watch MTV i think. Alternatively you can always  start a poll to discuss if Systemic chaos is better than the Lamb lies down on broadway to name just one example.

I agree with some others that only one album/artist in top 100 would make the list even more divers. Also that progrelated and proto prog and DVD's should not be in this top 100. I feel that live albums have a place in top 100 simply because sometimes the best album a band made is a live album and it would be misleading not to incorporate it.

Wow, nothing to say; as TAAB is placed at #1 for now, there's no reason to discuss..... 

I'm not complaining at all ... with the new algorithm we might even see Blind Guardian's Nightfall in Middle-Earth in the top 10 (if only briefly).

EDIT: Wow - it seems like the number of ratings/reviews has crept back in through the back door ... let's see what happens tomorrow ...


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - July 11 2007 at 18:03

I don't believe what I'm seeing. Images and Words are now #128, and Scenes from a Memory #178!!! Dear God...

Amazingly, LIVE Scenes from New York are now at #12...