| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
rattlehead 
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 11 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
 Posted: July 12 2007 at 08:10 |
I totally agree with many opinions that popularity is very important and should be included; I agree that albums’ disposition in Top 100 list is quite odd – for example DT outside 100, albums with a few reviews etc.
I also think that it was very good idea to affect more weight to the rating with reviews.
However when I read this discussion I come to one conclusion – everybody tries to create sequence of albums on Top 100 List that would be objective proper (in some aspects), and then want to use such an algorithm that would generate such a list. And I think this is also very odd.
Edited by rattlehead - July 12 2007 at 09:57
|
 |
Sofagrisen
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 18 2007
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 45
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 08:44 |
|
I am very sceptical. Some results are just plain weird. I am a huge PT fan, but the DVD Arriving Somewhere... in 12th place? Sorry, but I think In Absentia is a far better release. To me it seems this list does not take enough into account the fact that scores tend to become lower with more votes. 4,5 with 100 and 300 votes is far from the same. The 4,5 album with 300 votes would probably have something like 4,3 in score if it had 300 votes. People most enthusiastic about an album tend to vote on it first, like fans. I think that should be the main concern when making an algorithm. The new one seems very complex, but I think it fails to generate reliable results. I think it should be worked more on. Perhaps you can give us different algorithm proposals to vote over? I think it’s a good idea to let collaborators votes count more, at least.
After reading more about this new rating system, it seems like the number of votes are not taken into account, other than the fact you need a certain number of votes to get into the list. That is just plain stupid and a big mistake. As I already have mentioned, more votes leads to lower score, it is just the law of scoring, and one cannot ignore that. It seems like most fail to realize this.
Edited by Sofagrisen - July 12 2007 at 09:28
|
|
Seyo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 08 2004
Location: Bosnia
Status: Offline
Points: 1320
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 09:49 |
 Easy Livin wrote:
Are there any singles or EPs?
What do others think about the inclusion of DVDs? Is it right to exclude them? What about live albums? |
I would personally include only studio and live albums into any ranking lists because they are the core of progressive rock output!
After all the prime focus of this site is Music, not video or other media.
|
|
Seyo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 08 2004
Location: Bosnia
Status: Offline
Points: 1320
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 09:55 |
Eetu Pellonpää wrote:
chopper wrote:
I still believe that proto-prog and prog-related acts should not be included. |
I'll second this!  |
Me too, remember, these are not "real" prog rock!
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 10:02 |
yargh wrote:
Hercules wrote:
My advice would be to adopt the ice skating method of removing (say) the highest 5 and lowest 5 reviews for each album and averaging the rest. This will cut the incentive for the fanboys and spoilers to try to give extreme ratings to manipulate the chart.
But I still thinks it's pants and needs scrapping.
|
Though this is a sound idea under normal circumstances, it does not make any sense on a scale that permits only 5 grades. Hopefully, this site will eventually go to a 10 or 15 point scale. |
I agree with two things here.
1) remove outliers. All data has outliers and removing them creates a truer data set.
2) A better point system. Many times have I wanted to give a rating of 3.5 or 4.5 or even 95/100. It is just not possible with the current system.
|
|
|
|
sellingengland
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 12 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 10:15 |
|
ahhhhh, excellent to see Hamburger Concerto up at 10 there. What is with peoples obsession of Close to the edge? Fragile is a far better album!
Peace out
Edited by sellingengland - July 12 2007 at 11:11
|
|
If it stink's, we'll shift it
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 10:28 |
Seyo wrote:
Easy Livin wrote:
Are there any singles or EPs?
What do others think about the inclusion of DVDs? Is it right to exclude them? What about live albums? |
I would personally include only studio and live albums into any ranking lists because they are the core of progressive rock output!
After all the prime focus of this site is Music, not video or other media. |
I like the all inclusive approach, but that is preference.
Otherwise, I would vote only studio releases for rankings. Live Albums incorporate DVDs like PT's "Arriving Somewhere". Truly outstanding but still, it is a live show.
|
|
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 10:44 |
sellingengland wrote:
ahhhhh, excellent to see Hamburger Concerto up at 10 there. What is with peoples obsession of Close to the edge? Fargile is a far better album!
Peace out
|
Therein lies one of the main problems with charts like this. You are mistaking your opinion for fact. You may prefer "Fargile" (sic) to CTTE but the fact that CTTE is generally higher in the chart means that you are in the minority. It's all subjective.
|
|
Joolz
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 11:02 |
Seyo wrote:
Eetu Pellonpää wrote:
chopper wrote:
I still believe that proto-prog and prog-related acts should not be included. |
I'll second this! |
Me too, remember, these are not "real" prog rock! |
If this is so, then how can they be getting high enough marks to be in the top 100 in the first place?
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 11:05 |
Joolz wrote:
Seyo wrote:
Eetu Pellonpää wrote:
chopper wrote:
I still believe that proto-prog and prog-related acts should not be included. |
I'll second this! |
Me too, remember, these are not "real" prog rock! |
If this is so, then how can they be getting high enough marks to be in the top 100 in the first place?
|
Because it is good music. 
|
|
|
|
Evandro Martini
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 08 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 183
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 11:05 |
|
And why, when I click at an album, the artist's discography doesn't appear, at the right, anymore? This was a terrible change!
|
|
"You’ll never make any money playing music that people can’t sing.” Keith Emerson's father
|
|
sellingengland
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 12 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 11:15 |
chopper wrote:
sellingengland wrote:
ahhhhh, excellent to see Hamburger Concerto up at 10 there. What is with peoples obsession of Close to the edge? Fargile is a far better album!
Peace out
|
Therein lies one of the main problems with charts like this. You are mistaking your opinion for fact. You may prefer "Fargile" (sic) to CTTE but the fact that CTTE is generally higher in the chart means that you are in the minority. It's all subjective. |
Yeah I undertand that, I was just making the point that people on this site were giving higher ratings to CTTE than fragile, and that i disagreed with this. Cheers for the correction by the way  . Peace out
|
|
If it stink's, we'll shift it
|
|
Sofagrisen
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 18 2007
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 45
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 12:08 |
|
The more I think about this algorithm, the more pissed I get. It is completely misunderstood. Those who support it seem to think that now ratings count more and popularity less. This is fundamentally wrong. Actually, in this new algorithm, many votes will be a disadvantage. More votes leads to more average results. As an album gets more votes, it will fall in the lists, because its rating will become lower. Hence an album that is popular is being punished. That is why the two main concerns should be on how much ratings should count vs. number of votes. In a perfect world all the albums have equally many votes, and you wouldn’t have this problem. We don’t live in a perfect world, but we can still estimate what the score of an album would be, if it had as many votes as the album with most votes. The old algorithm basically tried to do this, the new one doesn’t, which is why it totally fails.
Edited by Sofagrisen - July 12 2007 at 12:15
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 12:34 |
|
^ not true. In fact you could say that the new algorithm is all about the number of ratings, since they are used as weights. In essence the system computes the average of all ratings, and the average *number* of ratings for an album. Let's say that the average number of ratings per album is 100, and the average rating of all albums is 3.5. The weighted average is then computed as:
(100*3.5 + n*avg)/100*n
where
n = number of ratings for the album
avg = average rating of the album
now if avg=5 and n=1 we get:
(100*3.5 + 5)/101 = 3.51
which means that because of the low number of ratings the album is virtually glued to the total average. However, if n=100 we get
(100*3.5+100*5)/200 = 4.25
and if n=200 we get
(100*3.5+200*5)/300 = 4.5
see? I'm not saying that this is an ideal thing ... but it *does* depend on the number of ratings.
|
|
|
|
Sofagrisen
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 18 2007
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 45
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 13:01 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ not true. In fact you could say that the new algorithm is all about the number of ratings, since they are used as weights. In essence the system computes the average of all ratings, and the average *number* of ratings for an album. Let's say that the average number of ratings per album is 100, and the average rating of all albums is 3.5. The weighted average is then computed as:(100*3.5 + n*avg)/100*nwheren = number of ratings for the albumavg = average rating of the albumnow if avg=5 and n=1 we get:(100*3.5 + 5)/101 = 3.51 which means that because of the low number of ratings the album is virtually glued to the total average. However, if n=100 we get(100*3.5+100*5)/200 = 4.25and if n=200 we get(100*3.5+200*5)/300 = 4.5see? I'm not saying that this is an ideal thing ... but it *does* depend on the number of ratings.
|
The problem is that it is taken too little into account, which is why we see all these strange results. The main difference now is that ratings counts more than it used to do, while the number of ratings counts less. Ratings seem to count too much, simply because as albums get more ratings they will fall on the lists. 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. The list is too new for us to have seen the effect yet, but we would have seen it in the case of such an album as Fear of a Blank Planet, which would have been in about 20th place when it had just 50 votes... Since then it has dropped about 0,2 points in about 75 votes... This is by far not accounted for in a large enough degree by the new algorithm, and so its position drops something 50 places in the charts...
(The newly updated list seem quite a bit better, because votes seem to count more, but I still think they are underestimated, and that the correct balance is still not found. But you are getting closer. ;))
Edited by Sofagrisen - July 12 2007 at 13:24
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 13:58 |
"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.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - July 12 2007 at 14:00
|
|
|
|
yargh
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 04 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 421
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 14:21 |
Zappa said:
"sputtered around uselessly and whined"? Says the man who believed that the admins were giving more weight to their ratings in order to gain complete control of the Top 100 list while I calmly explained to you that 4 and 5 star members have earned their right to a slightly higher weighted rating due to hard work and knowledge?"
You did not explain how 4 and 5 star members have "earned their right" to anything. There is no evidence that they have any greater knowledge or experience with music than the average non-collaborator, and I offered the example of myself to rebut it.
Try again.
|
|
Chris H
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 08 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 8191
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 14:25 |
yargh wrote:
Zappa said:
"sputtered around uselessly and whined"? Says the man who believed that the admins were giving more weight to their ratings in order to gain complete control of the Top 100 list while I calmly explained to you that 4 and 5 star members have earned their right to a slightly higher weighted rating due to hard work and knowledge?"
You did not explain how 4 and 5 star members have "earned their right" to anything. There is no evidence that they have any greater knowledge or experience with music than the average non-collaborator, and I offered the example of myself to rebut it.
Try again.
|
Seriously dude, don't take what I say to you in one thread and repost it in a different one just because you want the attention. I haven't seen you post one worthwhile thing on this whole forum, all you seem to care about is assassinating the President and complaining about how the collabs and reviewers don't know anything but still get weighted reviews. How old are you anyways man? You say that me and Pat and the other teens on this website don't know anything and should stay in the Dream Theater threads but you go and start drama like this is a f**king Disney Channel forum? Get a life bro.
Sorry about the thread hijack everyone!
|
|
yargh
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 04 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 421
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 14:36 |
Zappa88 wrote:
yargh wrote:
Zappa said:
"sputtered around uselessly and whined"? Says the man who believed that the admins were giving more weight to their ratings in order to gain complete control of the Top 100 list while I calmly explained to you that 4 and 5 star members have earned their right to a slightly higher weighted rating due to hard work and knowledge?"
You did not explain how 4 and 5 star members have "earned their right" to anything. There is no evidence that they have any greater knowledge or experience with music than the average non-collaborator, and I offered the example of myself to rebut it.
Try again.
|
Seriously dude, don't take what I say to you in one thread and repost it in a different one just because you want the attention. I haven't seen you post one worthwhile thing on this whole forum, all you seem to care about is assassinating the President and complaining about how the collabs and reviewers don't know anything but still get weighted reviews. How old are you anyways man? You say that me and Pat and the other teens on this website don't know anything and should stay in the Dream Theater threads but you go and start drama like this is a f**king Disney Channel forum? Get a life bro.
Sorry about the thread hijack everyone! |
OK, I'm not going to stand for this. I MOVED A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TOP 100 TO THE APPROPRIATE THREAD INSTEAD OF CONTINUING IT OFF-TOPIC ON A THREAD ABOUT POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY... And somehow *I'm* hijacking?
And I did not say that collabs and administrators do not know anything, I said that there is no evidence that they know more than the average non-collab/administrator -- who, by the way, seem to know a decent amount (see, it's these little things like reading comprehension and logical reasoning that you'll pick up quicker as you grow a little hair on your chest)
|
|
Sofagrisen
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 18 2007
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 45
|
Posted: July 12 2007 at 14:37 |
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.
Edited by Sofagrisen - July 12 2007 at 14:54
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
What happened to TOP 100???
