What happened to TOP 100???

The more I read here, the more I find that just loving good music can be so complicated...

yargh wrote: 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)

Once again, you resort to shots at age to substitue for a lack of a point. You almost had one this time, and I was going to be so proud. What does reading comprehension have to do with anything? Are you saying that Pat, Zappa, and myself just smash our keyboards when we review albums, not caring what appears just so long as we can praise our god Dream Theater? (as a side note, all three of us are prog reviewers, while you're not. We earned that by the way).

Edited by 1800iareyay - July 12 2007 at 14:48

yargh wrote: Zappa88 wrote: yargh wrote: 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)   It was never a discussion about the Top 100! I made a reference to this thread and your behavior in it, not the actual thread topic. (Understanding intention is a little skill you might pick up as you grow a little sense in that empty shell on top of your spine)   I never said that non-collabs don't know anything anyways. I said that in order to become a collab/reviewer etc. you needed to show knowledge in your field, whether it be a genre team or knowledge of how to write an accurate and informative review. There are very smart people that are still3 star members, but their promotions will come with time.   Do not twist my words around.   I moved the discussion to the appropriate forum.  I'm sorry that you lack the mental capacity to understand this.   "I never said that non-collabs don't know anything anyways."   And I never said that you did (reading comprehension and logical reasoning is *really* a problem for you, isn't it?)   "I said that in order to become a collab/reviewer etc. you needed to show knowledge in your field, whether it be a genre team or knowledge of how to write an accurate and informative review."   And then there are people like myself, who regularly publish for other sites and therefore cannot submit reviews to this one; just ratings.  The bottom line is that any system that gives the likes of you more weight than the likes of me insofar as rating albums, is fundamentally flawed.  Hilariously so.

Edited by Zappa88 - July 12 2007 at 15:01

1800iareyay wrote: ^ I'll be the first to acknowledge his wisdom

This algorithm is more about math than wisdom though.

Zappa88 wrote: 1800iareyay wrote: ^ I'll be the first to acknowledge his wisdom   Thanks dude.   I don't believe we've ever met up before? (at least in pleasant conversation) BTW, I dig your reviews

No, we haven't, but I've read your reviews and a good deal of your posts, which are all more intelligent than yargh's outpurings.

Again, this list is terrible. In the new list I see Radio Gnome Invisible Vol. 3 - You by Gong in 52th place with 4,41 and 55 ratings. When Fear of the Blank Planet had equally many ratings I think it had a rating of like 4,47. Fear of a Blank Planet is just in 73th place though. It's just plain madness. And you can see so clearly how albums with many ratings are being punished, and would be much higher in the list had they had fewer ratings. Why can't you people see this madness? Is it so hard to understand more votes leads to lower ratings? There are tons of examples like it. Look at some of the albums with about 150 votes vs. those with about 50... 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?...

Edited by Sofagrisen - July 12 2007 at 19:44

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.

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.

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