Forum Home Forum Home > Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements > Internal news
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - TOP 100 Progressive Music Albums
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

TOP 100 Progressive Music Albums

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
sl75 View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sl75 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: TOP 100 Progressive Music Albums
    Posted: April 15 2017 at 07:01
And suddenly it works again.

As you were.
Back to Top
[email protected] View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Co-founder, Admin & Webmaster

Joined: January 29 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote M@X Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2017 at 07:00
will check this out, thanks
Prog On !
Back to Top
sl75 View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sl75 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2017 at 06:58
I tried to post this as a new topic in the Report Bugs section, but apparently I don't yet have permission to start new topics in that area, so forgive me for posting on here instead


I just tried to alter the parameters on the Top Prog Albums page (to select all album types, multiple genres, a minimum number of ratings, a minimum rating value, etc)
It's always worked before

This time I got:


Microsoft SQL Server Native Client 11.0 error '80040e14'

Incorrect syntax near ','.

/top-prog-albums.asp, line 187



and then no list

Back to Top
ProgRobUK View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: February 12 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 71
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ProgRobUK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 14 2017 at 07:33
I'm continuing to look into this and have spotted a couple more difficult to justify positionings.

If, at least today, you look at the Top 100 and then compare it against the Top 50 Classic albums we get at number 3 (Top 100) Thick As A Brick and at Number 4 Wish You Were Here. But look at the Top 50 Classics and their positions swap!

The same happens a little further down the charts with Foxtrot ahead of Dark Side of the Moon on the Top 100 but their positions swapped on the Top 50 Classics.

I don't have access to the raw data but using the information in the charts I have estimated the values for R (the average rating) and N (the average number of ratings) for each of the two charts. The interesting thing is that R seems to be pretty consistent at 3.41 for the Top 100 and 3.42 for the Top 50 Classic. This is really encouraging as it means that we are collectively pretty consistent in our distribution of our stars.

However, it is interesting that the values for N are very different: about 36 ratings per album for the Top 100, but about 100 ratings per album for the Top 50 Classics.

This confirms my suspicion that it is the changing average number of ratings that causes albums to switch places. I believe that there is a solution to this - by using the same values for R and N whatever "chart" we are generating - Top 50 Classics, Top 100 Ever or US progressive Metal in 2015. That way, if album A is deemed higher ranked that album B on one chart then they will remain in that order on all other charts generated at the same time.

Now to look at what values to use for R and N...
Back to Top
ProgRobUK View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: February 12 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 71
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ProgRobUK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2017 at 06:50
I find the top 100 feature on progarchives really useful.

Also I understand the algorithm used to order it and it makes sense to me.

However, the algorithm has an unfortunate side effect which is, in my view, illogical - mathematically correct, but still illogical!

Today (31st Jan), if I look at the top albums in 2017 I see Mike Oldfield's Return to Ommadawn at the top - great, I love the original looks like I might have to check this out.

So, I thought it would be interesting to see how that compares with other artists I like - say, Steven Wilson. So I show the top albums from 2015-2017 and it turns out that number 1 is Mike Oldfield and number 2 is Steven Wilson's Hand.Cannot.Erase. Now that is really interesting as that tells me that Return To Ommadawn is better than one of my favourite albums from the last couple of years. So I definitely need to check it out.

Rolling back time still further to, say 2013 and it turns out that Steven Wilson's The Raven That Refused To Sing is now top, Mike has slipped to second and HCE has moved down to third. I personally prefer HCE to Raven, but we all have our opinions.

Rolling back to 2011... and something strange happens... Raven is still top, but HCE and Return to Ommadawn swap places! This is odd.  I find it hard to argue that Mike Oldfield's album is better than Steven Wilson's when considering albums from the period 2013-2017, but that the Steven Wilson album is better than the Mike Oldfield album if you also include the years 2011 and 2012 - especially considering that both those albums were published several years out side of 2011/2012.


If you understand the algorithm you can understand why this happens. Mike Oldfield's latest (at least today) has only a relatively small number of votes (72) compared to HCE (1000+). The algorithm "pulls" an album towards the average more the less the number of votes it has. As I add in new years this gravitational pull gets greater and so Return falls below HCE. Every time you add in a year the QWR rating of the albums that are above the average falls - this is the effect of this gravitational pull.

So I can explain what is happening mathematically, but as I have already indicated it does go against common sense.


I thought I would share this observation. I am going to have a think about whether the algorithm could be tweaked to address this issue whilst retaining the general thrust of the algorithm. Ultimately it may be we just have to live with an artefact like this.


Thanks for reading!
Rob
Back to Top
esha9751 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: April 20 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote esha9751 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2016 at 15:04
Getting all kind of errors with this (potentially) wonderful tool. Try a few genres and a few countries combined and it will - more often that not - fail...
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37331
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2015 at 18:04
Originally posted by misterprog misterprog wrote:

let me check if I undestood well...
QWR for the top 100 is different from QWR of a specific year, correct?
Correct. 

The average rating  R and the average number of votes per album N for all albums in the given sample. So for the all time top 100 they are calculated using every album in the PA database whereas for a specific year they are calculated using only albums from that year. Similarly, if you filtered on subgenre then only albums from that subgenre would be used.
"You know what uranium is, right?
Itís this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."
Back to Top
Nogbad_The_Bad View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl Team

Joined: March 16 2007
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 6743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nogbad_The_Bad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2015 at 15:10
Originally posted by gooner666 gooner666 wrote:

Im curious how Hand Cannot Erase got in the top 100 so fast. Im pretty new here is that normal? Awesome site!!!Smile

Well you've got two effects going on, (1) new albums for fan favorite bands (SW, IQ, etc) tend to get a lot of very positive reviews from fanboys when it initially comes out with the rest of the listeners typically posting later on with lower ratings so you get an early jump up the charts (2) these bands get a lot of ratings overall so tend to be higher up the chart. Looking at Magma MDK that is two spots above Hand.Cannot.Erase, it's been out since 1973 so has been getting ratings from probably fairly early in the sites life, whenever Magma were added, and has a total 679 ratings. H.C.E. has 544 ratings in the short time it has been on.  
Ian



Anyone who thinks Kansas is Prog get out of the room - Adolf Hitler



Back to Top
gooner666 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: April 28 2015
Location: Prairie Village
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gooner666 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2015 at 14:57
Im curious how Hand Cannot Erase got in the top 100 so fast. Im pretty new here is that normal? Awesome site!!!Smile

Edited by gooner666 - May 28 2015 at 15:00
When you are sorrowful look again in your heart,and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37331
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2015 at 03:38
Originally posted by misterprog misterprog wrote:

aany reason why in the top 100 some albums do not appear even if they have a hiher rating than the number 100?
Only one reason. QWR - Query Weighted Rating - this is a weighted arithmetic mean that takes into account the number of ratings that each album has compared to the mean for the whole population (i.e., rated average and number of ratings average).

For example if there are 100 albums that only have one rating each and those are all rated at 5-stars then the Top 100 would consist of nothing but those albums since their unweighted average would be "5.00"

Originally posted by Dean, in another thread, </span><span style=font-size: 11px; line-height: 13.9999990463257px; : rgb248, 248, 252;>19 May 2014 at 01:42</span><span style=line-height: 16.5454540252686px;> Dean, in another thread, 19 May 2014 at 01:42 wrote:

 
The QWR formula is:

QWR = (NR + nr) / (N + n)

where QWR is the weighted rating, R is the average rating of all albums, N is the average number of votes per album for all albums, r is the album average and n is the number of ratings.

The effect of calculating the QWR is two-fold: 
    1. As the number of ratings surpasses N, the weighted rating QWR approaches the actual average r. ie QWR  (nr) / (n)
    2. The closer "n" is to zero, the closer QWR  gets to R. ie  QWR  (NR) / (N)
So, in simpler terms, albums with very few ratings/votes will have a rating weighted towards the average across all albums, while albums with many ratings/votes will have a rating weighted towards their own average rating. 

Therefore once the number of ratings for an album gets really big (ie n is much larger than N) then the actual value of the average rating r will have more effect on the formula than the chart average rating R and the QWR value will approach the actual average rating value r.




"You know what uranium is, right?
Itís this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2015 at 20:44
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Dean, hello you fluffy cute grumpy HugBig smile
Hello Sonia, flattery will get you nowhere... 

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Yes true what you said but atleast they will have a little less effect on the ratings scores. Also why, unlike other sites does P.A. allow people to rate albums without signing in properly?
I can't comment on that because I'm not [email protected]
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Big hug to you Hug
Thank you, hugs are welcome in moderation. Hug

there is no so such thing as moderation unless you have a stalker (that's called creepy) WinkBig smileHug


Edited by Kati - April 15 2015 at 20:50
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37331
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2015 at 20:22
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Dean, hello you fluffy cute grumpy HugBig smile
Hello Sonia, flattery will get you nowhere... 

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Yes true what you said but atleast they will have a little less effect on the ratings scores. Also why, unlike other sites does P.A. allow people to rate albums without signing in properly?
I can't comment on that because I'm not [email protected]
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Big hug to you Hug
Thank you, hugs are welcome in moderation. Hug

"You know what uranium is, right?
Itís this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2015 at 20:14
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

I think he was meaning to forbid 1 and 5 star rating-only's (without review).
Gerinski! Heart That is a brilliant option really! And would stop a lot of the very silly ratings, considering that most albums/bands added on PA certainly deserve more than 1 star because it's not easy to be accepted on this site and 5 star ratings are given easily too Smile big hug to you! Hug
Sorry Sonia, but if you think about the consequences of that all it does is skew the averages towards the centre because those people will now be distributing their rating-only between 2-star and 4-star ratings, or if they are really smart - give 2-star ratings to bands they don't like and nothing at all to those they do. The silly ratings would continue unabated. 

Also, we do not accept bands here based on whether they are good or not. The only criteria is they have to be Prog.
Dean, hello you fluffy cute grumpy HugBig smile
Yes true what you said but atleast they will have a little less effect on the ratings scores. Also why, unlike other sites does P.A. allow people to rate albums without signing in properly?
Big hug to you Hug
P.S. In that acceptance criteria, any true prog band is surely more deserving than a 1 star rating. Unhappy


Edited by Kati - April 15 2015 at 20:16
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2015 at 20:11
To be honest, we keep fooling ourselves that the 60's & 70's era were the best prog album releases and this might be due to the romanticized magical mystique of the wonderful unknown of that era, added with the costumes, funny noises and most memorable tunes, however we cannot say that new bands are any less, to be honest i.e. Opeth and their album Pale Communion is not rivaling any of that and is unique brilliant as his own too. Hug  
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37331
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2015 at 20:06
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

I think he was meaning to forbid 1 and 5 star rating-only's (without review).
Gerinski! Heart That is a brilliant option really! And would stop a lot of the very silly ratings, considering that most albums/bands added on PA certainly deserve more than 1 star because it's not easy to be accepted on this site and 5 star ratings are given easily too Smile big hug to you! Hug
Sorry Sonia, but if you think about the consequences of that all it does is skew the averages towards the centre because those people will now be distributing their rating-only between 2-star and 4-star ratings, or if they are really smart - give 2-star ratings to bands they don't like and nothing at all to those they do. The silly ratings would continue unabated. 

Also, we do not accept bands here based on whether they are good or not. The only criteria is they have to be Prog.
"You know what uranium is, right?
Itís this thing called nuclear weapons.
And other things.
Like lots of things are done with uranium.
Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that."
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 15 2015 at 19:54
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

I think he was meaning to forbid 1 and 5 star rating-only's (without review).
Gerinski! Heart That is a brilliant option really! And would stop a lot of the very silly ratings, considering that most albums/bands added on PA certainly deserve more than 1 star because it's not easy to be accepted on this site and 5 star ratings are given easily too Smile big hug to you! Hug
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2015 at 09:02
I think he was meaning to forbid 1 and 5 star rating-only's (without review).
Back to Top
aglasshouse View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 27 2014
Location: riding the MOAB
Status: Offline
Points: 1484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aglasshouse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2015 at 08:20
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

Originally posted by Yayamimi Yayamimi wrote:

One simple solution ......one and 5 stars can be given only posting a review that clearly demonstrate they at least know what they judge.....

How do you prove that?
That's true, it's hard to convey a clearly demonstrated opinion on ones music tastes via the internet. Unless they have an extensive and in-depth review of what the music, how are you to know what they judge?
http://fryingpanmedia.blogspot.com
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 12406
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2015 at 07:07
Originally posted by Yayamimi Yayamimi wrote:

One simple solution ......one and 5 stars can be given only posting a review that clearly demonstrate they at least know what they judge.....

How do you prove that?
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 40478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote micky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 07 2015 at 07:20
Originally posted by misterprog misterprog wrote:

the system is good. I just see one limit. Too often peole give 5 stars or one star without anydeep consideration. They judge how they like an album, while they should judge the quality of the music. I know it is difficult, but I give you a sample (I checked).If a guy doen't like progressive synphonic and an album is progressive synphonic, they will get 2 or 1 stars. I would like to find a system where the judgmente that are made from people that (from the hystory) do not like the gentre, will be authomatically cancelled.If a person dislike RPI and aafter 5 rating he ha an avarage of 1,5 he cannot judge RPI anymore. Maybe extreme,,,but more fair than now....


Forget those silly ratings, and especially the rankings based upon them.  They are for forum entertainment and never-ending forum discussion fodder. Did Genesis do 2 of the top 5 prog albums ever. HAH.  Of course not. It would really be stretch to include 1 in the top 10 if one takes a long view of all teh great stuff from all over the world. It is a popularity contest, and very anglo-centric at that.

It is in the text of the reviews where the value of them is.  Find a reviewer whose style you like, whom you feel to be objective and doesn't play favorites, and roll with those.  They are out there.


Edited by micky - March 07 2015 at 07:22
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.102 seconds.