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

Topic ClosedTOP 100 Progressive Music Albums
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 12>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Marty McFly View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2009
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 3968 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2009 at 04:45

Hello guys, what about this idea (maybe it was presented here before, so excuse me if it's true), Hot 10 albums - the most viewed albums, something like Hot 40 artists, but smaller - because this banner is already quite big, so not to make it much bigger, right ? No good albums - considered rating, but visited albums - wanted albums which people browse a lot.
There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless,"

   -Andyman1125 on Lulu







Even my
Back to Top
Rune2000 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 23 2004
Location: STHLM, Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 1833 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 05 2010 at 15:04
I've noticed a weird "bug" every time I set the Filter:By Progressive Rock Sub-Genre-setting to Symphonic Prog and click the Submit-button the results page has genres Eclectic Prog, Experimental, Post Metal, Heavy Prog, Symphonic Prog & Tech/Extreme Prog Metal all highlighted in the multiple selection field.

The results I get are alright, but it's that minor bug that made me a bit confused. Confused
It doesn't seem to reoccur if I select any of the other Sub-Genres, only Symphonic Prog! LOL
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 05 2010 at 15:07
^ That's because the PA hates Symphonic Prog, and now you've exposed this to the world! We've been caught! Shocked
Back to Top
Marty McFly View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2009
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 3968 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2010 at 06:25
Originally posted by Rune2000 Rune2000 wrote:

I've noticed a weird "bug" every time I set the Filter:By Progressive Rock Sub-Genre-setting to Symphonic Prog and click the Submit-button the results page has genres Eclectic Prog, Experimental, Post Metal, Heavy Prog, Symphonic Prog & Tech/Extreme Prog Metal all highlighted in the multiple selection field.

The results I get are alright, but it's that minor bug that made me a bit confused. Confused
It doesn't seem to reoccur if I select any of the other Sub-Genres, only Symphonic Prog! LOL

Confirmed

Updated: It does the same thing with Crossover. I've selected Crossover releases from 2009 and after proceeding it, it selected five more genres for me. Three of them were Metal :-D it must be conspiracy.
There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless,"

   -Andyman1125 on Lulu







Even my
Back to Top
clarke2001 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2010 at 07:45
AARGH!!! Filtering by country is gone!!!

Anyway, it seems only Marty and myself cared about it...Unhappy


EDIT: Phew, it's not gone. But it won't load every time. Weird.



Edited by clarke2001 - March 08 2010 at 07:49
Percussion, sir!
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2010 at 07:49
^ What do you mean? I still have it. Shocked

EDIT: OK LOL


Edited by harmonium.ro - March 08 2010 at 07:50
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5093 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 13 2010 at 03:50
Hi, sorry for asking something which surely must be explained elsewhere but I didn't find it quickly.
I certainly understand the weighted average mean calculation and the different weights for rating only, rating + review or collaborators rating, but I still do not understand 2 things in the rating system:
 
1) each album has a main average rating which we can see when checking the album in the band's page, for example ELP's first album shows a rating as of today of 4.20. However the Top 100 list is ordered in sequence of another rating 'WR' which is 4.0195.
Which is the difference between the calculation of 4.20 and of 4.0195?  and if 4.0195 is relevant enough as for determining the Top 100 sequence, why don't we say that the rating of this album is 4.02 and instead we say 4.20?
 
2) how does the star average work? Taking again ELP's first album, it has an avg rating of 4.20, WR of 4.0195 and 276 ratings, and it shows 4 stars. Focus' Hamburger Concerto has WR of 3.9961 (so it appears lower in the Top 100), 164 ratings, but it's avg rating is 4.29 and it shows 5 stars. Doesn't the average need to be 4.50 or higher to get 5 stars?
 
Thanks ! 
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 14 2010 at 16:54
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Hi, sorry for asking something which surely must be explained elsewhere but I didn't find it quickly.
I certainly understand the weighted average mean calculation and the different weights for rating only, rating + review or collaborators rating, but I still do not understand 2 things in the rating system:
 
1) each album has a main average rating which we can see when checking the album in the band's page, for example ELP's first album shows a rating as of today of 4.20. However the Top 100 list is ordered in sequence of another rating 'WR' which is 4.0195.
Which is the difference between the calculation of 4.20 and of 4.0195?  and if 4.0195 is relevant enough as for determining the Top 100 sequence, why don't we say that the rating of this album is 4.02 and instead we say 4.20?
 
2) how does the star average work? Taking again ELP's first album, it has an avg rating of 4.20, WR of 4.0195 and 276 ratings, and it shows 4 stars. Focus' Hamburger Concerto has WR of 3.9961 (so it appears lower in the Top 100), 164 ratings, but it's avg rating is 4.29 and it shows 5 stars. Doesn't the average need to be 4.50 or higher to get 5 stars?
 
Thanks ! 
 
Hi Gerinski, I've wondered about the relevence of these two ratings myself. You could follow the link to wikipedia on the albums page, if you want to scramble your brains that is.  Maybe one of the people celebrating Pi Day could explain Wink
 
Hamburger Concerto (64) is actually ranked above ELP's first album (79), and Hamburger's WR is 4.1490 instead of 3.9961. I know that doesn't help with your query, but it maybe clears up the standings in the Top 100. Hope some nice person can clarify the purpose of the WR.
 
EDIT: I realise this topic has been discussed already, but I've been through this thread a few times and I'm none the wiser. I think the WR is maybe used so that albums with only a few (high-scoring ) reviews don't top the list. For example Emehntehtt-Re by Magma is number 43 with an average rating of 4.50, 87 ratings, and a WR of 4.2074. It is therefore below the Riverside album Second Life Syndrome (42) which has a WR of 4.2082 and 370 ratings, despite its average rating being only 4.28. This certainly might look like an anomaly  to a casual observor. Obviously the average rating remains the actual rating (averaged out), whereas the WR (I guess) is a theoretical rating. If the list was based on average ratings, that Magma album would be joint 8th alongside Pink Floyd's Animals! However given that the WR decides the individual albums standing in the list, I share your confusion as to why it doesn't get prominence on that list instead of being in the small print.   


Edited by seventhsojourn - March 15 2010 at 02:52
Back to Top
thedunno View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: June 19 2008
Location: netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 14 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 22 2010 at 15:39
I was browsing through the PA all time top 100 list to see if my favourite album of all time is listed. To my great suprise it isn't.
 
Of course, that I am talking about Sing to God Pt 1&2 by the mighty Cardiacs.
 
But strangly enough it is on top of the all time RIO/Avant prog list with an average of 4.69 and a weighted average of 4.2875. The wieghted average should be good enough for the 19th spot in the all time list.
 
So whats the deal here? Of course the album doesn't have that many ratings but that is corrected through the WR.
 
Comon, Cardiacs deserve to be in there!
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 22 2010 at 18:34
Originally posted by thedunno thedunno wrote:

I was browsing through the PA all time top 100 list to see if my favourite album of all time is listed. To my great suprise it isn't.
 
Of course, that I am talking about Sing to God Pt 1&2 by the mighty Cardiacs.
 
But strangly enough it is on top of the all time RIO/Avant prog list with an average of 4.69 and a weighted average of 4.2875. The wieghted average should be good enough for the 19th spot in the all time list.
 
So whats the deal here? Of course the album doesn't have that many ratings but that is corrected through the WR.
 
Comon, Cardiacs deserve to be in there!
I have no idea what "weighted average" you are talking about and how you got that number, but Sing to God only has 34 ratings, and only 3 of those are collab reviews. Surely you can see how that doesn't compare to the current #19, Birds of Fire, which has 225 ratings and 29 collab reviews?
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
thedunno View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: June 19 2008
Location: netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 14 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 23 2010 at 04:33
Quote
I have no idea what "weighted average" you are talking about and how you got that number, but Sing to God only has 34 ratings, and only 3 of those are collab reviews. Surely you can see how that doesn't compare to the current #19, Birds of Fire, which has 225 ratings and 29 collab reviews?
 
This is excatly why the ranking is made from the WR instead of the average rating. The WR is an adjustment for 'uncertainty' of the average. The more ratings, the less uncertainty, the closer the WR is to the average. Cardiacs scores an average of 4.69 but because it is based on 'only' 34 ratings the WR is calculated down to 4.2875. I checked the formulas and they seem to be correct. Statistically speaking the WR of Sing to God compares fairly to the WR of Birds of Fire. Still Cardiacs is not included in the top prog albums list.
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: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 23 2010 at 04:50
Originally posted by thedunno thedunno wrote:

Quote
I have no idea what "weighted average" you are talking about and how you got that number, but Sing to God only has 34 ratings, and only 3 of those are collab reviews. Surely you can see how that doesn't compare to the current #19, Birds of Fire, which has 225 ratings and 29 collab reviews?
 
This is excatly why the ranking is made from the WR instead of the average rating. The WR is an adjustment for 'uncertainty' of the average. The more ratings, the less uncertainty, the closer the WR is to the average. Cardiacs scores an average of 4.69 but because it is based on 'only' 34 ratings the WR is calculated down to 4.2875. I checked the formulas and they seem to be correct. Statistically speaking the WR of Sing to God compares fairly to the WR of Birds of Fire. Still Cardiacs is not included in the top prog albums list.
That missed one vital point - Sing to God does not have enough ratings to be counted in the Top Albums list - the filtering is done on the average number of ratings, which is higher than 34. If we lower this figure to below 34 to include the Cardiacs then many more albums qualify for ranking and many of those will have higher Weighted Ratings, so the Cardiacs enter at 114, not 19.
 
 
What?
Back to Top
Hawkwise View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 31 2008
Location: Ontairo
Status: Offline
Points: 4119 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 02 2010 at 14:10
How  the hell did Freehand get above Gentle Giants first 4 albums   ?  now to me that's really weird. 

Edited by Hawkwise - November 02 2010 at 14:11
Back to Top
Keewee View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: December 13 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 10 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 23 2010 at 20:56
Gidday

Have not read all the posts so maybe my Q has already been answered ... but ..

Why are prog-related and proto-prog excluded from the Top Progressive album charts ?

If these artists are to be included in the progressive archives, then surely they should also be included in this feature !

Or at least I should be allowed to include them for my own purpose !?

Would be nice to see this list extended to 500 ... or even 1,00 entries LOL
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 24 2010 at 06:27
If the top is a top of progressive albums, why include non-progressive albums in it?
Back to Top
AtomicCrimsonRush View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 24 2010 at 07:50

Have to check this.



Edited by AtomicCrimsonRush - December 24 2010 at 07:51
Back to Top
AtomicCrimsonRush View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14256 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 24 2010 at 07:51
Originally posted by Keewee Keewee wrote:

Gidday

Have not read all the posts so maybe my Q has already been answered ... but ..

Why are prog-related and proto-prog excluded from the Top Progressive album charts ?

If these artists are to be included in the progressive archives, then surely they should also be included in this feature !

Or at least I should be allowed to include them for my own purpose !?

Would be nice to see this list extended to 500 ... or even 1,00 entries LOL
Yeah proto prog and prog related are not actually prog albums, only related to the genre.
 
 
you want the list extended to 500 entries or even 100 - er...... you mean 1000. Its been done on other sites.
Back to Top
M@X 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: 4028 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 24 2010 at 11:56
^ Well said ! That's a good response to the question
Prog On !
Back to Top
Ozymandias View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: April 19 2010
Location: ZA
Status: Offline
Points: 4 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 14 2011 at 13:52
Has the rating system changed? Usually, "Top Prog Albums" from the main page corresponds to the query " Top studios of all time", however, This week you have Genesis; Yes & Jethro Tull at 1,2,3. On the Top studios of all time, the order is: Tull; Genesis; Yes.
I also note that "Cardiacs - Sing to God" is at No.73 under the "Top Prog Albums", but looking at the "Top Studios of all Time", ranks at No.24?
Like I said, these two sections normally match up as I check them weekly. What has changed?
Thank you.
Back to Top
M@X 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: 4028 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 14 2011 at 13:56
Yes, I fix a small bug in the query.

thanks for reporting I will fix the Top Studios of all time too.
Prog On !
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.