What happened to TOP 100???
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39787
Printed Date: June 01 2024 at 20:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What happened to TOP 100???
Posted By: nuncjusz
Subject: What happened to TOP 100???
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:13
I'm very much in shock... I haven't been on Progarchives for a couple of days, and now I see some significant changes in the top 100, for ex. PFM in Top 10, Harmonium just outside of it, Deep Purple in the top 30, S.B.B. at #31, and Dream Theater's "Live Scenes from New York" are the band's highest rated album now, while studio version of it, "SFAM" fell from constant 14-20 way down to 53, just ahead of Beatles's "Abbey Road"... We can even talk about some kind of revolution in the top 100, is there a change to the algorhytm? 
|
Replies:
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:21
|
Yes , there is been a upgrade to the algo , it's now based on the more adequate weighted average calculation (more info here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_average - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_average )
;-) Any comments sor far ? ------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:27
|
I like it.... nice seeing Per Un Amico up with albums it should be up with. give you $20 though if you add some code to drop the same damn Genesis albums off the top of the list though hahhah ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:29
It looks a bit weird and not as accurate as the previous one to be honest...
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: DethMaiden
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:31
|
I don't like it, plain and simple. Sorry. |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:32
To be honest I stop caring for the list a long time ago, but I just saw Godspeed You! Black Emperor on the list... I like it!  
------------- 
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:34
------------- |
micky wrote:Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:36
 ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:44
| Well, it's certainly shaken things up a bit (CTTE is down at 5). I still believe that proto-prog and prog-related acts should not be included. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:45
Three Floyd and three Genesis top 10 albums. No complaints from me 
Looking at it, I think the top ten will be a lot less stagnant now. Whether that actually means anything is a nother matter.
/ps: I think it should be (audio) studio albums only. ------------- What? |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:49
|
I was looking at one of my reviews giving the band a 3 star and the result is 3.53. I also gave the same band a 4 star on another album and the results is 3.54. I'm not that good at math so that's probably why I didn't understood the wikipedia definition. -------------
|
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:49
|
Ahh there must be a shortage of things to complain about now that we are all getting uptight about the Top 100. Don't like it? So don't look at it! |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:53
|
It hasn't changed all that much. It's refreshing to see some new things in there though. Not that I often look at it anymore. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:53
one of the freedoms that Bush/Cheney CAN'T take away is the freedom to complain hahah yesterday it was some power metal group being added here...today some list that none of us would have noticed if not for the thread.... tomorrow? hmmm... why do you think we keep coming back to this site.... it's like a mini-soap opera ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:56
^ I come here to keep a count of how many anti-US government remarks I hear a day ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:57
 ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 16:57
|
ITCOTCK will forever remain at #7 haha ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:01
|
First time I bothered to look art it in a long time. Better than I remembered. Some more non-british albums, and PFM in top ten is great. Robert Wyatt and Peter Hammill in too, and Brain Salad Surgery on its way out for good! ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: oracus
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:08
|
Sorry for that, but i think the old one was more accurate. ÄNGLAGÅRD's Hybris on 17th position?  98. EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP) Brain Salad Surgery That seems really strange. I'm not the biggest ELP fan in the world, but 98 position is definitely unfair.. -------------  |
Posted By: SFranke
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:18
| I'd like to know what the weights are. Before, a reviewer's review was worth 2, a review >200 words was worth 1.5, and short reviews and ratings were worth 1, I believe. |
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:20
|
98. EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP)
Brain Salad Surgery 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:23
I guess the rating weights have changed. But with only 1 rating for each album the weighted average should be the same as the mean average which in turn should be equal to the rating you gave.
However, it does look like the Colaborator weighting has gone awry on your 4-star review. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:33
| I think it would be cool if the algorithm factored in sales of the albums somehow. Not too much, mind you, but it should get a tad bit of a say. Just a little. Really tiny adjustment. |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:47
Well, considering that Dark Side Of The Moon is in the 30-40 million sales region and many/most albums here are sub 10 000, I fail to see the point. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005  |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:48
It's just a trick to get Invisible Touch into the top 10 ------------- What? |
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:51
The hidden faction of deviants to destroy PA is exposed. 
|
Posted By: Dirk
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:55
Floyd on first position, PFM in top 10 and Bacamarte on14th position,Grobschnitt's Solar music live back in top 100, i'm definitely not complaining  . And indeed if this thread wasn't here i wouldn't have noticed for a month.
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:59
|
WYWH Does not belong in the top ten, I know some people can't seem to fing the difference between a good album and a good prog album. I totally agree we should do something about this apostrophy. ------------- 
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 17:59
|
Been thinking about this change this morning. Many of us experienced prog-heads profess our disinterest in the Top 100 (doesn't stop us posting though). So who is the Top 100 for? In my opinion it serves the newer prog-lover, someone looking to build up their infant collection. That's why a weighting for popularity was very important in the old system. A newcomer to prog needs, surely, to listen to the most widely acclaimed progressive music before branching out. Yes, they should branch out, which is why the site has 'Top' lists in all the different and challenging prog genres. But listening to the top 100 should be the first aim. That 'popularity' weighting has largely gone. So what will happen now? Some of the more obscure albums lauded by a few are now in the Top 100. Newcomers to prog will purchase them. They may find the music too much for their uneducated ears, and put prog aside altogether, or at the least discard the genre from which comes the album they purchased. My point? The change is great for me: it highlights some new music to get hold of (I've not heard BACAMARTE, for example). But the Top 100 is not for me, a prog lover since the early '70s. It's for the newcomer, who will, I think, be somewhat disconcerted by some of the music they may inadvertently end up with. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:06
When I was getting introduced to prog and I found this site the first albums I bought were those from bands I had never heard of before. I cut my teeth on Pavlov's Dog, Gnidrolog, The Residents, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, PFM, and VDGG.
If someone is looking to explore prog they're doing so because they want something different, something they've never heard before. There's no danger of scarring off someone with this sort of exploratory mindset. On the contrary the danger is boring him so he thinks prog doesn't have the answer I'm looking for; at which point he goes looking for free jazz or whatnot to satisfy him. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:06
|
good thing theres still like all of my favorite albums NOT in the top 100 top 100 could be reversed to bottom 100 for me and I really would have few complaints, heh ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:11
Heretic!!! Blasphemer!!!   ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:11
Damn Joey you must like some terrible music then if it's not even on the top 100. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Evandro Martini
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:13
|
Well, I'm one of those who care for the top 100, and I didn't like the new algo. Ok, Bacamarte and Harmonium on the top 20 is great, but I perferred the other list, where the grading were important but the amount of reviews too.
------------- "You’ll never make any money playing music that people can’t sing.” Keith Emerson's father |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:14
|
This is just a diabolical plot to keep DT as far away of the top 10 as possible!!!!!!
  ------------- 
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:15
|
Could anyone with better knowledge of math explain the new algorithm and it's characteristics? The Wikipedia article speakes Chinese to me.
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:17
|
Perhaps I need to be updated here, but I didn't notice the reason why TAAB's rating got lower....... Also other Tull's releases did....... WHY???
------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:19
|
Not everyone has followed your path, Mr Equality, even though I agree with your sentiment. In fact, I reckon you'd be a rarity. People tend to come at the boundaries of things from the safe centre, not the extreme ragged edge. I'd still argue that more people will be put off than encouraged by this change. And there are other ways to discover the ragged edge in this site. I just don't think the Top 100 should be one of them. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:19
|
I'm sorry if nobody likes what I'm going to say, but this new top-100, as unimportant as it may seem, is used for may people to make purchases or research... now it's even more anachronistic, only 70's bands in the top 20 (most of them), very obscure, unknown bands that may have GREAT music but that don't reflect prog's current reality... This is not about DT, but about the top 100 being a "70's prog top 100 with a few exceptions".... The older algorythm gave better results... that top-100 was balanced and, yes, all your favorite top-10 were by the usual suspects (Genesis, Yes, PF, VDGG, etc) but every now and then you could find others in the top 30 spots... Sorry, it's MY opinion, of course... anachronistic. -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:21
 This is also true... I myself did that... Followed the top-100... Now... Bacamarte? You know how easy is it to get a cd like that here in the US? PFM? (yes, with 50 USD)... We're making prog a difficult music to find for new people.... if we already agreed in that the top-100 is NOT artistically relevant, then let's make it useful for new proggsters, instead of just trying it to be as obscure as possible. -------------
|
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:24
What exactly is it weighted on? And, I don't see how an album with one rating of 4 stars could get an average rating of 3.46. Could you explain more? I'm curious about exactly how this is calculated.
|
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:25
|
Bacamarte is amazing and I'm glad they are in there (didn't notice that earlier)
------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: martinn
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:26
Seconded! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:29
|
The top 100 still contains almost no albums that I've reviewed, but the current version gives a much better overview of the different genres than before.
I think that there should be an algorithm that takes Kobaian lyrics into account .------------- 'Like so many of you I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
Posted By: Soul Dreamer
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:49
|
The algorithm that is used here reduces the influence of the number of ratings further compared to the former algorithm, at least that's what I get from observing the list.
But how is it possible that (as an example) the weighted average of CTTE was 4.58 (I seem to remember, the old algorithm also weighted collaborators 2, >50 words 1.5 and others 1) and now it's 4.55 while the album holds the HIGHEST number of reviews?? ------------- To be the one who seeks so I may find .. (Metallica) |
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:53
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 18:56
Yoy're talking like the new algo's made to include PFM in the top ten, as well as including more obscure albums in general. Its not. its obviously trying to be more accurate. If its successfull at that or not is another question. What an album costs in the US is irrelevant. The result of that would of course mean leaving out almost every non-englishspeaking record. Its useful learning new proggsters (especially in the UK and the US) that masterpieces of prog comes from all over the world. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 19:05
I don't care either way about the chart positions (obviously I like to see Floyd do well, but that's personal bias), however as a technical-type person I am intrigued by the maths behind the algorithm.
I haven't a clue how the weightings are done but I have a feeling that the weighting is based upon the ratings of other albums by the same artist.
Take a look at this: http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=4058 - QUATERMASS "The Long Road" a single 190-word review by a non-colaborator/reviewer giving it a 1-star rating, yet the total is 3.51.
The only way I can see this occuring is if the 3.66 rating for Quatermass's previous album is taken into concideration.
This would explain CTTE sudden drop from the top three.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Evandro Martini
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 19:17
|
From what I've seen, this new algo is much simpler. The former considerated the note it received from all reviews (e.g: 10 reviews, 8 of 4, 1 of 3 and one of 5stars, would resul on 4.00) and also the amount of reviews. Now, I think this new one is only judging the average note. Of course, it has a pre-requisit of a number of reviews, like 30 or 40, otherwise an album reviewed by just one person, as masterpiece, would be on top. ------------- "You’ll never make any money playing music that people can’t sing.” Keith Emerson's father |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 19:25
But how the average ratings are calculated has changed, so your example of (10 reviews, 8 of 4, 1 of 3 and one of 5stars) now yields a lower value than 4.00 ------------- What? |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 19:47
I have yet to pay $50, or any price close to that for a PFM CD. Where do you shop? ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 20:01
I've always thougt that, as well. Proto and Related should be on the site, but not on top 100, methinks. |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 20:08
Now if only I could find somewhere to BUY THEIR MUSIC!!! |
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 20:09
|
Images and Words at 66 what a fu**ing crime ------------- |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 20:16
http://www.progwalhalla.com/ - http://www.progwalhalla.com/ definitely has it
lots of places to buy listed on this thread: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39611&KW=buy - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39611&KW=buy
------------- What? |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 20:49
If you're familar with how GPA's are calculated in college that's a weighted average.
Using wiki's notation:
 Let me use the GPA as an example. X-bar would be your GPA. To find this you use two inputs, one being X.
X is the grade you recieve for a given class. If you got an A, X=4. If you got a B, X=3. A C, X=2. Etc.
The second input is W. W is how many credits your course is. A 4 credit course has W=4. A 3 credit course, W=3. You get the idea.
Now say you take 3 courses,
So your values are as follows:
X1=4 W1=3
X2=4 W2=4
X3=3 W3=2
so your GPA, X-bar, is calculated like so
[ (X1*W1)+(X2*W2)+(X3*W3) ]
divided by
W1 + W2 + W3
So your GPA will be 3.78 because you have after plugging in ( 12 + 16 + 6 ) / (3 + 4 + 2)
In the case of the albums I'm assuming X will be the rating a reviewer gives the album, and W will be the status of the reviewer. A rating without a review being W=1, a rating with a review being W=2, and a rating with review from a collab being W=3?
Max or somebody will have to clarify exactly the inputs. I hope that clears it up.
------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Soul Dreamer
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 20:54
That's all extremely basic and straight forward, AND not different from the former algorithm! But how have THE NUMBER OF RATINGS been included here? Because I think there is the BIG difference with the former algorithm (which btw I think was better, and probably more stable for all ratings with more than 10 entries). ------------- To be the one who seeks so I may find .. (Metallica) |
Posted By: Dirk
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 21:01
So all arguments that music like Bacamarte's or PFM's is unbuyable or unreasonable pricy don't stick. I agree with Opethguitarist that they're very very good. They're also not as obscure as people here seem to think, the album was in top 100 before the changes (around 70 th position iirc) and i guess that most people here who are interested in symphonic prog know the album or have at least heard about the band. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 21:04
I agree, the weighting method Equality 7-2521 has explained is the old system.
Looking at albums with only one review it seems that anything with 3 or less stars is being marked up, while 4 or more stars gets marked down regardless of who the reviewer is. As someone in another thread has pointed out - a score of 3.54 is being awarded to albums with zero ratings
Because we cannot see all the non-review ratings it is difficult to reverse engineer the method - we are going to have to wait and see if the Admins are going to explain it  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 21:13
I just explained the wiki article that Max linked and made predictions about how I thought it applied to the ranking system. As to how it actually does work I'm clueless and I don't care enough to look at some samples and figure it out. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 21:31
|
what is currently calculated? a weighted mean only has value if a non-disputable value can be derived from that mean, but all that happens is a calculation of a mean and that's given a non-specific value based on argumental weighing based on nothing, though maybe the result looks acceptable, it is neither a meisuring of quality nor of popularity, it just happens to look good becuse every weighted mean will benefit a large number of ratings above lower numbers of data.
basically it hasn't improved anything we had in the past, and made it more difficult to read the meaning one could give to such list.
if you wan to use such logarhytm, please calculate the mean - 2,5 that would help a bit, without really comming to any worthfull conclusions.
previous algorhythm wasn't perfect, but could be understood, currently it's just a difficult calculation signifying nothing. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 21:36
|
I think it looks more realistic. Good job!
------------- 
|
Posted By: Soul Dreamer
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 21:46
|
^^^ What is realistic? That the records you like are more in front? Can be but to my humble opinion the popularity of a record (=the number of entries) should be incorporated as well, and I think now that's underrated. ------------- To be the one who seeks so I may find .. (Metallica) |
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 22:03
I think it sucks balls. Why? Well it doesn't even make sense really, because I'm looking at positions number 43, 44, 45 right now ( I will not even mention which albums they are because I want to be completely objective in my argument ) and they all have the same rating. But even though 45 has a greater number of ratings than 44, and 44 greater than 43, their order does not reflect that. If they have the same star rating, the one with more ratings should be higher. That is not the case with 43, 44, 45, 51 & 53, 60 & 61and others. I argue this purely from a statistical standpoint; I could care less which actual albums are in what position. ...as long as pink floyd is #1  |
Posted By: Soul Dreamer
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 22:14
|
I don't want to impose on this thread, but I think the former algorithm was near to perfection (thanks Mike!). The ONLY place it let down, was with the albums with low number of entries (1-10). There you could get the strange phenomenon that an album with 1 rating of 5* would be higher than say another album with 4 ratings having 4,3 as average, which is not as it should be. That however, can be solved very easilly by applying a kind of Michaelis-Menten or (for the chemists Langmuir) isotherm approach, which would take away this strange situation.
Now I feel that the algorithm used is to calculate the weighted average, and then deduct something from the score for the number of entries (more entries = less deduction). I just think the more "analog" approach as divised by Mike is better. ------------- To be the one who seeks so I may find .. (Metallica) |
Posted By: Evandro Martini
Date Posted: July 10 2007 at 23:34
|
I agree with everything you've said!
------------- "You’ll never make any money playing music that people can’t sing.” Keith Emerson's father |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 00:35
Go join the punk rock archives! -------------
|
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 00:52
|
Perhaps it works as Equality described, but with a bunch of default hidden ratings given to albums, to make the first bunch of ratings have less of an effect. Then, the only way for an album to get into the 4s would be for it to have a significant number of high ratings. That would explain how most of the albums with only a few ratings all have averages of around 3.5
That's the best I can come up with, from what I've seen EDIT: Scratch that, the quartermass album someone mentioned earlier with only one review of 1 star has an average that's HIGHER than albums with only one 4 star rating. I'm completely stumped.
|
Posted By: King Lerxt
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 01:10
|
I really don't like it... Sorry! What happened to Snakes and Arrows listed on 2007 top 100??? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 02:59
Wow ... I have a degree in computational engineering (which includes a great deal of mathematics) and I can't understand your reasoning at all. Why should a weighted mean "benefit" from a large number of ratings? It doesn't. The resulting mean is an average, which by definition doesn't depend on the number of values. And the weights aren't based on "nothing" - they're based on reviewer/review rank (special collab, review, rating without text). Essentially what has happened is that the number of reviews does not have any significance anymore (since it is not used in the computation), and the resulting averages are now compared linearly (in the previous formula avg^3 was used). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 03:23
Brain Salad Surgery not even top 100
  |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 03:24
Well at least now we can get away from the pretence that this top 100 means anything
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 03:25
|
Mike: Math is not my strong suit (and it's late and I'm too tired to try to figure it out -- plus this site is not agreeing with my computer so pages time out), so I wonder why do all the unrated albums in the top 4000 now have a value of 3.86 (by my fatigued checking)? I have a theory, but... I don't find that useful. Taken from the top 4000 most popular albums http://www.progarchives.com/top-prog-albums.asp?year=&mostpopular=4000 - (CLICK) : Every non-rated album in the top 4000 is given a rating of 3.86 and they all fall between 1224 and 2533 (they are surrounded by reviewed albums). Between 2882 and 3286 all the albums have 2 ratings and are given 3.83. Between 2881 and 3153, the first albums only rated once are found, and are given 3.84. And at 3379 to 4000 are all the other albums given one star - at 3.83. All of the albums only rated three times are given a score of 3.85, 3.84, or 3.83. The album at 4000 with one review/rating of 4 by Sean Trane which gets a list rating of 3.83. I see looking at the Kevin Ayers page that the album ratings do vary slightly between the albums only rated once... from 3.79 to 3.83. Actually, I know notice for less variation over all in the rating of albums from band pages. As has been mentioned, low-rated ones are bumped up and high-rated ones go down. King Lerxt: Rush is now at 162. Asia's one review was at 2 stars, and the other is a rating without review. Xang has a 3 and a 5 (from collabs), and a 3 from another reviewer, plus one rating without review. Incidentally, Asia has three other reviews with a 2 star review each that score 3.70, and others with but one three star review each score 3.82.
------------- Just a music fan passing through trying to fill some void. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am into now: a youtube playlist |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 03:29
| Press the reset button, PA bosses; this obviously hasn't worked. |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 03:30
Me neither! I couldn't tell you if this way of measuring is better or not, but it still looks like a an incredibly thrilling Top-100 to me. Great to be part of such an amazing site!  P.S. I do agree about leaving out proto-prog and prog-related bands, though... |
Posted By: aprusso
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 03:35
| So what's the new algorithm? This top-100 seems absolutely incoherent. the one before was so much more reflecting values at stake |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 04:00
Thanks! We don't have a GPA (and I don't know what the acronym stands for), in my country we just sum up the number of credits multiplied with the grades to count the whole year's "weight". Let's now wait to find out what X and W are... ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 04:29
There's obviously a lot of stuff that's wrong here. Could the new algorithm be perfected/fixed somehow? If not, I got to agree that we should go back to using the previous one. Not because of what albums are and are not in the new TOP 100. Some reviews not being counted at all is an insult. And the rest of what Logan's pointing out is completely absurd. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 04:30
|
I don't understand why the most part of the albums of the ISP genre has been downrated. Cherry Five, LuxAde, Nostos and many other are between 3 and 4!!
|
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 04:34
In my opinion that's a correct move. It's important not to have in the main page only the most popular albums. This site's objective is to open the door to the huge amount of prog bands and artists that risk to remain outside the official "best of" poll.
The only remark, as I told before, is that I don't understand why so many albums has been downrated. Hybla Act I by Randone (2005), for example. The 73% of people has rated it with 5 stars. The finaly rating is below 4. Before the site's changings it was 4,30.
|
Posted By: Asphalt
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 04:34
Ok, personally, I think it's total bogus. member_profile.asp?PF=12127&FID=3 - explodingjosh and member_profile.asp?PF=7680&FID=3 - Logan have already made it pretty clear that it is not in the least coherent. Let's take 10 to 12
Now pop-quiz. If three albums are rated just the same, should we order them by which has the most number of ratings first? It would seem logical, since that would virtually mean that album could've scored lower. Yet it didn't, so that means it's not only more popular, but also more appreciated. Or maybe we should put the album with the smallest number or ratings first? It's not so popular, but it got better ratings overall. Oh, wait, I've got an idea, how about neither? Any of these would at least make sense, so I suggest we take a completely random criteria for arranging these albums! As Brian would say, THAT IS NOT COOL, MAN! THAT IS NOT COOL! |
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 05:25
|
This is not good, I'm afraid. I even did not look at top 100, I don't care about it, but the new rating average is simply not correct.
How on earth only one rating worth 5 stars can possibly produce the overall rating average of that item worth 3.84???
See this for example (a random specimen)
SPLIT ENZ "Split Enz" ratings distribution3.84 / 5
(1 ratings)
|
Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (100%)
Excellent addition to any prog music collection (0%)
Good, but non-essential (0%)
Collectors/fans only (0%)
Poor. Only for completionists (0%)
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 05:47
These albums only have the same rating when the numbers are rounded to 2 decimal places. The values are calculated to higher precision than that, so for example, Focus could have 4.43205 to Floyd's 4.43203 and therefore be ranked higher. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Asphalt
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 06:45
| Well then, we should at least the full picture of it, if that is case. Otherwise, it appears to make no sense to the casual visitor |
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 06:59
|
Guys, thanks for your comments ... I am currently still improving the calculcations so , more and more movement in the LISTS in the coming hours ;-) Thanks for your suppot ! Max ------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: TR!P
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 07:15
|
hey this is prob my first proper time on the forums but i visit the actual site avidly
and i too noticed the change today, i guess it is in a way technicaly better so im not complaining, so well done to ya'
it was quite odd to see the first time i realised it though, after seeing Ayreons "human equation" as the number.1 Prog.Metal album (i wouldnt really agree with that personly, but i guess ratings speak for themselves)
ive just written up a review (Agalloch's "the mantle") recently that you'd prob find on them most recent reviews written part on the home page of the site, in which i touch on the ranking
its crazy to think a year (or maybe more ago) when i saw "The Mantle" by Agollach on the top.20 prog.metal list to now'a'days where its not even listed on the top.100 prog.metal albums list ------------- join communism 
|
Posted By: Tichy
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 08:27
|
It's the silliest Top100 I've ever seen. Even when Atom Heart Mother was No. 1, it's better, at least funny and obvious to be fixed soon:)
Who is SBB, only 28 people voted for it, how could it be found a place in a Top List, I'm not talking about music quality, lyrics or songs. It's not the best 100 list, I don't argue that who's the best or how could WYWH be the best album in prog history, even though it's not a prog album at all (at least not fully-qualified)
This is Top 100 list, it's not for progressive rock listeners, but for prog newbies. They want to learn much more about progressive rock or are suggested by a friend, check out the progarchives and wonder who's the most populer albums and bands: Bacamarte, SBB, Focus, PFM? (Don't piss off, I love the last two of them, but these groups are not a starting point or the most known samples)
And why are all the polls about Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, ELP, VDGG; because we know them better and want to discuss about them, even their worst albums. Is there anyone to see or remember a Bacamarte or SBB poll? Because they are not popular, 500 people did not vote for their albums, 200 people did not review their album, I don't know maybe %80 of progarchives visitors did not listen it. I don't care about how SBB, etc. are musically great, they did not left a mark, were not discussed or unfairly criticised, their name were not heard from who did not know what the prog is. So the list must be changed soon, because it's meaningless now and don't forget that this list Top 100, not the best 100. And how can ELP almost out of it?
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 08:30
Weighted averages work best in this type of rating.
-------------
|
Posted By: nuncjusz
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 08:35
|
One day passed and "Scenes From a Memory" fell from 53 down to 69 and are now behind "LTE 2"... And S.B.B.'s "Memento z banalnym tryptykiem" which was way beyond the top 100 just a month ago is now number 13... BTW "Images and Words" are on the verge of falling out of the top 100... |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 08:41
The point about SBB and its rank I think shows the importance of using the current calculation. Such albums have previously suffered due to lack of voting and it detracted from their observed significance. Hopefully this issue will cause rise for individuals to listen to the album and discover its significance.
Up to this point its been a popularity poll with the most known artists reaping the benefits.
-------------
|
Posted By: TR!P
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:03
that may be true, but these bands like Pink Floyd, Dream Theater etc. that have multiple albums up in high ranks are there for a reason, and that reason is, they'er good albums
you say the most well known artists reap the benefits while lesser known bands suffer, well rightfully so, the most popular bands are popular for a reason, this isnt' MTV or any "top..20 pop hits"
the majority of the bands at the top of the lists are good bands that have made multiple good albums, this is why they'er so highly seated
sure, i do get what your saying how the lesser known bands dont get as much votes/reviews purely because of the lack of knowledge about them, but thats just one factor we cant really controll so its not really anyones fault
surely an album by a popular well known band which gets 50 5stars and 50 4stars should be seated higher then an album by a lesser known band who got 50 5stars only ------------- join communism
|
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:04
|
Guys, I've updated the TOP list with detailled explanations... http://www.progarchives.com/top-prog-albums.asp - http://www.progarchives.com/top-prog-albums.asp Hope this help .... ------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:27
|
M@X now you should concentrate yourself on the ratings of the individual album because how written in other thread there are weird cases (album with 1 rating and decimals [for example 3,45/1])
------------- 
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:32
Provided we are comfortable with mainstream Prog artists ruling the charts. While I listen to, and prefer, more accessible and melodic Prog, that is merely a preference and in truth may not be fully in-line with what Prog is. Some of the most important Prog is noticeably difficult for the average listener to enjoy.
I will raise a few tempers with this idea, but is DT's SFAM important? Not really because it is not original. The idea had been done before many times. Is Yes's Tales important? Most certainly in its nature. SFAM is more listener friendly thus easily attracts the non-Prog fan but Tales almost defines what Prog is about and even the most devout Prog fan may not find listening pleasure in it.
-------------
|
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:39
Nah that would pretty bad, it looks nice and clean when it is just "4.43" instead of "4.435780289862347856"...know what I mean?
|
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:39
I may have fix this already ... Wich album ? ------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:48
|
^ there are numerous examples, (including some 3.54/0 ratings) the one previously mentioned was Sean Trane's single review of this: http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=10162 - http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=10162 which he awarded 4 stars, but it gets a 3.55/1 rating ------------- What? |
Posted By: Drachen Theaker
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 09:55
Yes, can't see how it can have any credibility as a proper guide to prog when one of the seminal and establishing influences in the genre is barely represented in the Top 100. Love ELP or loathe them, it's a bit like doing a guide to classical music and leaving out Beethoven or Mozart. ------------- "It's 1973, almost dinnertime and I'm 'aving 'oops!" - Gene Hunt |
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 10:10
| Guys and gals, I'd hate to sound annoying but I'm very irritated by the complaints about who is where on the chart. First off, it's not like mailto:M@X - M@X is picking his favorite albums, or picking obscure albums for the hell of it just to make people mad...YOU GUYS ALL HAVE THE POWER! This is OUR chart, everybody here on PA has a say in it and take for example Brain Salad Surgery. It's not in the top 100 but it's your favorite album? Then write a review for it to give it some more of a chance of getting back into the top rather than sitting down and complianing and trying to change the algorithm! |
Posted By: yargh
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 10:12
|
The ridiculous importance some people attach to that stupid list is beyond pathetic. Considering how many ratings have been affected by an intent to alter an album's overall score, I think the most reasonable thing to do with the "top 100" is to get rid of it altogether. |