quote:

Originally posted by Peewee:
And if we must dictate what the point values are, and if we accept as a fact that this will not, in fact, reflect the voter's own personal views, then why have a complicated system where no. 1 gets 30, no. 2 gets 25, etc? If this is the system we go for, I would suggest that in a list of 25, the point values should simply be 25-24-23-22-21 etc.

Well, my reason is basically statistical. Sure, there are some years where there is little difference between your #1 and #4. And maybe there is occasionally a big difference between your #12 and #13. In general, though, I think there tends to be much larger differences at the very top of a list and smaller differences between albums in the middle and bottom parts of the list.

I welcome everyone to chime in with their opinions though. I don't know if it's possible to have a vote exactly, but we can get a general idea of what most people prefer, I think.

quote:

Originally posted by Peewee:
And if we must dictate what the point values are, and if we accept as a fact that this will not, in fact, reflect the voter's own personal views, then why have a complicated system where no. 1 gets 30, no. 2 gets 25, etc? If this is the system we go for, I would suggest that in a list of 25, the point values should simply be 25-24-23-22-21 etc.

That's how Fiery did it last year.

I realize that you guys want the results quickly, but January 1 seems a little tight. I realize that we talk about almost everything here well in advance, but I often do some catching up over the year-end holidays, plus I enjoy seeing other source's year-end lists to see what fell through the cracks.

I realize music is a bit different than movies, where Award-contending films are all backloaded toward the end of the year, but I'd appreciate a little more time. Of course, my list will be on the geriatric side, so it won't affect the overall list in the least.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I realize that you guys want the results quickly, but January 1 seems a little tight. :

Jan 1 was probably used as an example.... I am sure final results will be around Jan 11-15th like last year.

On the points, I disagree with Peewee. I liked my point system of last year, but agree with RL's accessment on every rule so far.

Here's my personal feelings on the questions at hand:

- Set point system just because that will make things easier. On the aggregate, the best albums should still be at the top.
- I would personally like a due date around the middle of January. It's not like we're trying to beat other publications at posting a list, and it's just for fun, so there's no reason to hurry it.
- Top 10-20 sounds good to me, too. I agree with RL: if you can't think of at least 10 albums from 2006, you probably shouldn't be posting.

Re timing, I agree with mark f for the very reason he gives. The holiday season gives me a chance to do some extra listening and try to sort out my choices. Mid-January seems good.

Re top 10-20. My objection is not based on trouble thinking of more than 10 albums. I buy hundreds of albums a year and it is always torture to narrow it down to 10, or even 20, but it just seems overkill to have everyone post too long of a list. Personally, when i see someone's list and they go beyond 20, I tend to just ignore the lower part of the list, figuring that they couldn't discriminate and make the difficult choices. No offence to anyone here, but I really don't care what your #37 album of 2006 is going to be. So I would say 20 at the max. And most magazines that poll critics limit them to a small-ish number, I think.

Damn!! I am tired of being an apprentice guru and I thought when I hit 500 posts I'd be elevated to guru proper. Now I see I have to hit 600 for that designation!!! Curses!! I am going to go and enter a hundred posts in the song tag forum.

Looks like mid-January is what most people want the deadline to be, and that's cool with me. Mark made a good point about finding new stuff from looking at others' year-end lists. We can wait until that date approaches and see how everyone feels to set an exact date.

I think we counted everyone's top 20 last year and that sounds like a good number to me. I'll probably post a longer list, and I welcome everybody else to too. Nothing after 20 will affect the point total though.

quote:

Originally posted by Peewee:
Damn!! I am tired of being an apprentice guru and I thought when I hit 500 posts I'd be elevated to guru proper. Now I see I have to hit 600 for that designation!!! Curses!! I am going to go and enter a hundred posts in the song tag forum.

That's the easiest way to pad your stats.

Yeah, I'd probably have over 2000, but I don't really care for doing song tag anymore. Maybe I should start posting there like a fiend.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Yeah, I'd probably have over 2000, but I don't really care for doing song tag anymore. Maybe I should start posting there like a fiend.

I'm with you. I used to do it all the time, now I just pop in there every now and then. Movie tag is even easier!

Thanks RL for taking this on!

My vote goes for the following...

- post your top 20
- points system (20-19-18....)
- one month and/or 50+ posts to qualify
- cut-off date Jan 10-15

I think it should be by registration date rather than number of posts. I post reviews quite often on the individual album pages as "R H" and visit this site daily, along with the occasional glance at forum threads. So, for me, I'd love to have my list counted in an overall user list and don't feel that whether or not you visit the message board a great deal determines how often you use MetaCritic.

Also, any plans with the other section editors for Books, Movies, Television, etc...? Don't see why we can't have those as well, although the deadline for Film should probably be the end of March, at least, since a lot of films take time to saturate into a large number of theaters...

Yeah, Casper, you'd be fine. Right now, we plan on counting anyone who's been a member for at least one month before they post their list as well as anyone with 25 posts.

Sounds great. Keane will be representin'

No.

quote:

Originally posted by Casper:
Sounds great. Keane will be representin'

No.

I'm sure there are some people who feel that Keane is super duper.

quote:

Originally posted by Casper:
Sounds great. Keane will be representin'

No.

Ha ha, that's a good one. The only reason I joined these forums is so I could totally plug that 2006 Crazy Frog record, Crazy Frog Presents More Crazy Hits. Watch out, guys. I've got an agenda to fill.

Quick, mark, ban him!



I find his video's mildly amusing on mute. I liked the voting system from last year fine.

quote:

The only reason I joined these forums is so I could totally plug that 2006 Crazy Frog record, Crazy Frog Presents More Crazy Hits. Watch out, guys. I've got an agenda to fill.

The European version of crazy frog is one of the more disturbing things I've ever seen. He has this warped, knobby appendage sticking out of his groin to vaguely approximate genitals. Which makes me love him all the more.

But the american version is asexual, just the the good ole USA. No sex with that apple pie!

So the final decision is...?

P.S.: Would a moderator, at some point (perhaps not right now?), make a sticky for this thread to keep it up top? That'd be great.