Well, as of right now it looks like:

---Minimum of 25 posts or 1 month of Metaforum membership in order for list to count

---Each person should submit their top 20 albums of the year. If you don't have that many, that's fine, we'll just count what you've got. You should have at least 10 albums, however. If you want to list more (I know I will) that's fine, but nothing after 20 will count towards the score.

---Scoring will go as follows: 30, 25, 20, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. I realize that this is the one area where there is some disagreement on how things should be done, and I'll change it if a new consensus emerges. I think this system is simple (unlike the Pazznjop method) and is slightly more accurate than the standard 20-19-18-17 method, since there is likely to be larger differences between one's top 3 albums than between one's #10-12 albums.

---For right now, January 15th will be the due date. I'm fine pushing this back farther if people want more time.

---No editing your list. Whatever you first post will be what counts (unless you can change it before I get around to tallying it).


I feel like I'm forgetting something, but that's what I've got for now.

Sounds good.

I agree. Sound fine to me.

I am already dreading this. If I may ask something of the Metacritic Overlords...Is there any way you can list all the releases that received metascores for each year, or at least 2006? Part of my problem is I can't remember when something was released. It doesn't need to be in order of score, alphabetical would work just fine. Not that all that will make my list were listed on MC, but a lot of them usually have been. It's something I meant to ask last year but forgot. Thanks for the consideration.

EDIT: So I just figured out how to get a list using the Advanced Search feature, but is there any way you can display more than 10? Thanks again.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: PRG,

I still prefer the ability to assign points—out of a pool—to an album to more accurately account for the discrepancy.

20 points assigned over 5 releases:

1. The Hold Steady, Boys and Girls in America (9)
2. The Decemberists, The Crane Wife (5)
3. Hank Williams III, Straight to Hell (3)
4. Neko Case, Fox Confessor Brings the Flood (2)
5. Lucero, Rebels, Rogues & Sworn Brothers (1)

If people wanna do that, it's fine with me, but when somebody last proposed it, some people didn't want to have to bother assigning points. I suppose we could do a yea-nay count if you want.

quote:

Originally posted by PRG:
I am already dreading this.

It is a daunting task, especially if you really want to give every release a fair shake. Metacritic alone lists around 450 albums released in 2006. I have a pretty good idea of what my top 20 will look like, but I'd like to go back and sample some of the stuff I may have missed or didn't get the first time around.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by PRG:
I am already dreading this.

It is a daunting task, especially if you really want to give every release a fair shake. Metacritic alone lists around 450 albums released in 2006. I have a pretty good idea of what my top 20 will look like, but I'd like to go back and sample some of the stuff I may have missed or didn't get the first time around.

Me too. I have an Amazon shopping list of about 10 or so 2006 releases that I have not had a chance to listen to or purchase yet, and that I think may have a good chance to compete for the list. I'd say I have about ten I am pretty certain of. Being able to see more than ten results per page would help though.

Daunting as it may be it will really help that we dont have to submit out lists until January 15. This will allow many of us who usualy ask for a bunch of albums for Christmas, or who get alot of money to buy abums for Christmas; a chance to get them and listen to them a good 2 weeks before final lists are due.

May I suggest that unlike past years when the list was shown before it was finalized to show how albums were doing be reconsidered this year. I feel it's better when everyone jusr submits their lists and doesn't find out what landed where until the whole thing is done. This adds some element of surprise.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
May I suggest that unlike past years when the list was shown before it was finalized to show how albums were doing be reconsidered this year. I feel it's better when everyone jusr submits their lists and doesn't find out what landed where until the whole thing is done. This adds some element of surprise.

I think that's a good idea. For one, we don't want to skew anyone's list. Plus, I love surprises. I'll record the totals for each album in a Word file, but then I won't add them up until it's all over, that way even I'll have a surprise.

I was never one to try to sneak a peek at my Christmas presents.

Oh, and I'm going to be in Florida for the next week and will have little or no internet access, so I won't be able to respond to any queries 'til next Thursday.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
May I suggest that unlike past years when the list was shown before it was finalized to show how albums were doing be reconsidered this year. I feel it's better when everyone jusr submits their lists and doesn't find out what landed where until the whole thing is done. This adds some element of surprise.

I think that's a good idea. For one, we don't want to skew anyone's list. Plus, I love surprises. I'll record the totals for each album in a Word file, but then I won't add them up until it's all over, that way even I'll have a surprise.

I was never one to try to sneak a peek at my Christmas presents.

Since everybody's lists are posted in the forum anyway, there's nothing stopping someone from tallying the lists themselves (assuming everyone knows how to add, or at least use a calculator) and skewing the results if they really wanted to. I, for one, liked TFIF's tallying of the results after every few posts last year. It gave people something to talk about.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Since everybody's lists are posted in the forum anyway, there's nothing stopping someone from tallying the lists themselves (assuming everyone knows how to add, or at least use a calculator) and skewing the results if they really wanted to. I, for one, liked TFIF's tallying of the results after every few posts last year. It gave people something to talk about.

That is true, but I think that not revealing the list until the very end is still better. I mean, if people desperately want to know what are the order of the albums are midway or something they can I guess, I for one wont really have the time to do that. But it is Raving's list so i guess he has the last say.

If I post the results before RL, will that be considered a spoiler? Would I have to post it in black text?

Yeah, I guess that kind of was a good thing to talk about. I may do updates. I don't know. Whatever people want.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
If I post the results before RL, will that be considered a spoiler? Would I have to post it in black text?

Anything that can be spoiled isn't worth doing.

I agree with FragileKidA. Updating the list prematurely skews results (oh crap, Decemberists is winning? guess I have to downgrade it from 10 to 50 so that it doesn't win)

I actually agree with assigning points. But, either way it probably won't affect the final order of the list more than a few spaces either way, because it won't change which albums are included the most often.

I always liked seeing the list morph over time. It also got me to buy a few CD's before the year was up that I never intended to buy in the first place.

Also... I won't be assigning any points to my list. I am way to lazy to do that.
Too much work!

Hey - yeah, count me in on the whole posting-more-than-20-even-though-only-top-20-will-count front