list updated on page 1. 5 new entries break Top 20...

quote:

Originally posted by The Furnace Is Fiery:
I've noticed a few lists from people with 5 or less posts. To keep with what has been stated earlier, and not to offend anyone, but, there should be a guideline to be honoured here.
Not to suggest anyone here would do so, but in case of sabotageing, or registering under new, different names to get two or more lists in, I have to set guidelines. Feedback welcome.

If they post it, count it. Post counts are a poor indicator of quality of contributions.

As for shenanigans, it's easy enough for the mods to keep an eye on that. If anybody joins up under a different name for purposes of skewing your count, we'll lock both the new and the existing account.

Now Playing: "Afterglow 61" Son Volt Okemah and the Melody of Riot

To piggyback LT's post, if you suspect that someone is doing something shady (double-posting, etc), contact one of the mods and check in.

If someone posts a short but ranked list, I'd count it. If they post a 'this is in no particular order' list, I wouldn't count it, as the point of your thread is to rank your list.

I agree - if you think someone's posting multiple times, alert the mods. Personally, I think all lists should be counted. Mine will definitely be unique here, as I give the mainstream and indie equal chances. I'm a big fan of female pop/rock. But I'm just as much of an enthusiast as all of you when it comes to finding what I think is best.

I would love to partake in this list but since I am not doing the math, I shouldn't be the one to make that decision. I just don't like anything that is exclusive. You will get a more acurate list if you include everyone.

Or I can just post my a$$ off (which I have been trying to do... thanks song tag!) and just meet the darn criteria.

Great idea by the way!

I think Fiery's idea is that he wants to make this list unique to and representative of this forum community. That's why I think he made the 50 post requirement.

On one hand it's good to be open and inclusive, on the other hand if you polled every music listener in America you'd end up with Black Eyed Peas or Nickelback at #1. Which just isn't a list I'd be interested in reading.

I'm not saying that'd happen if we opened up the vote to all posters, but this way it's like the regulars *own* the poll, like it's about *us*.

1. The Mountain Goats - The Sunset Tree
2. The Decemberists - Picaresque
3. Bright Eyes - I'm Wide Awake It's Morning
4. Sufjan Stevens - Illinois
5. The White Stripes - Get Behind Me Satan
6. Animal Collective - Feels
7. Sleater-Kinney - The Woods
8. Broken Social Scene
9. Clap Your Hands Say Yeah
10. Spoon - Gimme Fiction
11. Stephen Malkmus - Face The Truth
12. The Fiery Furnaces - EP
13. Sigur Ros - Takk
14. Antony & The Johnsons - I Am A Bird Now
15. The Light Footwork - One State, Two State
16. Bright Eyes - Digital Ash In A Digital Urn
17. Wolf Parade - Apologies To The Queen Mary
18. Okkervil River - Black Sheep Boy
19. Devendra Banhart - Cripple Crow
20. Bloc Party - Silent Alarm

edit:

i don't post that often (34 posts) but hopefully you guys know i've been around a while so will count my list.

Personally I think since Furnace is Fiery decided to do this and is doing all the math and grunt work involved with it.

That he/she should make the call on how he wants to go about working it.

I'm actually for using at least a 30-post requirement or something of that nature. I pretty much agree with what Bob said.

If they joined, they are a part of this community IMO. Not just anyone seems to join. The lists are pretty similar anyway, so I'd enjoy seeing new names as long as they put effort into it and have listened to a variety of stuff. I doubt based on the experience of who has joined that we'd be overrun with Nickelbacks. But I guess Fiery can do what he wants, if approved by the mods.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
I think Fiery's idea is that he wants to make this list unique to and representative of this forum community. That's why I think he made the 50 post requirement.

On one hand it's good to be open and inclusive, on the other hand if you polled every music listener in America you'd end up with Black Eyed Peas or Nickelback at #1. Which just isn't a list I'd be interested in reading.

I'm not saying that'd happen if we opened up the vote to all posters, but this way it's like the regulars *own* the poll, like it's about *us*.

Thanks all for the feedback. the reason I brought it up, was that 2 lists (I haven't included yet) were from people who registered just days ago, and their 1st posts were listed here. I don't know how to catch mods/whatever, but I guess we can see if the names come up in other threads, and include them.

I don't mean to exclude people, and maybe this is a bad comparision....but, say, as Spin magazine and any publication for that matter, publish their own writers lists...usually they take the writers that have written for them the past year and use their input for final "Best Of's". I wanted this list to represent 2005 participants....

Then again...the 'newbies' can post away on this site this month and contribute to this list in January. I don't have a problem with it, but it was mentioned early on and I had to come up with some sort of solution. Don't worry....HellaHellaHella I know, and Bongo seems fine(I really don't mean this to be exclusive), I guess together, if something seems fishy, somebody can contact me and bring to my attention.

Now on with the lists!!!!!

This post follows what may be the "last word" on the subject by the creator of the thread, so -- while I hope this isn't the case -- I might be too late. I don't think you should require, as I've seen some suggest, that a person have at least 50 prior posts in order to be included in your calculation. That's a very high number, and it would exclude many people who have made thoughtful but less frequent contributions to the forums (full disclosure: I wouldn't meet a 50 post minimum threshold).

Also, I don't think the number of posts says much about the quality of the participant. For instance, people can accumulate a large number of posts through repetitive comments or when they become embroiled in a personal debate in the forums (one example of the latter situation, which involved a forum participant's regrettable decision to make homophobic comments about an artist and which led to a lengthy serve-and-volly of comments, comes immediately to mind). Those types of posts do not suggest the participant is unworthy of being included in your year end calculation, but by the same token, those types of posts do not suggest the participant necessarily should be included.

Anyway, it's a good and varied group of participants here, so I think you'll have a worthwhile and interesting final list.

I promise I'm real...

quote:

For instance, people can accumulate a large number of posts through repetitive comments or when they become embroiled in a personal debate in the forums (one example of the latter situation, which involved a forum participant's regrettable decision to make homophobic comments about an artist and which led to a lengthy serve-and-volly of comments, comes immediately to mind).

Those jabs only account for about 5 of my 530+ posts.

I'm opposed to the limit, if only because it'd be nice to see a few lists without the usual suspects, and those lists would be coming from "outsiders." This is mostly a "duh" exercise at the moment. Wolf Parade is #1. Wow. NEVER SAW THAT COMING. (No, I'm not much better — 5 or 6 of the Top 20 will likely be in mine as well.)

Also, I should mention, the numbering system might prove fatally flawed if #1 and #2 are only separated by 1 point (which is why I suggested a practice run for '04 discs). If everyone puts album X between #5 and #10 it could amass enough points to take #1 even though no one picked it as the best album of the year. It seems wrong for a middle-of-the-list album to fall bass ackwards into the top spot.

You do what you want Furnace... I am excited to see the end result. I have already discovered someone who I had never heard of so thanks! (The National - Alligator)

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:
Also, I should mention, the numbering system might prove fatally flawed if #1 and #2 are only separated by 1 point (which is why I suggested a practice run for '04 discs). If everyone puts album X between #5 and #10 it could amass enough points to take #1 even though no one picked it as the best album of the year. It seems wrong for a middle-of-the-list album to fall bass ackwards into the top spot.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but on the flip side, wouldn't it be possible for a not-so-well liked album to get a huge boost by one or two people putting it at the top of their list if you were to use a weighted system?

What's worse: an album getting the top spot that was in everyone's top 10, but didn't top any individuals list, or an album that didn't make most people's lists but got #1 on a few lists?

No matter what system is chosen, it'll be possible to poke holes in it. Fiery's system is as valid as any other system we could come up with.

Though, one idea. Instead of making a minimum post count, make a latest possible join date. So people who've been around for months but don't post that often like Hella and Daniel Esq can get counted.

I already said what I thought (count 'em all), but if that causes too much work, I'll help count 'em. I'm sure there are others who'll help too. If you want to set a cut-off date, then the date of the first post of this thread is the fairest, if such a thing exists (but that already cuts Bongo, whom Fiery said "seems fine"...)

Don't worry about counting my list, I have already posted my top 15 on the other best of 2005 forum. I think he said that I'm fine with the rules that he had already laid out.

I just hope we aren't making things too difficult and in the end the list doesn't get made.

quote:

Originally posted by The Furnace Is Fiery:

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Good idea, Fiery. Should be interesting.

When you say OUR top 20 records, do you plan on counting the lists of people who post on a semi-regular basis or do you plan on counting any person whose first and only post in the Metaforums is on this thread?

The lists should come from people who used Metacritic for 2005. I would say more than 50 posts??? Or minimum 2 months(Dec included). I guess that is fair...and I see what you are saying, so something to watch for.

this was the original intent. 50 posts is pretty stiff, but minimum 2 months is reasonable. So, to keep fair....Dec/Jan06 seems reasonable. I guess a good cut-off point for users is that you have to be registered by Dec.15.