I don't know if anyone else has their heart set on this, but I would be more than happy to compile scores for this year's best-of list.

In that spirit, we can probably start to discuss how to put together the list. I thought last year's system was good, but I would be pretty open to a system like Pitchfork's, where users have a certain number of points to assign.

I also think that last year's membership limits (was it 30 posts or 3 months?) were pretty good, but those are, I guess, open to discussion as well.

What do you all think?

Two concerns:
1. Anything related to the devil's website is out of the question.
2. Maybe someone who has been a member for a litte bit longer should do it. But if everyone else is OK with it then that's cool with me.

Also, if you do end up doing it, you need to make sure your internet/computer doesn't crash the day you are supposed to post the results!

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
Two concerns:
1. Anything related to the devil's website is out of the question.
2. Maybe someone who has been a member for a litte bit longer should do it. But if everyone else is OK with it then that's cool with me.

Also, if you do end up doing it, you need to make sure your internet/computer doesn't crash the day you are supposed to post the results!

1. I definitely understand your problem with Pitchfork, and
2. RavingLunatic joined the forums in April 2005 and did the 2006 list so I think that bit should be okay.

I think the 3 month limit is OK, but I'm not so keen on the 30 post thing. I recall that their was a rush of new people posting a bunch of pointless stuff at the end of 2006 just to get to 30 posts.

My vote: 3 months, no matter how many post you make. I don't want to see all that stuff again this year, personally.

I thought the scoring system we worked out last year worked out the best. We talked about assigning points a lot last year, and there were just too many people who thought it would be a pain in the ass, both in terms of making your list and tallying the results. In the end, the weighted list was a nice compromise.

We originally set the 30 post rule to keep people from joining, making a list, then disappearing forever. I don't mind it, but some people have complained about it. I think setting a straight 3 month limit is a little bogus too. If someone discovers these forums in November, you're going to tell them they can't contribute?

I thought last year's list was great... and, while i've only contributed a handful of times - i'd love to participate again.

I like to think I contribute only when i've something thoughtful to state.

quote:

If someone discovers these forums in November, you're going to tell them they can't contribute?

Ummm...yeah?

Actually, no. I'm glad you put it that way, eric - it does seem in contrast to our usual welcoming ways here.

Oh God, is it that time again? I agree with eg75, last year's system seemed to work out pretty well.

Since you're starting to think about this so early, you may want to try to devise a better method for the "Best Songs of the Year" poll we did.

I did the tally for that one last year, and the way we worked it was an unordered list - the first place song was simply the one that received the most mentions.

One of the problems I really noticed was that some artists would have done better but people had a hard time deciding what was the best song on the album. I think the Decemeberists had multiple votes for every song on The Crane Wife, but none got enough votes to make our top 20. Maybe that speaks to the Decemberists' strengths as an album vs singles band though.

Also, it was sort of a bitch to compile do to the sheer variety of songs that came in. I think with all the lists, I had around 1000 different songs mentioned.

One of the thoughts I had after the contest was going is some sort of two-tiered voting method:

1. A nomination period, where people could nominate a list of songs they thought were the best.

2. After the nomination period, you'd compile a list of nominees that received a minimum number of nominations (i'd make it like 4 or 5 votes)

3. People would re-vote from the list of nominees. At that point we could choose to do ordered or unordered lists.

The nominating system for Best Songs makes sense.

As far as the Best Albums list, I think that the consensus is to do everything pretty much the same way as before. Am I correct in thinking that?

quote:

As far as the Best Albums list, I think that the consensus is to do everything pretty much the same way as before. Am I correct in thinking that?

You can try to open up a discussion, but you're going to come across two schools of thought:

1. People who prefer a straight list - #1 is worth 20 pts and # 20 is worth 1 pt

2. People who want a pool of points they can assign, a la P4K, PazzNJop.

The weighted list (where the difference between 1 and 5 is far greater than the point difference between 15 and 20), was a pretty good compromise. We only had a few complaints about it last year, and it was easy on all parties involved. I also think it produced a list that was a pretty accurate representation of the albums we were talking about last year.

quote:

Originally posted by L. R. William Spencer:
1. I definitely understand your problem with Pitchfork, and
2. RavingLunatic joined the forums in April 2005 and did the 2006 list so I think that bit should be okay.

You're cool with me L.R., plus if you are this enthusiastic about compiling the year-end list then go for it.

Many people like to look down on not including others, yet they state that allowing only people with at least three months membership to contribute to the lists is a bit unfair. I just want to note that some of the people who believe that are pretty big hypocrites since some of them are members of such sites that commend such exclusory. I think that if people want to contribute, the three-month or 30-post rule is OK.

As for scoring, I think that the way we had it last year was pretty good. The only thing I would change is how many points each one gets. Years like this, where there is so much great music, there should be a little more separation from albums 14 and 17 or 9 and 11. I suggest something like this:

1. 120 points
2. 110 points
3. 100 points
4. 90 points
5. 85 points
6. 80 points
7. 75 points
8. 70 points
9. 65 points
10. 60 points
11. 55 points
12. 50 points
13. 45 points
14. 40 points
15. 35 points
16. 30 points
17. 25 points
18. 20 points
19. 15 points
20. 10 points

I also suggest that maybe we make it the "top 40 albums from MC members." There is so much great music out that the top 20 would leave out so many quality albums.

Fragile Kid,
I like the idea of giving the highest album more points but in your system, someone could have a random #1 album and another album would have to get 12 #20's to catch up. It seems a bit much.

How about this for a scoring system (The max amount of albums you can name is 30).
#1 Album is worth 4 points
Albums#2-5 are worth 3 points
Albums#6-10 are worth 2 points
Albums#11-30 are worth 1 point

I believe this system is fair because it does reward your higher ranked albums but good albums that are mentioned on multiple lists will still surpass Random #1's (meaning they are not popular albums among users, but someone makes it their #1). This also should be fairly easy to calculate.

What does everyone think?

In case anyone wasn't around last year, this is how we distributed the points.

1 - 27
2 - 24
3 - 20
4 - 18
5 - 16
6 - 14
7 - 13
8 - 12
9 - 10
10 - 8
11 - 8
12 - 7
13 - 6
14 - 5
15 - 5
16 - 3
17 - 3
18 - 2
19 - 1
20 - 1

RL did an impromptu poll a few weeks before we started as to how people would distribute 200 points among 20 albums and averaged the results.

I liked the system albums & songs were figured last year. That gets my vote this year.

I'm just glad someone else volunteered to do the tally this year. It was a lot of work.

Consider this fair warning, Spence!

I do like the way we did it last year. I even visited another forum and found that they copied our system since they liked it so much. I mean, if most people want a change, that's fine too, but last year worked well I thought.

quote:

Originally posted by crazed:
I liked the system albums & songs were figured last year. That gets my vote this year.

I agree. I'm boring that way.

I just thought that it might be easier to keep track if we kept the points you could recieve to a minimum.

If Spencer is up for it I have no problem with it.

As for the best song list, how about starting Nov. 1st people can list their 30 favorite songs of the year. We have someone tabulate it and the 50 songs mentioned the most are listed on Dec. 1st. Then throughout December you can vote for your favorite song of the year based on those 50 finalists.

The only problem is we will start voting with 2 months left, but if we are going to have a nomination process this may be necessary.

I know I only have 200 posts but I would be willing to keep track in November and post the 50 finalists on Dec. 1st.

Do you have to post both albums and songs? or can you just do one or the other?

Since you're going to post them in different threads, you can do what you want.