Which chart weeks were corrected? - BuzzJack Music Forum

BuzzJack: Forum Index

Music Charts

UK Charts

Latest Site News

Sabrina Carpenter still tops the singles chart

Sabrina Carpenter still rules the singles chart

Sabrina Carpenter makes chart history

Which chart weeks were corrected?

Display modes

Track this thread | Email this thread | Print this thread | Download this thread | Subscribe to this forum

finalfrancetasy View member profile	15 hours ago Post #1
New Entry Joined: 29 February 2020 Posts: 1 User: 103,057	Hi there I have recently discovered that the chart week of 4th December 1994 (the week that East 17 ascended to the top with Stay Another Day) was corrected AFTER the initial reveal by the BBC. My chart log from that week was therefore incorrect (as I had taken it from that initial reveal) and I've now updated it to match the official (corrected) chart as featured on the OCC site. Someone has told me that this was not the only such occasion, and in fact two or three other chart weeks were corrected after the initial reveal had taken place, all in the late 80s or early 90s. Can anyone please point me towards which weeks were updated? Even just pointing me to a particular month would help me narrow down my search! I can then check whether or not my logs need updating! Thanks in advance to anyone who can help!


Robbie View member profile	14 hours ago Post #2
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 3,467 User: 366	4 March 1995 too, and for the same reason (missing information from one retailer, Woolworths i think) The 10 July 1999 chart was reran after sales information from Our Price was missed. The recompiled chart was never made public at the time, and it was never intended to be made public, but is now online at the OCC website. The 11 November 1989 chart as broadcast on Radio 1 was sales to the Friday only. A full chart couldn't be compiled in time due to a fire at Millward Brown's offices on the Sunday. The OCC has the revised chart. The 1 January 2011 charts were reran due to a computer error which led to estimated sales of physical product being added due to a missing day of sales. It doesn't appear that any singles chart positions were affected though. This post has been edited by Robbie: 14 hours ago


chartjack2 View member profile	14 hours ago Post #3
BuzzJack Enthusiast Joined: 19 November 2014 Posts: 1,962 User: 21,383	Wasn’t a #1 incorrectly announced during the chart show in the 1970s at some point? Music of the Mountains or something like that?


Robbie View member profile	14 hours ago Post #4
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 3,467 User: 366	QUOTE(chartjack2 @ 19th September 2024, 08:42 PM) Wasn’t a #1 incorrectly announced during the chart show in the 1970s at some point? Music of the Mountains or something like that? It happened twice. 17 February 1976 (chart dated 21 February 1976): Radio 1 announced the new number 1 as 'Rodrigo's Guitar Concerto De Aranjuez' by Manuel and the Music Of The Mountains. Then chart compiler BMRB realised there had been a major computer error and the chart was recompiled three hours later. The number 1 was then revealed to be 'December 1963' by the Four Seasons. The whole of the chart was affected by this error. 6 November 1979 (chart dated 10 November 1979): Radio 1 announced the new number 1 as being 'When You're In Love With A Beautiful Woman' by Dr Hook. The previous number 1 had been 'One Day At A Time' by Lena Martell. Her record label (Pye Records) somehow noticed an error had been made and asked BMRB to rerun the chart. The following day BMRB revealed that the number 1 was still Lena Martell. Dr Hook did get to number 1 the following week. The error affected only numbers 1 and 2 (some of Lena Martell's sales were added in error to Dr Hook's sales). This post has been edited by Robbie: 14 hours ago


paulgilb View member profile	12 hours ago Post #5
BuzzJack Enthusiast Joined: 7 March 2006 Posts: 1,500 User: 55	QUOTE(Robbie @ 19th September 2024, 08:26 PM) The 1 January 2011 charts were reran due to a computer error which led to estimated sales of physical product being added due to a missing day of sales. It doesn't appear that any singles chart positions were affected though. I believe X Factor Finalists 2010 (which had significant physical sales) were initially announced as #18, then revised to #22. 4 May 2002 initially had Faithless - One Step Too Far listed twice. The lower entry was subsequently removed.


gooddelta View member profile	12 hours ago Post #6
Hello? Joined: 8 March 2006 Posts: 83,797 User: 116	The 1999 rerun saddling poor Lolly with a lower peak of No.7. But Semisonic, Mel 'G' and Sporty Thievz with higher peaks! I remember thinking at the time that No Pigeonz felt like it should have been top 20 (I'm sure it was announced as 22 at the time). Interesting that Our Price and Virgin sales took it all the way up to No.16. I mentioned this before on here but Sporty Theivz went 'up' to 21 in its second week, which I couldn't understand at the time because it didn’t particularly feel like it was growing in popularity. Obviously seeing that it should have been No.16 in the first place makes the actual drop to 21 more realistic looking. Tina Cousins also gained a top 40 hit with Forever, and Dwight Yoakam and Hole also got top 40s thanks to the revision. Shame they all missed a chart play. The rerun chart basically sent the pop debuts down and the other genres up, which was an interesting but unsurprising indication of pop doing better in Woolworths and the supermarkets and other genres benefitting in those other more specialist stores. This post has been edited by gooddelta: 12 hours ago


Robbie View member profile	11 hours ago Post #7
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 3,467 User: 366	QUOTE(paulgilb @ 19th September 2024, 10:49 PM) I believe X Factor Finalists 2010 (which had significant physical sales) were initially announced as #18, then revised to #22. 4 May 2002 initially had Faithless - One Step Too Far listed twice. The lower entry was subsequently removed. I didn't know that the revised chart for 01/01/11 was different to that originally compiled and announced on Radio 1. I meant to add too, that the estimated sales were erroneously added because there were no physical sales for Christmas Day! The computer program which estimated sales for days where sales were missing had just been upgraded and it appears the programmers forgot about the fact that there would be little to no physical sales on Christmas Day. The 4 May 2002 chart was changed after a Dotmusic poster (acerben) contacted the OCC on the Sunday evening to point out 'One Step Too Far' was listed twice on the chart, which chart rules didn't allow. The OCC quickly updated the chart. One of the two entries was the import version and it was this version that was removed. It originally had been listed at #68. The revised chart was published too late for Music Week, which printed the original version of the chart (and got the title of the record wrong, listing it as 'One Stap Too Far'). This post has been edited by Robbie: 11 hours ago


awardinary View member profile	11 hours ago Post #8
Here to play, here to stay Pronouns: he/him Joined: 8 February 2015 Posts: 21,366 User: 21,587	What would happen as a "best practice" rule if somehow, in the unlikely event, the figures were identical for two (or more) songs in the chart? In other words, how are tiebreakers decided and has there ever been a notable occasion where there was a tiebreaker in UK Chart history?


My... Bratwurst! View member profile	10 hours ago Post #9
BuzzJack Platinum Member Joined: 26 January 2021 Posts: 7,697 User: 122,344	QUOTE(awardinary @ 19th September 2024, 11:36 PM) What would happen as a "best practice" rule if somehow, in the unlikely event, the figures were identical for two (or more) songs in the chart? In other words, how are tiebreakers decided and has there ever been a notable occasion where there was a tiebreaker in UK Chart history? I believe the song that had made the biggest gain on the previous week would be awarded the highest position. At least that's the reason that was always quoted for The Joker getting to #1 over Groove Is In The Heart before it became apparent that the former had actually outsold the latter by something like 8 copies.


AcerBen View member profile	10 hours ago Post #10
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 18 May 2007 Posts: 3,675 User: 3,429	QUOTE(Robbie @ 19th September 2024, 11:20 PM) I didn't know that the revised chart for 01/01/11 was different to that originally compiled and announced on Radio 1. I meant to add too, that the estimated sales were erroneously added because there were no physical sales for Christmas Day! The computer program which estimated sales for days where sales were missing had just been upgraded and it appears the programmers forgot about the fact that there would be little to no physical sales on Christmas Day. The 4 May 2002 chart was changed after a Dotmusic poster (acerben) contacted the OCC on the Sunday evening to point out 'One Step Too Far' was listed twice on the chart, which chart rules didn't allow. The OCC quickly updated the chart. One of the two entries was the import version and it was this version that was removed. It originally had been listed at #68. The revised chart was published too late for Music Week, which printed the original version of the chart (and got the title of the record wrong, listing it as 'One Stap Too Far'). Did I? I have no memory of that, though it sounds like sort of thing I would do.


JulianT View member profile	2 hours ago Post #11
BuzzJack Platinum Member Joined: 20 April 2009 Posts: 10,144 User: 8,705	QUOTE(awardinary @ 19th September 2024, 11:36 PM) What would happen as a "best practice" rule if somehow, in the unlikely event, the figures were identical for two (or more) songs in the chart? In other words, how are tiebreakers decided and has there ever been a notable occasion where there was a tiebreaker in UK Chart history? Quite unlikely these days as although the sales are quoted to us in whole numbers they’re worked out to 2 decimal places. So sales for “Taste” last week might have really been 57,988.23 or something like that. If the whole number sales are the same they look at the decimals. Although on the physical sales chart where you need about 8 sales to chart I’m sure they have ties all the time.


Robbie View member profile	2 hours ago Post #12
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 3,467 User: 366	QUOTE(AcerBen @ 20th September 2024, 01:05 AM) Did I? I have no memory of that, though it sounds like sort of thing I would do. It might not have been yourself but I'm sure it was!


Robbie View member profile	2 hours ago Post #13
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 3,467 User: 366	QUOTE(JulianT @ 20th September 2024, 08:32 AM) Quite unlikely these days as although the sales are quoted to us in whole numbers they’re worked out to 2 decimal places. So sales for “Taste” last week might have really been 57,988.23 or something like that. If the whole number sales are the same they look at the decimals. Although on the physical sales chart where you need about 8 sales to chart I’m sure they have ties all the time. There's been no tied positions since Millward Brown took over chart compilation duties in 1994. If sales are tied to 2 decimal places, I'm sure they simply list tracks in alphabetical order. The one instance that sticks out is when The Beatles catalogue was made available to download at iTunes in November 2010. Alan Jones listed sales of each track that was inside the top 200 on the chart dated 27 November 2010. The sales listed included 118 Blackbird 2019 119 I Am The Walrus 2019 Both tracks had the same panel sales and all sales only came from iTunes. Unless there was another way that the titles could be separated, it looked as if it was simply an alphabetical listing.