And we count in base 10 because we have 10 fingers. :lol:

 

The Babylonians counted in base 60 and they also had 10 fingers.

The Babylonians counted in base 60 and they also had 10 fingers.

 

Yep. Other early civilizations have been known to count in the likes of base 4 and base 20 aswell. I had to learn about this too, unfortunately. :lol:

 

A brief google search on this. I'm honestly not making this up! :lol:

 

http://chestofbooks.com/reference/The-New-...nt-By-Tens.html

http://answerpool.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5...402/m/398608454

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...14194503AAysdUE

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...10025848AA2KHAI

 

And this article shows the the Babylonian counting system. If you look at the numerals they used, it's clearly based around 10s aswell. So it was like base 10 within base 60: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor...n_numerals.html

Edited January 17, 201114 yr by Eric_Blob

Oh, I wouldn't claim you were making it up :P I absolutely detest Maths, even though I was top set for it in GCSE and was predicted an A :/ Managed to get away with a B in the end, which I was satisfied with as long as I never had to do that dreadful subject again.

 

Anywayz, even with some idea of the source for it all, it still doesn't make any sense for me applying the logic in chart terms, but I'll just leave it at that before I begin to get an allergic reaction from too much exposure to god damn Maths.

 

Sorry vidcapper, by the way, for turning this into a Maths thread (although it's already somewhat that anyway as sales = numbers) :D

Edited January 17, 201114 yr by superbossanova

Oh, I wouldn't claim you were making it up :P I absolutely detest Maths, even though I was top set for it in GCSE and was predicted an A :/ Managed to get away with a B in the end, which I was satisfied with as long as I never had to do that dreadful subject again.

 

Anywayz, even with some idea of the source for it all, it still doesn't make any sense for me applying the logic in chart terms, but I'll just leave it at that before I begin to get an allergic reaction from too much exposure to god damn Maths.

 

Sorry vidcapper, by the way, for turning this into a Maths thread (although it's already somewhat that anyway as sales = numbers) :D

 

I'm the opposite. I decided to do two Maths A-levels for some reason. :drama: I'll admit, I'm really geeky and I actually did enjoy it at the time, but I've forgotten most of it now. :(

 

But yeah, I see what you mean. It shouldn't really matter whether Higher or Check It Out got #10 that week, or whether Invincible or Eyes Wide Shut got #10 last week. It is funny though, how we get more wound up about what's #10 than what's #1 on some weeks. :lol: And doesn't really make sense why we care so much. We just do, I guess.

 

Sorry for being so unhelpful. :lol:

The one I can't get my head around is why people stress about things making the "Top 15". I've never seen that as a cut-off point for a chart, whereas the Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40 etc. are more widely used selections

 

--

Richard

I'm the opposite. I decided to do two Maths A-levels for some reason. :drama: I'll admit, I'm really geeky and I actually did enjoy it at the time, but I've forgotten most of it now. :(

 

But yeah, I see what you mean. It shouldn't really matter whether Higher or Check It Out got #10 that week, or whether Invincible or Eyes Wide Shut got #10 last week. It is funny though, how we get more wound up about what's #10 than what's #1 on some weeks. :lol: And doesn't really make sense why we care so much. We just do, I guess.

 

Sorry for being so unhelpful. :lol:

Oh, you weren't really unhelpful as such. At least I now know some irrelevant facts about the history of numbers :lol:

 

But what I was really looking for is a reason why the top 10 is so important. I mean, it's obvious why #1 is more important than #2 (for the reasons I explained in my post on the first page, plus more), but how does that apply to #11 and #10? But I guess we just have to come the conclusion that it's simply this thing that humans have adopted, wherever it's come from.

 

And to be fair, the battle for #10 is sometimes slightly more interesting than the battle for #1, at least, like last week when the latter was a foregone conclusion, so it's not surprising that some chart fans latch on to the next supposed "landmark" position in that case to try to build some suspense for the chart. Although, thinking about it, maybe I just answered my own question about why The Saturdays fans cared so much about if they got to #10 - because it meant they had won the battle with will.i.am, thus it wasn't really the position that they were happy about at all :lol:

Edited January 17, 201114 yr by superbossanova

Oh, you weren't really unhelpful as such. At least I now know some irrelevant facts about the history of numbers :lol:

 

But what I was really looking for is a reason why the top 10 is so important. I mean, it's obvious why #1 is more important than #2 (for the reasons I explained in my post on the first page, plus more), but how does that apply to #11 and #10? But I guess we just have to come the conclusion that it's simply this thing that humans have adopted, wherever it's come from.

 

And to be fair, the battle for #10 is sometimes slightly more interesting than the battle for #1, at least, like last week when the latter was a foregone conclusion, so it's not surprising that some chart fans latch on to the next supposed "landmark" position in that case to try to build some suspense for the chart. Although, thinking about it, maybe I just answered my own question about why The Saturdays fans cared so much about if they got to #10 - because it meant they had won the battle with will.i.am, thus it wasn't really the position that they were happy about at all :lol:

 

I agree. Like it's usually obvious who's #1 (apart from a few chart battles last year, like B.o.B. vs. David Guetta, Tinie Tempah vs. Lady Gaga, The Saturdays vs. Flo Rida, etc.), whilst who gets #10 can be a bit more unpredictable, since the sales differences down the charts are lower, so songs move around more.

 

Also, about The Saturdays/Flo Rida vs. will.i.am/Nicki Minaj, I agree that I think that chart battle interested people a lot because it's two controversial songs. They're songs that people have very strong opinions on, be it positive or negative (it was positive for both for me), and in that week, I think most people were aware it was the only chance for both songs.

 

Also, the most posted in chart show thread of all-time on Buzzjack is the Tinie Tempah vs. Lady Gaga week (a whopping 46 pages, when most threads are like 19 or 20 pages!). Again, because I think those were two absolutely massive songs which people had strong opinions about, Lady Gaga did eventually get #1 the following week by a larger margin, but there was no way of knowing that would happen at the time, so it could've been her only chance at #1 (she was #3 and #11 on iTunes at the time).

The one I can't get my head around is why people stress about things making the "Top 15". I've never seen that as a cut-off point for a chart, whereas the Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40 etc. are more widely used selections

 

--

Richard

 

Top 15 sounds more impressive that top 20 I suppose.

The one I can't get my head around is why people stress about things making the "Top 15". I've never seen that as a cut-off point for a chart, whereas the Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40 etc. are more widely used selections

 

--

Richard

 

15 makes as much sense as a cut-off point as 75 does.

 

Personally I think 75 is a stupid cut-off point anyway which is why I always use the top 100 (speaking of which I need to finish up the top 100 albums update)

I don't think either Tinie or Nero can get top 10 now, although they both deserved to. :( Cheryl deserved to also, but only for one week imo. :lol:

I actually want to scream. Well, actually I don't. :lol: I think Love the Way You Lie will re-overtake When We Collide in a few years.

 

I'd have said months, myself.

I think it's more to do with the fact we count in base 10.

 

If we were all robots it'd be top 2, 4, 8, 16 etc. we'd be 'obsessed with'

 

Or technically, since we're talking base 2 : 10,100,1000,10000. :P

The Babylonians counted in base 60 and they also had 10 fingers.

 

You gotta wonder how many fingers the Romans had, though. :w00t:

I'm the opposite. I decided to do two Maths A-levels for some reason. :drama: I'll admit, I'm really geeky and I actually did enjoy it at the time, but I've forgotten most of it now. :(

 

Back when I was at school, we actually had to know how to count & do sums, rather than just press calculator buttons. :)

Sorry vidcapper, by the way, for turning this into a Maths thread (although it's already somewhat that anyway as sales = numbers) :D

 

No problem - I love numbers, that's *why* I compile these sales lists.

Why did you just post 5 times in a row?

Why did you just post 5 times in a row?

 

There wasn't really a choice - 5 posts I wanted to reply to, so there had to be 5 separate reples.

You can use the +quote button to highlight each post you want to reply to, then on new reply they're all in the same post box.

You can use the +quote button to highlight each post you want to reply to, then on new reply they're all in the same post box.

 

Oh right - thanks!

 

I always wondered what the '+Quote' button was for - it never seemed to do anything when I clicked on it... :lol:

So Cheryl has sold another 32K?

 

Damn! :o

It makes a difference, because in a few years time, when you look at your favourite artists chart history, you'll see their #11 peak, and you'll just die inside.

yeah, like girls aloud - untouchable :cry: