the wording in the Chart Rules could be a bit clearer but I have taken the rule:

 

6.3 Resets

 

i) Automatic Reset – a track on ACR can automatically return to SCR if its combined sales and stream total increases by 50% greater than the market change week on week.

 

to mean that the track in ACR must record a sales increase before it is even considered for an automatic reset back to SCR. But in the example you gave in your understanding of the rules if the market fell by 4% then sales of the track would have to decrease by 2% or less and not 6% as you posted. But I'm convinced that sales of the track must increase in the first place. It's the use of the word "increases" that is causing confusion. If a smaller negative decline could cause a track to return to SCR then the OCC ought to have worded the rule as something like:

 

i) Automatic Reset – a track on ACR can automatically return to SCR if its combined sales and stream total outperforms the change in the market by 50% or more.

[/i]

 

I don't get it. :cry:

As far as the OCC is concerned the only people who HAVE to understand the rules are the people who made the changes to the code used to compile the chart. If we, the general public, aren't sure what the rules mean that's not the OCC's problem.

 

I don't think even OCC understand the rules. I emailed 2 separate people from OCC to ask whether ACR is applied in the week it registers its 3rd week of sales decline, or not until the week after, and they contradicted each other.

I kinda feel like it would suit the OCC well if the public didn't understand the chart rules. If they can produce a faster moving chart but without receiving constant criticism (because we can't get our heads around the rules in order to criticise) and instead reigniting the public's interest in the chart, then that's good for them.

FWIW, here is my opinion of the rules as a serious pedant.

 

If the intention was to say that, for example, if the market increased by 4% then an individual song must have a sales increase of 54$, it should say "...if its combined sales and stream total increases by 50 percentage points more than the market change...". As it is, the wording suggests to me that any "sales" increase (even one single stream) is enough if the market declines or remains static while an increase of 1.5 times the increase in the market is required otherwise. However, the OCC may simply have clarified what they mean in a dialogue with their IT people without considering whether to revise the wording.

FWIW, here is my opinion of the rules as a serious pedant.

 

If the intention was to say that, for example, if the market increased by 4% then an individual song must have a sales increase of 54$, it should say "...if its combined sales and stream total increases by 50 percentage points more than the market change...". As it is, the wording suggests to me that any "sales" increase (even one single stream) is enough if the market declines or remains static while an increase of 1.5 times the increase in the market is required otherwise. However, the OCC may simply have clarified what they mean in a dialogue with their IT people without considering whether to revise the wording.

 

Yeah I was thinking 4% market increase means you have to sell 54% more too but I don't think everyone agrees with us? It is so badly worded. But I can't see what else it could mean.

Edited July 25, 20179 yr by AcerBen

I wonder if anyone from OCC are actually reading this topic, and explain it even further, as I'm still confused with all the new rules and regulations, in a nutshell the chart is one big mess.

OK I've got confirmation email from OCC. It is what me and Suedehead2 are saying. "If the market is 4% up, a track needs to be up 54% to be reset. If the market is down 11%, a plus 39% uplift will reset to SCR".

 

Also, it is applied the week following the uplift, which they realise looks strange, but is to stop them "flip-flopping" during the week.

OK I've got confirmation email from OCC. It is what me and Suedehead2 are saying. "If the market is 4% up, a track needs to be up 54% to be reset. If the market is down 11%, a plus 39% uplift will reset to SCR".

 

Also, it is applied the week following the uplift, which they realise looks strange, but is to stop them "flip-flopping" during the week.

Thanks for getting that!

With that in mind, does In The End being as high as #9 on Monday's update make sense? I suppose a large proportion of its sales are downloads but still seems higher than I would expect if it's having its streams capped.

There's a day of missing streams as per usual though, right?

I kinda feel like it would suit the OCC well if the public didn't understand the chart rules. If they can produce a faster moving chart but without receiving constant criticism (because we can't get our heads around the rules in order to criticise) and instead reigniting the public's interest in the chart, then that's good for them.

 

Totally agree, the point made about slow burners which would fail to chart is 100% correct. We wouldn't have had any Sweet Disposition, Take me to Church or I need a Dollars which took a while to take off!

With that in mind, does In The End being as high as #9 on Monday's update make sense? I suppose a large proportion of its sales are downloads but still seems higher than I would expect if it's having its streams capped.

It was #5 without streams so I'd say so!

 

There's a day of missing streams as per usual though, right?

Correct!

OK I've got confirmation email from OCC. It is what me and Suedehead2 are saying. "If the market is 4% up, a track needs to be up 54% to be reset. If the market is down 11%, a plus 39% uplift will reset to SCR".

 

Also, it is applied the week following the uplift, which they realise looks strange, but is to stop them "flip-flopping" during the week.

Thanks for posting this Ben. It means I completely misunderstood what the chart rule was trying to say. Though I do think the OCC could have worded the rule better. It was a bit hazy to say the least.

 

This means that few records in the higher end of the chart are going to be moving from ACR back to SCR given the uplift in sales that would be needed. It does allow for more tracks in the lower part of the Top 100 moving from ACR back to SCR though where the sales uplift will naturally be a lot smaller.

 

One question that has been asked before by other posters - when a track moves from ACR back to SCR does it get three weeks grace before once more being subjected to the ACR rules if the record goes in decline or can a track move straight back to ACR the following week?

 

I think it'd be logical to have three weeks grace

Thanks for posting this Ben. It means I completely misunderstood what the chart rule was trying to say. Though I do think the OCC could have worded the rule better. It was a bit hazy to say the least.

 

This means that few records in the higher end of the chart are going to be moving from ACR back to SCR given the uplift in sales that would be needed. It does allow for more tracks in the lower part of the Top 100 moving from ACR back to SCR though where the sales uplift will naturally be a lot smaller.

 

One question that has been asked before by other posters - when a track moves from ACR back to SCR does it get three weeks grace before once more being subjected to the ACR rules if the record goes in decline or can a track move straight back to ACR the following week?

I'm pretty sure that it would. Of course, for songs that get a sudden short-term boost, it might be too late.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to stop the Ed domination happening again if the rule was 3 songs per album can chart, not 3 songs total. Then the lower end of the chart can still have the Linkin Park tracks and other moments like this. I'm sure no one has a problem with some old Linkin park tracks re-charting for a week.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to stop the Ed domination happening again if the rule was 3 songs per album can chart, not 3 songs total. Then the lower end of the chart can still have the Linkin Park tracks and other moments like this. I'm sure no one has a problem with some old Linkin park tracks re-charting for a week.

 

That's initially what I thought it was. At least three songs per album makes a lick of sense. Three songs total per artist (not including features) is arbitrary in the extreme and again begs the question of what exactly the chart is measuring, if not the most popular songs in the country.

That's initially what I thought it was. At least three songs per album makes a lick of sense. Three songs total per artist (not including features) is arbitrary in the extreme and again begs the question of what exactly the chart is measuring, if not the most popular songs in the country.

Although I disagree with the rule either way, 3 songs per artist is less arbitrary in my opinion. Inherently so, because doing it per album would add an extra step into deciding what's eligible - but more specifically, it could lead to messy situations with songs from soundtracks/compilations/etc, or if an artist releases 4 singles and they're all eligible, but then puts out an album including them all, and one gets removed. It would also be quite counter-intuitive to keeping the chart fresh if, say, 'Thinking Out Loud' and 'Photograph' were free to still chart, but the likes of 'Perfect', 'Happier', 'Dive' and 'What Do I Know?' couldn't.

 

I also feel that, if the goals of the new rules (available on iTunes now) are to prioritise fresh hits and limit single-artist domination, it wouldn't make much sense to change the rules to be more friendly to re-entries upon artists' passings. I get that they're very short-lived, but still, established classics from past decades getting in the way doesn't do new music any favours. Personally, if it had to be one or the other, I'd rather Ed Sheeran album tracks be allowed to chart than old re-entries, because the former are very popular songs of 2017; the latter are one-week deviations with often little to gain.

 

I do admit it feels wrong though if 'What I've Done' is allowed to chart but 'Heavy', a recent release that's barely charted, isn't.

 

With all that said, as far as arbitrariness goes, they could decide which Linkin Park songs to allow via dartboard, and it would still beat the ACR rules.

Although I disagree with the rule either way, 3 songs per artist is less arbitrary in my opinion. Inherently so, because doing it per album would add an extra step into deciding what's eligible - but more specifically, it could lead to messy situations with songs from soundtracks/compilations/etc, or if an artist releases 4 singles and they're all eligible, but then puts out an album including them all, and one gets removed. It would also be quite counter-intuitive to keeping the chart fresh if, say, 'Thinking Out Loud' and 'Photograph' were free to still chart, but the likes of 'Perfect', 'Happier', 'Dive' and 'What Do I Know?' couldn't.

 

I also feel that, if the goals of the new rules (available on iTunes now) are to prioritise fresh hits and limit single-artist domination, it wouldn't make much sense to change the rules to be more friendly to re-entries upon artists' passings. I get that they're very short-lived, but still, established classics from past decades getting in the way doesn't do new music any favours. Personally, if it had to be one or the other, I'd rather Ed Sheeran album tracks be allowed to chart than old re-entries, because the former are very popular songs of 2017; the latter are one-week deviations with often little to gain.

 

I do admit it feels wrong though if 'What I've Done' is allowed to chart but 'Heavy', a recent release that's barely charted, isn't.

 

With all that said, as far as arbitrariness goes, they could decide which Linkin Park songs to allow via dartboard, and it would still beat the ACR rules.

 

The 3 song rule though is surely not to freshen up the charts (I mean the week Ed released his album was surely the week with the most new entries in the top 40, 20, 10 ever) but to stop someone hogging most of the chart.

 

Does anyone mind if Thinking out loud charts at #89 for a few more weeks, of course not.

 

If they truly wanted to speed up the charts then they could easily just have 1 stream per person can count towards a songs sales and the chart would have a much much quicker turn over.

1.7k gap between Lana and Paul today.

She somehow closed 1.7k of the gap yesterday, selling 2.8k while Paul sold 1.1k.