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!

 

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.

Edited September 19, 2024Sep 19 by Robbie

Wasn’t a #1 incorrectly announced during the chart show in the 1970s at some point? Music of the Mountains or something like that?

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).

Edited September 19, 2024Sep 19 by Robbie

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.

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.

Edited September 19, 2024Sep 19 by gooddelta

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').

 

Edited September 19, 2024Sep 19 by Robbie

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?

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.

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.

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. :)

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!

 

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.

 

Thank you everyone for your responses and interesting discussion! At the weekend I'll be revisiting the weeks mentioned to see if my chart logs need correcting! Your help has been invaluable - thanks again!

There are a couple more I've noticed - links to the OCC pages are below:

 

w/e 11 June 1994: I've written about this in another thread here

 

w/e 6 January 1996: amongst other changes, Dubstar - Not So Manic Now was moved down two places, so instead of entering and peaking at #18, it entered at #20 and climbed to a peak of #19 the following week.

It also appears that numbers 9 and 10 for the chart of the week ending 23rd December 1995 have subsequently been swapped around from what they were originally announced as. It seems that "The Gift Of Christmas" by the Childliners was originally announced as a non-mover at 9 with "Wonderwall" by Oasis at 10. Now the OCC site, as well as the Top 40 Charts book (the Virgin one that goes up to the end of 2008) has "Wonderwall" at 9 and "The Gift of Christmas" down to 10 for that particular week, (the original two positions swapped around).

 

The Virgin Top 40 Charts book has the new corrected version of the chart for w/e 6th January 1996 that jimwatts has referred to above, with those minor changes such as Not So Manic Now going in at 20 rather than 18.

 

Funnily enough, the book still shows the original version of the chart for w/e 11th June 1994, so that particular chart must have been changed/revised at a later date than the 6/1/96 chart was. I remember discovering the discrepancy for this chart around 2016, so I suppose this new edited chart wasn't first made available until the OCC launched their big archive site the previous year, around the same time as the revised version of the infamous w/e 10th July 1999 chart was first made available.

 

On the topic of the 10/7/99 chart, as well as the odd climb of the Sporty Thievz track in its second week as gooddelta mentioned above, "Get Ready" by Mase had a strange run for the time too, only falling from 32-36 in its second week, in an era where pretty much every track entering the chart in the 30s plummeted right out of the chart in its second week, meaning its first week sales/position was definitely understated, that it should have entered in the 20s than at 32. (As it turned out, it entered at 25).

 

Interestingly the (always excellent) Polyhex site retains the charts for the 11/6/94 and 6/1/96 weeks as they were originally announced at the time, but has updated the 10/7/99 chart with the revised listing.

 

It's always hard to know which version of the chart to use for those two weeks in '94 and '96 (does Melanie Williams really lose her top 40 status in the former chart and does "Low" by Cracker gain it?) as there was never an acknowledgement at the time that these charts were wrong. The problem with the July 1999 chart was hugely publicised at the time and it's widely known that the original chart that was in the public domain for 15 years was based on incomplete sales data, so it makes it easier to disregard the original chart and take the updated chart as the correct one in that case. And as a big Tina Cousins fan, I'm totally down with her having an extra Top 40 hit to her name!

It also appears that numbers 9 and 10 for the chart of the week ending 23rd December 1995 have subsequently been swapped around from what they were originally announced as. It seems that "The Gift Of Christmas" by the Childliners was originally announced as a non-mover at 9 with "Wonderwall" by Oasis at 10. Now the OCC site, as well as the Top 40 Charts book (the Virgin one that goes up to the end of 2008) has "Wonderwall" at 9 and "The Gift of Christmas" down to 10 for that particular week, (the original two positions swapped around).

 

That's actually a printing error in both the book and the OCC database. The original chart was correct.

 

What happened is that some sales of one format were accidentally separated out. This happened at some stage after 1995 and before 2001, when the files where sent to ChartsPlus. I noticed and queried and the OCC database now seems to have bene updated.

 

If you look further down the chart you will see a new entry at 61 that week, thus

 

10 THE GIFT OF CHRISTMAS CHILDLINERS LONDON LONCD376

61 THE GIFT OF CHRISTMAS CHILDLINERS LONDON LOCDP376

 

The lower entry should be combined, which is enough sales to increase the 10 to a 9 position.

 

This is correct in the Graham Betts chart book as he utilised Music Week as printed, which was correct.

 

I had hoped the OCC website would be updated when they updated it recently. Clearly not.... Their website has many errors and should not be relied upon.

Edited September 21, 2024Sep 21 by kingofskiffle

That's actually a printing error in both the book and the OCC database. The original chart was correct.

 

What happened is that some sales of one format were accidentally separated out. This happened at some stage after 1995 and before 2001, when the files where sent to ChartsPlus. I noticed and queried and the OCC database now seems to have bene updated.

 

If you look further down the chart you will see a new entry at 61 that week, thus

 

10 THE GIFT OF CHRISTMAS CHILDLINERS LONDON LONCD376

61 THE GIFT OF CHRISTMAS CHILDLINERS LONDON LOCDP376

 

The lower entry should be combined, which is enough sales to increase the 10 to a 9 position.

 

This is correct in the Graham Betts chart book as he utilised Music Week as printed, which was correct.

 

I had hoped the OCC website would be updated when they updated it recently. Clearly not.... Their website has many errors and should not be relied upon.

 

Thanks for explaining the anomaly for numbers 9 and 10 on the chart for 23/12/1995 kingofskiffle.

 

Now that you point it out, I see the extra Childliners entry at number 61 on the OCC site which I presume should be removed and all entries from 62-100 moved up a place (and the number 101 record promoted to 100). I see that in 2020, a user left a comment to this effect at the bottom of that particular 23 Dec 1995 chart, but over four years later, it still hasn't been updated on the OCC site. Now don't get me wrong - I still love the OCC site and I still think it's wonderful and full of information, but it's a shame these types of things aren't corrected.

Edited September 22, 2024Sep 22 by donnahjaneymack

Due to exclusion rules at the time for 76-100, it's actually correct for 76-100. The records moving up are 62-75, with a different record at 75. The correct chart is as printed in Music Week.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pnr1fk5kbk8g...iyxsu1&dl=0

Due to exclusion rules at the time for 76-100, it's actually correct for 76-100. The records moving up are 62-75, with a different record at 75. The correct chart is as printed in Music Week.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pnr1fk5kbk8g...iyxsu1&dl=0

 

Oh yes, good point about the exclusion rules meaning that the 76-100 positions remain intact.

Thanks for the link to the correct Top 75 chart for the w/e 23 Dec 1995!

Edited September 23, 2024Sep 23 by donnahjaneymack