Further to the poll in this thread it looks like we’re definitely going to proceed with 00s year end survivors covering positions 101-200! :cheer:

 

However we still need to decide what we are going to do about songs that appeared in multiple year end charts. To take the extreme example of “Chasing Cars”, it was:

#14 of 2006

#34 of 2007

#95 of 2008

#153 of 2009

 

Based on the current rules it would appear in every one of those 4 survivors. The alternative would be for songs to only appear in the survivor that gave them the highest year end position - #14 in the case of “Chasing Cars”. Obviously this can’t be changed retrospectively but we would implement the rule change from the Year End #101 survivor onwards, so in the case of “Chasing Cars” it would be excluded from the #153 survivor.

 

The excluded songs would not be replaced, and the survivors in question would therefore have fewer than 10 songs.

 

Some discussion on this has already been had here:

http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=275195

Voted exclude as it gives first time songs a fairer chance personally.

 

Having said that some songs didn't do so well first time and performed or improved on their finish the next time they appeared but then a lot land up doing the same ie winning a second time as stated before so a tricky one.

I would include them, keeps it factual and also it's interesting to see how the repeat songs fare against new blood

 

Also if you are going to exclude them then I would replace them or else some survivors will only have like 6 or 7 songs

Edited October 6, 2024Oct 6 by Dobbo

I would exclude, particularly when we get to 101-200. It's not fair in my mind to pit a long running huge hit hanging over to another year against several flash in the pan hits.

 

Just as an example, in 2005 Gwen Stefani's What You Waiting For was No.174 for that year. It's going to have such a huge advantage over whatever company it holds.

I’d include for consistency. Long running hits aren’t always guaranteed a win as they don’t always reflect quality.

Include.

 

Also Julian you're making a great case of why you should be a moderator of this forum instead of me! :D I am sure dandy will sign off the transfer papers soon as long as your transfer fee isn't too expensive. ;)

Exclude for me, there's been too many repeat winners recently, and when they're established Buzzjack faves, it makes the polls boring and stops new, inspired winners (See Call the Shots preventing Supermassive Black Hole).

I voted include to keep it consistent. Also, a song might not have won first time around but might do so when competing against a different batch of songs.

Good to get some more thoughts - include slightly ahead now

We won’t need to make a final decision on this for a few week so there’s still plenty of time to vote and add your thoughts. I voted “Exclude” but will absolutely go on the majority view.

 

I do take the consistency point - I think it’s OK for the game to evolve as it goes though. I’m not convinced the bigger songs need a second bite at the cherry really: it’s mostly only big hits released at the end of the year that will be getting that chance anyway.

 

And just to put it into context we currently have “Chasing Cars”, a previous winner, on its 3rd outing in the #95s, and 3 songs making their 2nd outing in the #96s at least one of which is a previous winner. And they’re all very comfortably surviving. These repeat songs can be really hard to shift because most of them are very good.

One other rule change I’m thinking we could introduce beyond #100 is that if there’s a tie after 3 days it can be broken based on the number of votes for the tied songs in the previous round. Let me know if you have any thoughts on that.

Include.

One other rule change I’m thinking we could introduce beyond #100 is that if there’s a tie after 3 days it can be broken based on the number of votes for the tied songs in the previous round. Let me know if you have any thoughts on that.

 

Yep good idea, aggregate Votes as an automatic tie breaker seems fair.