Posted September 15, 200816 yr Right I know this is rather random, but I'm hoping for some help with a particular part of this year's Year End Chart :lol: I started adding it up the other day using the exact same scoring system as last year, and while I think the system works well, one song in particular is doing really well mainly because of how long it spent in the chart, now extra points are given for how long a song is in the chart, do people think extra points SHOULDN'T be given for length in the chart? :unsure: Without giving too much away, this song spent 7-10 weeks in the top 10 and is 4 points behind a song that spent at least 3 weeks at #1 :lol: The song in question is behind in all the other scoring criteria, but is picking up loads of points compared to the 2nd song I mentioned in the weeks in chart points area :o Any ideas? :lol:
September 15, 200816 yr I think you should leave it as it is, without any extra for length of time on the chart, as this falsely represents how well it did (if you see what I mean). Good point though!
September 15, 200816 yr Author I think you should leave it as it is, without any extra for length of time on the chart, as this falsely represents how well it did (if you see what I mean). Good point though! Hmm I guess that's true, long runners seem to be getting the advantage this year, in fact so far in the adding up only 4 #1's are in the top 10 :wacko: :lol:
September 15, 200816 yr Author This is where the points are coming from on average in the Year-End Chart. Im a couple of % out for some reason, but it's ok :P Chart positions every week - 38% Points every week divided by number of charts every week (to allow for lack of charts in random weeks) - 33% Length in Chart - 18% Weeks in top 10 - 13% Do these look ok? Should the points be getting more than the positions? :unsure:
September 15, 200816 yr Hmmm. I can see the advantage in doing it by points only (am I correct in thinking the amount of charts/points has been rather stable so far this year?), but I have to say by comparison, which of the following would you rank as a bigger success? (Be aware that this is just for comparison :P) 42-17-9-1-1-4-9-22-36-53-72-OUT 73-54-39-26-24-28-21-17-12-10-8-6-6-6-4-4-5-8-8-9-10-10-14-19-20-23-22-31-39-43-51-58-61-69-OUT I'd personally go for the latter. The slow burner which is popular for a longer time is far more worthy than a 'fad' number one that dies off quickly (as an example, I would rank No Air as being a bigger hit this year than Singin' In The Rain in the official UK charts). I would personally use the points system for each week in the top 75 then multiply it by the amount of weeks it had - so for the first song, the formula would be (34+59+67+75+75+72+67+54+40+23+4)x11, which would give it 6280 points, which would need a song to hover at #13 for 10 weeks to beat it - a fairly unlikely occurence. You could also weight it by giving more points to the top 25, so #1 gets 100 points and #75 gets a point (with a point spread of 2 between each position instead of 1, until #26 which gets 50 points), making it so that these short runners are rewarded more for their peak while still allowing slow burners that spend quite a few weeks in the top 10 to be recognised. I won't calculate the second song using the formula but it's quite obvious that it would get quite a large amount of points - I'm not exactly sure how it would affect long runners down below, but it would have to spend an inordinately long amount of time to rival the first song's points - around 20 weeks at around #60 roughly :lol: So yeah, just a few thoughts there :o
September 15, 200816 yr Author My system seems to be doing a good mix of both of them tbh, and I guess a long runner does deserve recognition ^_^ I've not even used the whole top 75 on the basis that I didn't last year, as I wanted to compare this year to last, but now i'm questioning last year's formula, anything could change :lol: Hmmm the number of charts have been sort of stable, but the year started slowly with just 53 charts submitted, whereas the most amount of charts in 1 week has been 81. The average points per charts submitted have also differed a bit from week to week. #1 highest points in a week divided by number of charts - 28.57 #1 lowest points in a week divided by number of charts - 14.81 #10 highest - 12.79 #10 lowest - 9.73 #40 highest - 4.94 #40 lowest - 3.72
