Originally posted by Ozzy8923

After 2003, boo.

We all know what state her singles performance was in after 2003.

Originally posted by merlls

Ok, so top10 is a good thing?

Originally posted by santos

So what if you have no #1 albums but they all spend a lot of weeks on the charts? The division by zero would be infinite and that person would be an instant #1. Even tho her albums were longevous

Originally posted by Katamari

so is Beyonce more successful than Alicia

Originally posted by santos

What if you have no #1 singles? Wouldnt that make the dvision infinite?

Originally posted by Deemy

This is so flawed.

Madonna has like a million number one singles. I dont see how this is gonna be fair unless you average out th number ones she has in those markets by the amount of singles she released and divide that by the number of albums she's released as well. Because the more albums released the more chances to go #1 and the more chance of being seen as an "album artist". At least the idea was cute.

Originally posted by MrPeanut

I don't know that I agree. The lower charting artists on here got the most bang for their buck in terms of album pull compared to how their singles did. It would be interesting to see a ranking of all of these girls by the individual metrics.

Originally posted by DimmiFenty

This formula is probably going to make Katy number one.

Originally posted by Katamari

so is Beyonce more successful than Alicia

Originally posted by Remixed

no

Originally posted by Jolie's Lips

[B]12) P!nk

1) #1 Singles in 11 biggest markets / #1 Albums in 11 biggest music markets = 16 / 6 = 2.67
2) Longevity Singles WW since 2003 / longevity Albums WW since 2003 = 4401 / 3476 = 1.27

TOTAL: 2.67 + 1.27 = 3.94

Originally posted by aaronsmithjune1

In Albums sells,no
Overall, yes

I really don't get this ****