I have no idea if this has been done already, but I saw a Lady GaGa fan claiming "Born This way got #1 in UWC and Billboard, so it can flop all the way now"

I mean don't y'all think longetivity is also important? I think so and it leaves me sad to see Hold It Against Me dropping HARD on the charts

Of course it's important.

Sure, longevity is important, but to have your single hit Nr.1 on the charts is more recognised in the media and general public

Sure.Longevity > Peaks,in my opinion.
Oh and RatedG said that,right?

Anyways, longevity is important

Yes and I was like "Does more people think that way?" well, I think so, it has three votes

Yes.

there were a lot of no.1 songs from 1990s that no one knows about at all. so i guess that's not good.

There are many classic songs that never hit #1. Hitting #1 is an accomplishment, but it's more impressive to have sustained success.

Yep. I'd rather have a song float around in the top 5 for several weeks, than have a song hit number 1 and then plummet immediately. Plus it leaves more of an imprint in people's mind.

Of course! If a song hits #1 and then flops the weeks after, it obviously hasn't made an impact.

longevity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Longevity > Peak

more precisely, what matters the most should be relevance, or impact.

#1's are just a marketing device. It sounds good in an ad. But we all know 'Toxic', which peaked at #9, was better and more memorable than Britney's last three #1's combined.

Ideally, I like songs to peak and #1 AND have longevity.

Yes, longevity is definitely important. But to me, a song doesn't have to be #1 for 20 weeks in order to be considered successful. As others have said, even peaking at #1 is a pretty big deal. Peaking at #1 for a couple of weeks and staying in the top 5/10 for several other weeks is what I would consider a very successful chart run.

Of course.