Today, Billboard announced that it would be implementing a new recurrent rule for the Hot 100:

"...descending songs are now removed from the chart if ranking below No. 25 after 52 weeks..."

(Source)

Personally, I think that this is an atrocious rule; that, with the Hot 100 being a popularity chart, age should have nothing to do with a song's Hot 100 position. But you probably already know my opinion- what's yours?

It is so unnecessary tbh

Originally posted by iHype. The rules are there to stop the charts from being TOO slow, and encouraging a certain speed they feel is appropriate and measuring of the 'currrent popular songs'. I honestly don't care. Seeing a song not chart at #26 in it's 53rd week doesn't make me angry nor happy. And the people who complain about Hot 100 being too slow (90% of this site) shouldn't be complaining about this rule, as it's meant to combat that.

Well, it pretty much seals Imagine Dragons' longevity record for eternity, which is kind of unfair to other songs with the potential to have that kind of longevity on the chart.

Also, I don't see any indications that the chart is "too slow." That's a subjective thing, and if that influenced Billboard's decision to implement the new rule, that's horrible because Billboard's goal is to provide objective popularity charts. It would be contradictory to the mission of the Hot 100.

The #26 song shouldn't be excluded just because Billboard believes that it is making the chart "move too slowly."

Originally posted by Beatfreak But what happens in an Ellie Goulding "Lights" situation. Some songs literally BLOW UP a year or more after they are released.