[Almighty Gaga]

Originally posted by ririfan21

Why The Fame is so high? It should be lower.

Says who

[Eternium]

Originally posted by Katy V.!

So you would say that a Top20 selling 75k in the 2000s is bigger than a #1 selling 74k in 2015?

What's next? All pre-2006 singles are flops because they didn't smash on iTunes? Times and the way we consume music change. Let's make the Hot100 based on Casette sales again then.

That's why we have SPS, sis Welcome to 2012. The charts are about measuring consumption, not magically adjusting sales so that every week of consumption is the exact same

If we followed your "logic," we'd be multiplying cassettes almost 5-fold. Do you honestly think that's a good idea "...Baby One More Time" would've outsold "Rolling In the Deep."

And the reason that people are upset at Billboard is because they keep rehashing this list using the inverse chart point system and refuse to actually compile a list of the most successful songs/albums according to the standard Hot 100/BB200 methodology.

[UNNAMI]

what was a purpose for this chart this time? there isnt any aniversary or something so why the compiled it now?

[Timber]

Interesting. So 21 is the biggest album of all time in the US.

I wonder if 21 is bigger than Thriller WW. They both seem really global to me.

[iHype.]

Originally posted by Eternium

And the reason that people are upset at Billboard is because they keep rehashing this list using the inverse chart point system and refuse to actually compile a list of the most successful songs/albums according to the standard Hot 100/BB200 methodology.

"The standard Hot 100 / Billboard 200 methodology" doesn't exist. The methodology has changed so much over the decades as technology has developed.

Billboard 200 & Hot 100 started 1960's; Soundscan started tracking airplay/sales/streams 1991-2015. If Billboard is gonna make an all-time list of the charts, which started prior to 1991 then obviously, the only thing they could use was chart runs.

[jose168]

Originally posted by iHype.

"The standard Hot 100 / Billboard 200 methodology" doesn't exist. The methodology has changed so much over the decades as technology has developed.

Billboard 200 & Hot 100 started 1960's; Soundscan started tracking airplay/sales/streams 1991-2015. If Billboard is gonna make an all-time list of the charts, which started prior to 1991 then obviously, the only thing they could use was chart runs.

doesnt the formula change every year

[Rick]

Mariah slaying as usual

[Mike91]

21 literally being bigger than Thriller.

[NumbFentyStan]

Rihanna #13 Hot100 Artist + We Found Love #25 Hot100 Song

[OffTheWall]

Originally posted by Mike91

21 literally being bigger than Thriller.

Not in any way, shape or form

[Mike91]

Originally posted by OffTheWall

Not in any way, shape or form

Billboard disagrees.

[jose168]

Originally posted by OffTheWall

Not in any way, shape or form

it is though. Without any zombie special effects gimmiks also! Just Talent, poor molestor

[OffTheWall]

Originally posted by Mike91

Billboard disagrees.

30 million >>> 11 million

[Timber]

Originally posted by OffTheWall

Not in any way, shape or form

Why is it so surprising?

Every methodology that I've seen used to try and compare albums from all times has 21 at #1 in both the US and WW.

Thriller can compete for #2 against that Julie Andrews album tho.

[OffTheWall]

Originally posted by Timber

Why is it so surprising?

Every methodology that I've seen used to try and compare albums from all times has 21 at #1 in both the US and WW.

Thriller can compete for #2 against that Julie Andrews album tho.

Nice try troll

[Green]

ALL-TIME BILLBOARD 200 ALBUMS
1. 21 - Adele

OMG "21" is the most successful album of all time

[Green]

Originally posted by OffTheWall

30 million >>> 11 million

It's based on chart runs. You can't compare the sales of today with the sales of the past

[OffTheWall]

Originally posted by Green

It's based on chart runs. You can't compare the sales of today with the sales of the past

No other albums in the past sold 30 million except for Thriller so that argument doesn't cut it It's actually impossible to compare albums that are 25-30 years apart at all. That's where Billboard failed

[simmnfierzig]

Originally posted by Eternium

And the reason that people are upset at Billboard is because they keep rehashing this list using the inverse chart point system and refuse to actually compile a list of the most successful songs/albums according to the standard Hot 100/BB200 methodology.

They should count straight Hot 100 / BB200 numbers I agree. #1 and #1 is not the same, but you have to adjust them to the time they happened in.

Makes not much sense to give the same points to a 100k #1 week as to a 1 million #1 week, but also obvious that 100k in 2015 has to be weighted more than 100k in 2000. And no SPS is not a big enough replacement for the lost sales.

[Vini]

I don't understand the methodology of the 200 albums chart?

Or the 200 albums artists...

Anyway...