|
Discussion: ATRL's Top 100 Songs of the 20th Century (The top 2!)
Member Since: 12/5/2009
Posts: 9,974
|
BOMT is a good song it's really not the Top whatever of all time material
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 9/26/2001
Posts: 22,475
|
Interesting note as I've gone through and tallied up the rankings so far: One song was on four of the counted rankings...and it's not even close to being among the top songs ATM.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Childish Redbino
Interesting note as I've gone through and tallied up the rankings so far: One song was on four of the counted rankings...and it's not even close to being among the top songs ATM.
|
Loser?
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 9/26/2001
Posts: 22,475
|
Quote:
Originally posted by madonnas
Loser?
|
No, but you're in the right decade.
I also haven't counted up ALL of the rankings yet, so it may still move up.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Childish Redbino
No, but you're in the right decade.
|
Then it's a Radiohead song.
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/5/2009
Posts: 9,974
|
I'm torn between Hyperballad and Joga.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
Quote:
Originally posted by alkralkra
I'm torn between Hyperballad and Joga.
|
Joga. it's the one I chose.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/26/2011
Posts: 3,765
|
I hope ratings is not straightforward 1 for #20 and 20 for #1, because just the fact that song made list is already great. Because I feel that fact that 1 song made 2 lists is more valuable than #1 in one list.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ulrihs
I hope ratings is not straightforward 1 for #20 and 20 for #1, because just the fact that song made list is already great. Because I feel that fact that 1 song made 2 lists is more valuable than #1 in one list.
|
I agree... I think #1 should be like... 60, and #20 should be like... 40.
Or 30 and 10
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/14/2010
Posts: 4,200
|
Quote:
Originally posted by gareton
1 Ferrante And Teicher - Exodus
2 The Moody Blues-Night in White Satin
3 Kate Bush-Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)
4 Del Shannon - Runaway
5 Brian Hyland- Sealed with a kiss
6 Tom Jones-Green, Green Grass of Home
7 The Beatles-Eleanor Rigby
8 David Bowie-Sound and Vision
|
1 Ferrante And Teicher - Exodus
2 The Moody Blues-Night in White Satin
3 Kate Bush-Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)
4 Del Shannon - Runaway
5 Brian Hyland- Sealed with a kiss
6 Tom Jones-Green, Green Grass of Home
7 The Beatles-Eleanor Rigby
8 David Bowie-Sound and Vision
9 Jackie Wilson-Reet Petite
10 Gloria Gaynor-I will survire
11 The Animals-House Of The Rising Sun
12 Abba-Chiquitita
13 Elvis Presley-In the Ghetto
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 9/26/2001
Posts: 22,475
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ulrihs
I hope ratings is not straightforward 1 for #20 and 20 for #1, because just the fact that song made list is already great. Because I feel that fact that 1 song made 2 lists is more valuable than #1 in one list.
|
I've already taken the latter into account, as more rankings is more valuable than highest position. The former...I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, admittedly, because I don't see why I wouldn't count the rankings up in the simplest, most efficient way possible. Unless, of course, the former was the build up to the latter idea.
Quote:
Originally posted by madonnas
I agree... I think #1 should be like... 60, and #20 should be like... 40.
Or 30 and 10
|
It would be the same difference in points, just raised by a certain number. I don't know if I would want to inflate the numbers just so it would seem more impressive, you know?
Quote:
Originally posted by gareton
1 Ferrante And Teicher - Exodus
2 The Moody Blues-Night in White Satin
3 Kate Bush-Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)
4 Del Shannon - Runaway
5 Brian Hyland- Sealed with a kiss
6 Tom Jones-Green, Green Grass of Home
7 The Beatles-Eleanor Rigby
8 David Bowie-Sound and Vision
9 Jackie Wilson-Reet Petite
10 Gloria Gaynor-I will survire
11 The Animals-House Of The Rising Sun
12 Abba-Chiquitita
13 Elvis Presley-In the Ghetto
|
IN THE GHET-TOOOOOOOO. Another classic. And "House of the Rising Sun"!
I love these constant updates, keep them coming.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Childish Redbino
I've already taken the latter into account, as more rankings is more valuable than highest position. The former...I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, admittedly, because I don't see why I wouldn't count the rankings up in the simplest, most efficient way possible. Unless, of course, the former was the build up to the latter idea.
It would be the same difference in points, just raised by a certain number. I don't know if I would want to inflate the numbers just so it would seem more impressive, you know?
|
Well, not really. 10 is 1/3rd of 30, while 1 is 1/20th of 20. It gives the later positions more power seeing as they did make the list.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/1/2012
Posts: 10,570
|
Quote:
Originally posted by gareton
1 Ferrante And Teicher - Exodus
2 The Moody Blues-Night in White Satin
3 Kate Bush-Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)
4 Del Shannon - Runaway
5 Brian Hyland- Sealed with a kiss
6 Tom Jones-Green, Green Grass of Home
7 The Beatles-Eleanor Rigby
8 David Bowie-Sound and Vision
9 Jackie Wilson-Reet Petite
10 Gloria Gaynor-I will survire
11 The Animals-House Of The Rising Sun
12 Abba-Chiquitita
13 Elvis Presley-In the Ghetto
|
Chiquitita?
I prefer Mamma Mia and G!G!G! (AMAM)
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/10/2012
Posts: 10,996
|
Ace of Base's Beautiful Life and The Sign should be near the top.
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 9/26/2001
Posts: 22,475
|
Quote:
Originally posted by madonnas
Well, not really. 10 is 1/3rd of 30, while 1 is 1/20th of 20. It gives the later positions more power seeing as they did make the list.
|
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20 (10)
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11 (1)
10
That's what I meant when I said that the rankings would be the same, just the numbers inflated. The same would be true with 60 and 40. If you really wanted to give the later positions "more power", then the points would need to be more evenly distributed. That could just make the tallying up process more cluttered, though.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Childish Redbino
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20 (10)
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11 (1)
10
That's what I meant when I said that the rankings would be the same, just the numbers inflated. The same would be true with 60 and 40. If you really wanted to give the later positions "more power", then the points would need to be more evenly distributed. That could just make the tallying up process more cluttered, though.
|
Well the way I'm mathematically thinking it out is that if a song appears in the low ranks of 5 or so peoples rankings, if it were 60-41/30-11, at least they'd have a bit more ground to appear a good place on the rank, even if they weren't anybodies major favorites.
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 9/26/2001
Posts: 22,475
|
Quote:
Originally posted by madonnas
Well the way I'm mathematically thinking it out is that if a song appears in the low ranks of 5 or so peoples rankings, if it were 60-41/30-11, at least they'd have a bit more ground to appear a good place on the rank, even if they weren't anybodies major favorites.
|
Okay, one thing about your line of thinking: If we were to inflate the numbers like that, the lower ranked songs would have just as likely of a chance of making it to the top 100 as they would if the numbers were, say, 20-1. It's the same probability. All we'd be doing is giving the songs a larger number to make everything seem more grand. I can do this if others would be for it, but otherwise, I don't see the point. If anything, the idea of more evenly distributing the points is something that could be interesting, and something that I will consider hearing opinions on.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Childish Redbino
Okay, one thing about your line of thinking: If we were to inflate the numbers like that, the lower ranked songs would have just as likely of a chance of making it to the top 100 as they would if the numbers were, say, 20-1. It's the same probability. All we'd be doing is giving the songs a larger number to make everything seem more grand. I can do this if others would be for it, but otherwise, I don't see the point. If anything, the idea of more evenly distributing the points is something that could be interesting, and something that I will consider hearing opinions on.
|
I guess. Well you're the one who's doing it so its really all up to you. I'm just confused now.
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 9/26/2001
Posts: 22,475
|
Quote:
Originally posted by madonnas
I guess. Well you're the one who's doing it so its really all up to you. I'm just confused now.
|
Yeah, talking about math always leaves me confused and disoriented as well. It's never fun, that's for sure.
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 3/18/2009
Posts: 35,164
|
Quote:
Originally posted by madonnas
I guess. Well you're the one who's doing it so its really all up to you. I'm just confused now.
|
What he's saying is that no matter the point value, the differentials between the #1 song on your ballot and the #20 song stay the same, so it won't actually change the scoring system to just inflate the numbers.
What you're suggesting—giving the lower-ranked songs greater weight on the countdown—would require a more radical approach. Some options include giving every song on your ballot one point (which would make this list purely about number of mentions) or using a tiered scoring system (e.g. #1 song gets 5 points, #2-10 get 3 points, #11-20 get 1 point).
|
|
|
|
|