Go to the NEW FORUM
Hi folks and happy new year !!
In February, I'll open the new decade poll dedicated to the 90's.
Many of us have expressed the need to twist the rules a little bit, by increasing the number of qualifyers for the last stage to 150 instead of 100, in this other thread>
So please come up with your suggestions and we'll make a final decision at the end of the month
Does it have to concern albums and songs ? Just albums ?
Do we have to just take the first 15 albums of each year ? Do we have to establish quotas (foreign, unacclaimed, top 3 voters) ?
Should we qualify let's say 12 albums each month and in the end of the year qualify the remaining 30 by playoffs to help the "good" years against the "weak" years
Everything is possible, we just have to set things up.
So welcome to the big brainstorming
Sorry I seriously fucked up with html in my post and now I can't edit it anymore
I have an idea for a different beast altogether for the decade polls. I'm not sure if it will work (particularly the timing), but I thought I'd throw it out there.
What if we treated the year stage of these polls the way we are doing the 2011 songs poll? What I suggest is this: a nomination process for a month and then a voting process based on those nominations the following month. This should address the same concerns that people have about these polls reflecting only the most heard albums/songs at the exclusion of rarer gems. The months would hence overlap to look something like this:
February: 1990 nomination
March: 1990 voting, 1991 nomination
April: 1991 voting, 1992 nomination
I really like this idea, it's means we basically get two months to decide what albums we're going to vote for. I don't know exactly about the mechanics of it, but it might mean a lot of work in the last days on the months (29th, 30th, 31st) when you have to both come up with a 1st stage list for whatever year and also the 2nd stage ranked list for the year before. But I think it does address the concerns about rarer gems/most heard. I really like it!
sorry guys but that last idea is too complicated and too much work for me and everybody
Let's keep it simple. I'm in with the Henrik way
I liked the idea of the top 3 voters (might help Brad and me pull Fillmore Jive to the final round ^^ ), I hope the steeper scale can have more or less the same effect.
Ok, I think we have our solution
Each month, we'll qulify 15 albums using the steeper scale, including at least two non-UK/US albums, of which at least one is not in English?
Now we have to set the scale
BillAdama suggested the following one
If I have no serious objection/other scale I'll implement that rule on wednesday for the new decade poll
So is it 15 or 20?
Also, maybe I did not understand the voting system, but isn't this way a little too restrictive in terms of the albums which will compete each other for the final rankings?
Spaz I have no time to explain, but please go the "Best albums of the 2000s poll" thread and you'll get the rules. Add the updating I did here and you'll get the picture
Thanks a lot!
I like any system that raises the odds of an album getting in even though fewer people have given it a chance and listened to it. I would prefer the '2 reserved slots for best with only points from the highest X votes' thing, but the steeper scale is a step in the right direction.
Well I like the cultural quotas. Let's say it will be the Nicolas touch in this poll. Unless there is a strong opposition to it, of course
You still have 2 days to make yourself heard
I know we don't need more alternatives, but short after I came up with the top 20 scoring for the previous 90s poll I wondered why I allowed points for more albums than what went to the finals - I don't think it makes much sense to give points to albums that I don't think belong in the final.
Therefore, maybe we should only give points to the top 15. That also means less work for the person who counts the scores. The simple change of the scores would be
However, since all these points can be divided by 2, this looks pretty sweet:
This is a quite steep scale. More or less it's only the top 5 that matters which would lead to interesting results!
I like that (not only because it is less work for me )
So Spaz' comment was accurate (we've spent so much time rating 20 albums that we'd forgotten about that)
the 2nd scale is good