All this numbers discussion is finally making me eager to share something I could contribute once the album poll is over.

I came up with an interesting formula for album recommendations shortly before I discovered Henrik's site. I had a small period without a full-time job, so I got creative. I want to share that with you now before I forget how I did it.

Pitchfork was putting out a list of maybe the top 100 albums of the 70s at the time. If you are familiar with their lists they also have a section at the end with an individual critics top list. Well I didn't like how obscure some of their overall album choices were, so I decided to go into the list of individual critics (about 15) and score each of the critics based on how high they ranked albums on my list.

The scoring for critics was based on this formula.

101 [minus] (position on critics list) / 100

X

101 [minus] (position on my personal list)

If some critic's favorite album was your favorite album, that critic would get 100 points. If they put it at 50 they would get awarded 51 points.

This formula obviously is for 100 album lists and in particular albums of the 70s to match up with the Pitchfork list, but it can be adaptable.

Now, with this formula you can get a pretty good ranking of which critics agree with you more.

BUT, I didn't stop there. I decided to do another round of calculations based on what I guess I would call a 'snooty music critic factor'. I love Pitchfork, they exposed to a lot of good stuff, but I felt that a critic who put the most obscure Boredoms record at #1 or filled their 70s top 10 with avant-garde electronic compositions would have tastes a little alienated from me. On the other hand, a pitchfork critic who found himself common enough to throw mainstream but powerful records like downward spiral and siamese onto their top 90s records list deserved a whole lot more credit. And of course, some critic liking your inaccessible, unlistenable-to-anyone-else album as much as you deserves a high consideration when finding new albums to discover. Hopefully you get what I'm saying.

Anyways my formula took the calculations of critics strength from the formula above and created a spectrum of scores from lowest to highest. I then created a median score, halfway between the critic with the lowest score and the critic with the highest score.

I then went back to the individual critics and gave a score to each album on their list I had not heard. I based this score on where the individual critics list laid on this spectrum. Every critic that had a score above the median contributed a positive score to each of their albums. The critic with the strongest agreement with my list got a score of 1.00, while the other critics who had earlier scores above the median got album strength scores reflected in this formula:

Distance from Median / Highest critic agreement score

Each album on these lists was given points based on this:

New median-based score
X
(101 - [album position on critic's list])

Now if a critic that agreed the most with my list ranked something #1, that album would count for 100 points.

Critics with agreement scores below the median penalized album scores with negative points. The elitist music critic that had the least agreement with me gets a median based score of -1.00, while the others got scores based on this formula:

- (Distance from Median / Lowest Agreement Score)

Then you would give albums negative points based on:

New median-based score
X
101-[album's position of critics 100 list]

Add all the scores possible for every album on every critical list and you've got yourself a very customized list of recommendations.

I've never written this method out completely so thanks for the chance.

The problem is this took me a very long time to do my calculations, and when work and grad school started picking up I did find the project set aside. I also am sure there is a way to put all of these calculations into Excel. If you think this formula makes statistical sense, and you know any weird Excel functions, I'd appreciate any advice. I think it would be a blast to try to put your final album lists into this formula and see if it comes with anything interesting based on a pool of like-minded (at least when it comes to list obsession) music critics like ourselves.

Eligibility? I am struggling to put together a list of albums. The eligibility rules are tricky. If we allow King of the Delta Blues and The Sun Sessions, what about a recent collection of Johnny Cash's Sun tracks? What about Hank Williams' 40 greatest hits? The music was never released on standard albums, but it seems unfair to allow compilations like that. And what about soundtracks, i.e., "The Harder They Come," which is almost a Jimmy Cliff album, but includes tracks from other artists.

One simple solution would be to just copy Henrik's rules (although that would remove Elvis' best record and Robert Johnson).

How about Buzzcocks Singles Going Steady which somehow finds it's place on almost everybody's top albums lists. Those songs are available on their original albums for the most part and critics rarely include any other singles compilation....I guess those albums just recently became widely available but it's not like the Buzzcocks only put out singles. I have always found it weird how that compilation is given an exception. Essential album, but so is CCR Chronicles or a Smiths Singles comp. You don't see those in anybodys top 100.

Well I don't know ...
If I proposed to include compilations, it's mainly because ther's a couple of blues albums I'd love to include like R Johnson and Leadbelly, which are sessions albums and not compilatons of scattered singles
That was my first idea : including sessions albums (so maybe the Sun sessions could be part of it too. But if it is impossible to define clearly, we'll have to stick to Henry's rules;
Anyway, before we post, we ought to make some written rules.

Or maybe just include anything we want to and if the person organizing it deems it ineligible then so be it - it won't be included...

You guys looking at me? I just offered to compile and calculate the results. :) As far as deciding which albums are or are not eligible, well, that has to be a group effort. Personally, I really don’t care either way.

I think that compilations of any kind shouldn't be included. What's the problem ? There are thousand billions of good "real studio album" that you can put on your top 100 albums. Forget your compilations or sessions and think about the other good albums you're going to choose. For the last poll in 2005, I really wanted to rank my so beloved "Nuggets" compilations, but Henrik said "No, you can't". It doesn't matter, I'm still alive and I still love music

Yeah well there's only a couple I would have put on anyway - New Order Substance and Buzzcocks Singles Going Steady

It's becoming more clear that nailing down a definition of what is and isn't an acceptable album is an exercise in futility. So, with that said, is everybody alright with sticking to the AM rules (ie. no greatest hits, no "best ofs", no compilations, etc.)? I have to agree with Dumbangel - there are so many good albums out there, and as much as it's painful to remove the compilations from our lists, I think it's in our best interests to do so. (Yes, even I'll have to find a few replacements for my list.) Shouldn't be too difficult of a task though.

Next thing on the agenda... the scoring system. I didn't hear many objections to DrDre's formula; I personally think it's the best way to go, and since Henrik ok'd it, hopefully everyone's fine with it.

So, if we can all agree on that much, then all that remains (I think) is to finalize the commencement date and the method of list submission.

I'm not sure how it was done with the previous polls, but in terms of how lists can be submitted, I would like to suggest that lists be sent to me by EMAIL, and not by posting on the forum. I'd prefer this for a few reasons:

1.) Ease of compiling - I'm not too keen on the idea of re-typing lists into Excel, so hopefully everyone can send me an Excel (or equivalent) file. If that's not an option, the list in Word (or within the body of an email) is ok. If that's not possible, send me the list on MS Messenger. Why not via the forum? Well...

2.) To eliminate bias! With endeavors such as this, it's sometimes tempting to look at another's list to see where certain albums are ranked, and then make subsequent "adjustments" to our own lists. (eg. "Oh, they both put Album X in their top 10. Maybe I should put it higher on my list....") I'm not saying this sort of thing would be rampant on this forum, but there's no sense in taking any chances. I'd really like to keep as much integrity in this poll as possible. I'm a psych major, and bias is the enemy!

Since Bracketology will be finished at the end of November (*sniff*), is everybody ok with starting this on December 1, with results to follow shortly after the new year? That leaves a good 30-day window for getting your lists to me. schleuse - if AM Survivor begins roughly around the same time, are you alright with the album poll running quietly in the background?

i'm sad but I have to admit that the compilation thing was impossible to rgulate. So bye bye my beloved blues recors (any way they wouldn't have maid the top 100, even Robert Johnson)
Personnally I find that dec 1 is a little short, but I don't want to spoil the pleasure
I suggest december 31st and results at the end of january
I make a point to listen to every album before ranking it.
Or if we do that (december 1), we'll post the songs later ?
And I agree about secret vote. Much more democratic.

Anthony, regarding your suggestions, you got all thumbs up from my side.

The anonymous voting, by sending you the 100 in an Excel file, is very wise. I'm also fine with either start date, since I have my 100 already waiting in stock.

So the albums are going to be done before the singles poll? Or at the same time?

Same time I think, but it doesn't really matter to me either, I got them 99% completed.

I'm in doubt whether or not to allow 2006/2007 songs, because there seems a disproportionate amount of them in my list (4 from each year, and the years (even in my opinion) weren't that strong.

Mmm.. I guess I could just include them and possibly remove them say.. next year, when I update my list.

What do you guys think?

Oh, I agree with everything Anthony said!

I don't understand why the votes should be anonymous ?
I'm not ashamed or guilty to like the albums and songs that I like. And most of us knows more or less each other tastes in music on this forum. For exemple, the author of a list with 7 Prince albums in the top 10 is nobody's but Moonbeam. Same thing for JR with Madonna.

I assume the lists will be posted (by the compiler) after the lists have been compiled, unless someone has objections against that of course. (That's how it was done last time anyway)

Dumbangel – my rationale for having lists submitted by email has nothing to do with shame or guilt, and it’s certainly not about anonymity (more on this aspect to follow.)

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my explanation, but my reason for asking everyone to submit their lists by email is to eliminate any potential bias from entering this poll.

bias - n. 1. distortion of a statistical result due to predisposition or prejudice

The fact of the matter is, if lists are submitted via posting on the forum - which can be viewed by everyone - there could be a tendency for some, maybe not you, but SOME to modify their lists in accordance with the tastes of others. Like I attempted to demonstrate in my previous example, I don’t want anyone to rank album X higher in their personal list because they’ve seen it ranked high on lists which have already been posted. I’m not saying that this will necessarily happen, but I don’t want to take the chance. In short, I want the final list to be an untainted reflection of the musical tastes of this forum without any internal bias or influence.

As for anonymity, Neoptolemos is correct - everyone’s list will be available for public viewing on the forum shortly after the results are posted. Hilarity, shock, and tomfoolery will ensue at that point, I’m sure.

Hi all-

Just checking in. I'm happy to accept your songs lists just as Anthony is collecting the albums lists. Feel free to send me an email (ian_renner@yahoo.com) with your list attached as an Excel (or equivalent) document. A few questions I have are the following:

1. I think it's pretty safe to assume that we are using DrDre's formula. However, did we make a final decision about the value of x? 10 seemed to be the frontrunner, but I haven't seen anything conclusive about this.

2. Since the formula can handle lists of any size, are there any limitations to the size of the lists? I, for one, don't mind getting large lists- even 1000- but I'm open to suggestions.

I like the idea of 200 songs, but 100 is fine also.

Polling stations (ie. Moonbeam's and Anthony's email) opening December 1?

1000 Moonbeam? That would make your job real hell - 100 of each sounds good

I suggest we stick to 100 of each

First of all, sorry for having introduced the word 'anonymous' and causing the misunderstanding about that. Dumbangel, I hope that Neoptolemos' and Anthony's clarifications resolved that?

Then I am fine with suggestions made in the last posts:
- Formula with x=10 is OK.
- Start date December 1 OK too.
- Since I want to relisten to all albums and songs before voting, a top 100 of each sounds best doable and OK as well to me. But if anybody else wants to submit a longer list, why reject?

Two suggestions for x:

1. x=20, which gives 17.5 points to album #100
2. x=32, which gives 25 points to album #100

There are no other integers for x (among these values) that give a score for #100 with 0 or 1 decimal, but that's not really important either. We could for example use x=24, which would give 20.16 points to #100.

Somewhere around these numbers seems "optimal" to me.

I have nothing against people giving longer lists.
Like DrDre I would like to listen to a maximum of records but I think this time I'll probably give a list of 100 which won't be optimal but the best I can.
Now if people want to gpost longer lists, of course I have nothing against that but the question is will the 101st and following will get points ?
personnally I say why not
and you

Somewhere around 20 points for album number 100 seems good to me.

i've found what i think is the fairest equation. it doesn't matter though. i think it will be fun to compare these rating systems once all the lists are completed. i'm certainly keen to try that. i think to priority is to get this program where you pick your favorite songs and albums happening. anyways, here's the formula:

score = (100/x)*log(100^x/position)

rank x=2.25 x=2.5 x=2.75
1 100.00 100.00 100.00
2 86.62 87.96 89.05
3 78.79 80.92 82.65
4 73.24 75.92 78.11
5 68.93 72.04 74.58
6 65.42 68.87 71.70
7 62.44 66.20 69.27
8 59.86 63.88 67.16
9 57.59 61.83 65.30
10 55.56 60.00 63.64
11 53.72 58.34 62.13
12 52.04 56.83 60.76
13 50.49 55.44 59.49
14 49.06 54.15 58.32
15 47.73 52.96 57.23
16 46.48 51.84 56.21
17 45.31 50.78 55.26
18 44.21 49.79 54.35
19 43.17 48.85 53.50
20 42.18 47.96 52.69
21 41.23 47.11 51.92
22 40.34 46.30 51.18
23 39.48 45.53 50.48
24 38.66 44.79 49.81
25 37.87 44.08 49.17
26 37.11 43.40 48.55
27 36.38 42.75 47.95
28 35.68 42.11 47.38
29 35.00 41.50 46.82
30 34.35 40.92 46.29
31 33.72 40.35 45.77
32 33.10 39.79 45.27
33 32.51 39.26 44.78
34 31.93 38.74 44.31
35 31.37 38.24 43.85
36 30.83 37.75 43.41
37 30.30 37.27 42.97
38 29.79 36.81 42.55
39 29.29 36.36 42.14
40 28.80 35.92 41.74
41 28.32 35.49 41.35
42 27.86 35.07 40.97
43 27.40 34.66 40.60
44 26.96 34.26 40.24
45 26.52 33.87 39.88
46 26.10 33.49 39.54
47 25.68 33.12 39.20
48 25.28 32.75 38.86
49 24.88 32.39 38.54
50 24.49 32.04 38.22
51 24.11 31.70 37.91
52 23.73 31.36 37.60
53 23.37 31.03 37.30
54 23.00 30.70 37.00
55 22.65 30.39 36.71
56 22.30 30.07 36.43
57 21.96 29.77 36.15
58 21.63 29.46 35.88
59 21.30 29.17 35.61
60 20.97 28.87 35.34
61 20.65 28.59 35.08
62 20.34 28.30 34.82
63 20.03 28.03 34.57
64 19.73 27.75 34.32
65 19.43 27.48 34.08
66 19.13 27.22 33.83
67 18.84 26.96 33.60
68 18.56 26.70 33.36
69 18.27 26.45 33.13
70 18.00 26.20 32.91
71 17.72 25.95 32.68
72 17.45 25.71 32.46
73 17.19 25.47 32.24
74 16.92 25.23 32.03
75 16.66 25.00 31.82
76 16.41 24.77 31.61
77 16.16 24.54 31.40
78 15.91 24.32 31.20
79 15.66 24.09 31.00
80 15.42 23.88 30.80
81 15.18 23.66 30.60
82 14.94 23.45 30.41
83 14.71 23.24 30.22
84 14.48 23.03 30.03
85 14.25 22.82 29.84
86 14.02 22.62 29.65
87 13.80 22.42 29.47
88 13.58 22.22 29.29
89 13.36 22.02 29.11
90 13.14 21.83 28.94
91 12.93 21.64 28.76
92 12.72 21.45 28.59
93 12.51 21.26 28.42
94 12.31 21.07 28.25
95 12.10 20.89 28.08
96 11.90 20.71 27.92
97 11.70 20.53 27.75
98 11.50 20.35 27.59
99 11.31 20.17 27.43
100 11.11 20.00 27.27



keep in mind that when an album is ranked at no#1, it's quite likely to appear highly on other lists as well so it doesn't bother me if two mentions in the top 20 give an album a better score than an album ranked at no#1. with the x=2.5 system, an album ranked at no#1 on one list and no#100 on another will equal two mentions at no#10. that sounds pretty close to what it should be.

Moeboid, let me be the first to react on your post and say: Excellent! Let's forget about my formula and take your Log-Formula, with x=2.5 preferably.

btw, shouldn't the formula be:

score = (100/x)*log(100^x/position) - 100

? Or am I doing something wrong ?

I also agree about Moeboids formula with x=2.5, but I really don't think I'm the one who should decide here.

I had no idea formulas would be discussed this much in the forum! How many statisticians or mathematicians are we?

Thank you DrDre :)

And you are doing something wrong... but it's my fault. i posted the wrong formula. sorry.

score =(100/2.5)*LOG(10^2.5/position)

that's what it should be. sorry about that

I've given this a bit more thought and the best equation for this will vary from person to person. picking my favorite album may be a very easy decision, or maybe a very difficult one. no matter which equation we choose to use, none will match the *real* difference between the two. but then again, i don't think anyone can rank their favorite albums accurately enough to justify being too pedantic about such things.

Well, we've been pedantic enough already, so why not compare the two “Henrik-approved” scales?

DrDre’s formula, using X=20:

1 100.00
2 95.45
3 91.30
4 87.50
5 84.00
6 80.77
7 77.78
8 75.00
9 72.41
10 70.00
.
.
.
91 18.92
92 18.75
93 18.58
94 18.42
95 18.26
96 18.10
97 17.95
98 17.80
99 17.65
100 17.50


Now, Moeboid’s formula, using X=2.5:

1 100.00
2 87.96
3 80.92
4 75.92
5 72.04
6 68.87
7 66.20
8 63.88
9 61.83
10 60.00
.
.
.
91 21.64
92 21.45
93 21.26
94 21.07
95 20.89
96 20.71
97 20.53
98 20.35
99 20.17
100 20.00


Both are really great, and well thought out. I personally prefer DrDre's formula, for a couple of reasons:

1. The discrepancy between albums ranked #1 and #2 is 4.55, compared with 12.04. Looking at my personal list, If I try to quantify my preference for the album ranked #1 over the album ranked #2, the difference would be closer to 4 or 5 than 12.
2. Albums ranked #10 are worth 70, compared to 60. Seems about right (to me anyway.)
3. Albums ranked #100 on Moeboid's scale are worth one fifth of the point value of the album ranked #1, which seems a bit high (not that 17.50 is much different, mind you.)

We're probably boring the shit out of most people with all of this nerdy stats talk. But I think it's important to find a scale that everyone's happy with.

OK, thank you Moeboid.

But did you know that:

score = (100/x)*log(100^x/position) - 100 = (100/x)*log(10^x/position) ??!!

I agree qith you, it varies from person to person.

Why not let Moonbeam and Anthony decide? They will build the formula into their Excel lists and do the real hard work ...

Oops, too late with posting, crossed Anthony's post there ...

Well, this seems to become a long discussion. I'm fine with either decision ...

"The fact of the matter is, if lists are submitted via posting on the forum - which can be viewed by everyone - there could be a tendency for some, maybe not you, but SOME to modify their lists in accordance with the tastes of others. Like I attempted to demonstrate in my previous example, I don’t want anyone to rank album X higher in their personal list because they’ve seen it ranked high on lists which have already been posted. I’m not saying that this will necessarily happen, but I don’t want to take the chance. In short, I want the final list to be an untainted reflection of the musical tastes of this forum without any internal bias or influence."

Sorry Anthony, I hadn't understood what you meant about anonymous. Now it's much clearer. Thank you for your explanations. But I hadn't thought one second that anyone can be influenced by each others list. So I'm agree with you, it's better not to take the risk

i actually thought that 20 points for position 100 was the perfect number. if we all owned every album ever released, and ranked them 1 to some ridiculously high number, then getting a mention anywhere within the top 100 would be an achievement indeed. basically, that's what this list should be. it's just that we stop at 100 that it isn't. but i think there needs to be room under that 100th position for other albums. even if no others are to be included.

so far, my favorite formula is DrDre's where X=20. i've graphed them all and that looks the best in my eyes.

Here's a preview...

That looks awesome Moonbeam - it took me a while to realize it was seperated into years. Looks like 2004 is highly represented...

Indeed, Midaso, indeed!

Well don't worry - I'll be sure to include a bit of Prince in my lists...

ahh, separated into years. i didn't pick up on that. thanks for pointing that out. looks nice though

Moonbeam, that's true modern art. With a little fantasy, it looks like a musical skyline of ... eh for instance Chicago

That's cool as cool can be, Moonbeam!

Definitely neat-o, but sort of contrary to the "internal bias" thing that I was talking about. Hopefully everyone can keep their lists private until the poll begins. :)

On that note, when should this shiznat start? Did we agree on December, or is January better?

I think this poll will be very different than the last one - there are things that were in the top ten last time that won't be very high this time. It's a pity there's a lack of British people here - it will be interesting to see if those 'John Peel' type bands will make any impression here...

There might be a lack of Brits here but it certainly doesn't show. This devotion to Brit-pop amazes and baffles me.

In echo Anthony's question : do we start december or january ?

Personally I'd prefer january or december 15, but what are your opinions ?
I think we should decide this quickly (this week ?)

Ok I'm aking again
What would you prefer

-posting your top 100 lists (albums and/or songs)for the 1st of december

- or posting them for the 1st of january

we should decide that quickly
I would prefer january, so I'll have time to listen to more albums before the D day.
What about you ?
I propose we express our opinions quickly

Decembers fine - no trouble

December's fine with me too, but if people want to wait until January to finish their list I'm fine with that too.

1 dec works for me...the 90s list will sure be fun but it's not that time consuming....

I think the voting period should be open from Dec. 1 through Dec. 31, with the results being announced some time in January. What e-mail addresses are we sending the lists too?

sounds like a good compromise
so people who can't wait will be able to post as soon as the 1st and the others can wait a lil more

I'm with nicolas; December's a pretty hectic month, and, given the scope, I like the idea of a month-long posting window.

Oops...I meant: "I'm with Rocky Raccoon." I'm bleary this morning and hadn't noticed that nicolas was seconding Rocky.

Dec. 1 to 31 works for me. I'll post details at some point leading up to the 1st (email address, scoring scale, etc.)

No e-mailing the lists, please. It's the pop-up of an individual list that excites ME. :)

Sorry, Fred. I’ve kindly asked everyone to email their lists in an effort to maintain statistical integrity in the final results. Individual lists will be posted after the results are posted in early January.

I don't think I'll be able to post lists until January 11th or so, as I'll be on holiday. Would it be ok to collect lists until then?

I think I prefer them not being revealed here first - doesn't spoil the surprise. Otherwise,it will become pretty predictable what albums(/songs) will be high up

I was wondering about how to made those lists, am I supposed to make a list with my 100 favourites songs and albums ever or am I supposed to try to make a list of the 100 songs and albums which I would consider as the most important or influent.
I guess the 2nd solution is more relevant in a way but would just be, in a way, comforting to the list which you can already found in the website !
So for instance, can I put... let's say... Dizzee Rascal's I Luv You or Vitalic's La Rock 01 in my top 30 while there are probably lots of songs that have been more important landmarks in the history of music (well, I hope I can).

I'm purely basing my lists on feelings, not influence. I hope everyone does that, or we might as well just use the AM top 100.

OK! Individual lists later!

My top 100 will be based on feelings too.
I guess the final top 100 will be very consensual, and in a way it will help us understand what the AM list really is.
I think the most interesting will be the individual lists
So I have a suggestion : every individual list will be sent to Anthony/Neoptolemos separately and will not be posted on the forum.
Anthony and Neo make the general lists and post them. (On this we 've already agreed)
My suggestion is what do we do after that ?
Do we post the individual lists all at once ? I think it's not a good idea, because, if the game is succesful, a big post with 20 or so lists is barely readable, and what's interesting is what is inside those lists and what they say about who we are (our particular fields of expertise, our guilty or not guilty pleasures, etc..).
so i suggest Anthony and Neoptolemos should post them one after another, at regular periodicity so we have time to understand (and why not comment on) every one else's tastes, if we agree with that.
Hope i made myself clear.

So what do you think of that ?

Not that I wouldn't do it, but Moonbeam volunteered to do the rankings, not me. He just said that he's going to be away around new year so I suppose we might need someone else to do it. Any details on that Moonbeam?

I think that Nicolas's idea is very good !
Individual lists are more interessant than the final list IMO.

For me it's good if we only do the top songs in january
Sorry Neoptolemos, I thought it was you who did the songs

I didn't think we had settled on a date yet. I still would like to do the songs list, but I will be on vacation until January 11th.

When will you go away? If it's like the 1st you can compile and post the list on the first and send the individual lists to someone else to post the days after that.

I'm off on December 22nd.

Why can't we wait until january ?
In december we will already have the 90's poll and the top 100 albums
I mean if we post too many lists at once it will loose interest.
Let's wait until the end of Moonbeam's vacations, we're nor in such a hurry

How about we do it like this:

December 1st - December 31st: Submitting top 100-200 albums
January 1st - January 31st: Over the course of a week or two, publishing the accumulated list + personal lists AND submitting top 100-200 songs
February 1st - February 29th: Posting accumulated list + personal lists AND submitting top 50-200 artists
March 1st - March xxth: Publishing accumulated list of artists + personal lists.

That spreads the work/fun a little better I think.

ok, I'm in
Anthony do you agree ?

I'm happy with that for the albums and songs lists. I selfishly want to include more than 200 songs, but I can stick to that limit if need be.

I do, however, think we should hold off on the artist list until Survivor has run its course.

Yeah, that's awesome.

So, the album poll gets going in about 10 days... guess I should get crackin' on the preliminaries on my end!