I have been thinking about how much weight the albums rank and the songs rank should have for the overall artist rank. Right now the albums rank has 37.5% and the songs rank has 62.5% influence on the overall artist rank. These numbers are completely arbitrary and I think it would be better if they were decided based on the amount of critics lists instead. This could be calculated in different ways and I'd like to know what you would prefer.
A. The number of critics lists (albums 72%, songs 28%)
B. The number of albums/songs on all critics lists (albums 63%, songs 37%) - because the songs lists are longer on average
C. Combination of A and B.
Right now the albums rank has 37.5% and the songs rank has 62.5% influence on the overall artist rank.
I'm guessing that should be the other way around?
I feel that writing a good song here and there should be less important than making great cohesive albums. That said, option A might unfairly skew the ratings against early artist who don't have (m)any albums listed. Maybe go with the middle ground?
I would consider finding an algorithm to decide the weight based on where the artist is strongest.
So, artists with stronger albums have albums weighted higher and artists with stronger songs have songs weighted higher.
That way you're not penalizing artists from the pre-album era for not having albums, and you're not penalizing indie artists for not having radio singles.