𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿
Diamond Member
Unsteady Weirdo
𝓪 𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓹𝓸𝓮𝓽
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 10,762
My Charts
|
Post by 𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿 on Nov 2, 2019 20:08:32 GMT -5
I'm wondering, which song could be the #100 in the Decade-End songs?
|
|
lurker2
Gold Member
Joined: April 2019
Posts: 662
|
Post by lurker2 on Nov 2, 2019 20:16:37 GMT -5
I'm wondering, which song could be the #100 in the Decade-End songs? Probably OMG. It’d be way higher than 100, so most people’s theory is that they just forgot to put it in.
|
|
𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿
Diamond Member
Unsteady Weirdo
𝓪 𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓹𝓸𝓮𝓽
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 10,762
My Charts
|
Post by 𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿 on Nov 2, 2019 20:18:28 GMT -5
Also, seeing The Weeknd's "The Hills" miss the Top 30 makes me sad, but ending up at my birthdate (31) makes me happy and to make up on the 2016 YE chart, where I hoped "The Hills" ends up at #31, but slips a spot lower to #32.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas on Nov 2, 2019 20:32:53 GMT -5
I'm wondering, which song could be the #100 in the Decade-End songs? Probably OMG. It’d be way higher than 100, so most people’s theory is that they just forgot to put it in. It's not a theory. It's too coincidental to not be true. Why else would only the #100 song not be out?
|
|
𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿
Diamond Member
Unsteady Weirdo
𝓪 𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓹𝓸𝓮𝓽
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 10,762
My Charts
|
Post by 𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿 on Nov 2, 2019 20:59:33 GMT -5
Which "I Like It" was in the Decade-End, Enrique/Pitbull or Cardi/Bad Bunny/Balvin?
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on Nov 2, 2019 21:48:04 GMT -5
I don't think he'll lose a lot of steam or nosedive, but I think he'll gradually slow down. I need him to drop another album to see, but if I could call it in at this very moment, beerbongs & bentleys is his biggest album with his biggest hit song. That's a pretty early peak. He also debuted in the middle of the decade and so his success will be spread across two decades. Drake will continue to enjoy massive commercial success until at least halfway into the 2020's decade. It all depends on how he evolves as an artist and if he even continues to release music into his 40's. He'll be 43 in 2029. Sunflower is already bigger than rockstar, it's #11 on the Decade End H100. Sicko Mode is placed higher than God's Plan on the decade end Hot 100, but would you call it a bigger hit?
|
|
|
Post by Lukas on Nov 2, 2019 22:03:08 GMT -5
Which "I Like It" was in the Decade-End, Enrique/Pitbull or Cardi/Bad Bunny/Balvin? The Cardi B one
|
|
spoons
New Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 303
|
Post by spoons on Nov 2, 2019 23:18:37 GMT -5
Songs I don't think should've made it or are too high (imo): Bodak Yellow Sucker Wow. Better Now Break Your Heart Heathens
Songs I think should've made it: OMG Mirrors Good Feeling Humble Something Just Like This Stressed Out Shut Up and Dance Lights What Makes You Beautiful
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,734
|
Post by 85la on Nov 3, 2019 1:10:19 GMT -5
Billboard Top Artists Taylor Swift 2010 – #2 2011 – #8 2012 – #3 2013 – #2 2014 – #4 2015 – #1 2016 – #16 2017 – #25 2018 – #4 2019 – ? Drake 2010 – #10 2011 – #23 2012 – #4 2013 – #11 2014 – #16 2015 – #4 2016 – #3 2017 – #3 2018 – #1 2019 – ? As for 2019, Drake has placed higher than Taylor 23 weeks (almost entirely before “Me!” was released) and Taylor was higher 21 weeks on the Artist 100 chart (and has consistently ranked higher since “Me!”). In this most recent week, Taylor is #6 and Drake #13, and without a new release from Drake, Taylor will ride out the year on top or on par. Drake is probably a little higher for 2019, but I can’t imagine by a big margin (please correct me if I’m wrong). If you look at the Billboard’s ranking of the top artists of the year from this decade, Taylor seems to be the winner. She ranked higher than Drake for the first 6 years of the decade. Drake missed the top 10 three times, Taylor only twice. Each have a #1 ranking, but Taylor also has two #2 rankings. Using an inverse point system for these rankings, Taylor comes out on top. Additionally, Taylor starts and end’s the decade as one of the top artists ,where Drake didn’t really establish consistent dominance until the decade was half over. Taylor clearly lost out on not having her massive opening weeks counted as they should have (and really the many subsequent weeks after that her albums had huge numbers). She also loses out on not benefitting as much from the double dipping on the albums chart caused by streams being added to album totals on the chart which Drake heavily benefitted from. If digital sales had counted towards the album chart in the first half of the decade, Fearless, Speak Now, and Red would all have been even bigger on the album chart than they were. I know I sound like a bitter fan, but honestly I’m not that invested in whether Taylor is #1 or #2. I am, however, convinced that the numbers show Taylor should be #1 for the decade, and as stated before Taylor has actually been dominant for the entirety of the decade. Billboard is frustrating with their lack of consistent methodology for rankings, and they have clearly weighted the latter half of the decade too high, illustrated by what seems like Post Malone’s unreasonably high rankings on the artist list and Billboard 200 list. Also, I completely agree that 25 being #19 for the decade is just laughable. It is easily #2 or #3 (1989's longevity has been more impressive but overall SPS is lower). Yep, I totally agree, and this is what I've been saying all along, especially looking at those year-end rankings. Yes, of course they won't match up perfectly with what Billboard uses to calculate the decade-end, but it provides a very good indication because in general both most likely count the same things. Of course I would want whoever has statistically performed the best according to the Billboard Charts to end up on top, and I'm not a super fan of either, but it's important to question these things and do a thorough analysis.
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,734
|
Post by 85la on Nov 3, 2019 1:36:36 GMT -5
I’m really surprised they still haven’t posted anything officially announcing the Decade End lists. I guess they really were revealed accidentally way too early. They must be hyperventilating lmao. Yes, and the links to those charts were they supposedly were "viewable" don't work anymore, so there's no proof from Billboard to show for this. It's also highly doubtful they'd end the decade as early as September 28, as they've never ended a decade or any year-end that early, but who knows, they do change things all the time so I guess it might be possible, but it would be even more inaccurate and less reflective of an actual calendar year/decade period than their usual mid-November cutoff. A lot of chart activity can happen in these 6-8 weeks. Also, they haven't even released or unintentionally leaked the year-ends for 2019 yet, so ending the decade before the very last year of said decade would be very suspect, unless they also plan to have the cutoff be earlier for this year as well?
|
|
𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿
Diamond Member
Unsteady Weirdo
𝓪 𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓹𝓸𝓮𝓽
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 10,762
My Charts
|
Post by 𝓲𝓽'𝓼.𝓰𝓿 on Nov 3, 2019 4:42:01 GMT -5
Songs I don't think should've made it or are too high (imo): Bodak YellowSuckerWow.Better NowBreak Your HeartHeathensSongs I think should've made it: OMG Mirrors Good Feeling Humble Something Just Like This Stressed Out Shut Up and Dance Lights What Makes You Beautiful For me, the songs that are too high are highlighted in italic, while the ones in bold shouldn't be there at all. To be fair, the #100 is currently undetermined, so likely "OMG" can be the #100. "HUMBLE.", "Something Just Like This", and "Stressed Out" should've made it.
|
|
lurker2
Gold Member
Joined: April 2019
Posts: 662
|
Post by lurker2 on Nov 3, 2019 8:17:33 GMT -5
The one thing that annoys me about the decade End chart is how some years get shafted. Like, obviously if they moved the cut off back to November a couple extra 2019 songs would make it, but 2017 only has 6 songs. 2013 also only had 8. I get why that happens, and I probably prefer it net to them not doing that, but it definitely rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas on Nov 3, 2019 10:33:53 GMT -5
Stressed Out and Lights are the two songs with the biggest number of real weighted points that aren't on the list (actually, Harlem Shake was technically "bigger" than those). Stitches, Cruise, and Shut Up And Dance are less severe examples.
Break Your Heart, Thank U Next, What Do You Mean?, and Nice for What are the songs that don't feel like they should've even been close to making it. Others include Wow., 7 Rings, and Cheerleader.
|
|
fhas
3x Platinum Member
Three-time World Champions: 1992 - 2-1 vs. Barcelona, 1993 - 3-2 vs. Milan, 2005 - 1-0 vs. Liverpool
|
Post by fhas on Nov 3, 2019 13:45:55 GMT -5
Harlem Shake (highest peaking #1 with 200k+ points in its first week + YE #4 in 2013) not being in the top 100 is a joke.
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,597
|
Post by iHype. on Nov 3, 2019 14:20:34 GMT -5
Harlem Shake (highest peaking #1 with 200k+ points in its first week + YE #4 in 2013) not being in the top 100 is a joke. Why? It only spent 8 weeks top 10.... A song making the Decade-End due to essentially nothing but YouTube streams from dance videos for just a few weeks would be a bit silly.
|
|
fhas
3x Platinum Member
Three-time World Champions: 1992 - 2-1 vs. Barcelona, 1993 - 3-2 vs. Milan, 2005 - 1-0 vs. Liverpool
|
Post by fhas on Nov 3, 2019 14:58:00 GMT -5
Harlem Shake (highest peaking #1 with 200k+ points in its first week + YE #4 in 2013) not being in the top 100 is a joke. Why? It only spent 8 weeks top 10.... A song making the Decade-End due to essentially nothing but YouTube streams from dance videos for just a few weeks would be a bit silly. It's not about the longevity, it's about how big it was durint its peak. 100M+ streams in 2013 is huge and I don't care if it's YouTube UGC or on-demand audio streaming.
|
|
Leo ✔
Diamond Member
Julia Michaels Stan
Happy happy happy ♪
Joined: June 2016
Posts: 73,222
My Charts
Pronouns: He/him/his
|
Post by Leo ✔ on Nov 3, 2019 15:04:20 GMT -5
Why? It only spent 8 weeks top 10.... A song making the Decade-End due to essentially nothing but YouTube streams from dance videos for just a few weeks would be a bit silly. It's not about the longevity, it's about how big it was durint its peak. 100M+ streams in 2013 is huge and I don't care if it's YouTube UGC or on-demand audio streaming. If we use that as reference, "Hello" not being inside top 50 is a joke.
|
|
tanooki
Diamond Member
2019 Breakthrough
lucia gta 6
Joined: August 2017
Posts: 10,086
Pronouns: they/she/fae
|
Post by tanooki on Nov 3, 2019 15:26:21 GMT -5
The only reason this decade uses inverse rather than the more accurate real point system is because the all time list would be screwed up and it would only lead to confusion. Either they redo how they do the all time list, or we're stuck with this weird dynamic where Girls Like You is top 5 but Harlem Shake isn't even top 200
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Nov 3, 2019 16:59:18 GMT -5
Billboard Top Artists Taylor Swift 2010 – #2 2011 – #8 2012 – #3 2013 – #2 2014 – #4 2015 – #1 2016 – #16 2017 – #25 2018 – #4 2019 – ? Drake 2010 – #10 2011 – #23 2012 – #4 2013 – #11 2014 – #16 2015 – #4 2016 – #3 2017 – #3 2018 – #1 2019 – ? As for 2019, Drake has placed higher than Taylor 23 weeks (almost entirely before “Me!” was released) and Taylor was higher 21 weeks on the Artist 100 chart (and has consistently ranked higher since “Me!”). In this most recent week, Taylor is #6 and Drake #13, and without a new release from Drake, Taylor will ride out the year on top or on par. Drake is probably a little higher for 2019, but I can’t imagine by a big margin (please correct me if I’m wrong). If you look at the Billboard’s ranking of the top artists of the year from this decade, Taylor seems to be the winner. She ranked higher than Drake for the first 6 years of the decade. Drake missed the top 10 three times, Taylor only twice. Each have a #1 ranking, but Taylor also has two #2 rankings. Using an inverse point system for these rankings, Taylor comes out on top. Additionally, Taylor starts and end’s the decade as one of the top artists ,where Drake didn’t really establish consistent dominance until the decade was half over. Taylor clearly lost out on not having her massive opening weeks counted as they should have (and really the many subsequent weeks after that her albums had huge numbers). She also loses out on not benefitting as much from the double dipping on the albums chart caused by streams being added to album totals on the chart which Drake heavily benefitted from. If digital sales had counted towards the album chart in the first half of the decade, Fearless, Speak Now, and Red would all have been even bigger on the album chart than they were. I know I sound like a bitter fan, but honestly I’m not that invested in whether Taylor is #1 or #2. I am, however, convinced that the numbers show Taylor should be #1 for the decade, and as stated before Taylor has actually been dominant for the entirety of the decade. Billboard is frustrating with their lack of consistent methodology for rankings, and they have clearly weighted the latter half of the decade too high, illustrated by what seems like Post Malone’s unreasonably high rankings on the artist list and Billboard 200 list. Also, I completely agree that 25 being #19 for the decade is just laughable. It is easily #2 or #3 (1989's longevity has been more impressive but overall SPS is lower). These year end charts include points from touring and the social50. As an example, Take That ranked #38 in 2011 with only their tour revenue. Justin Bieber placed above Drake in 2016 despite Drake got more hot100 and BB200 points. One Direction placed artist of the year 2014, with the help of their massive tour. If you would have a year end breakdown between Taylor and Drake with only hot 100 and BB200 performance things would look differently. And i’ve checked the rankings that were leaked. They are only by hot100 and BB200 data. As an example, Beyonce collected 1,65 Million hot 100 points, Lady Antebellum 1,55 Million points. If you follow their BB200 closely you can see how Lady Antebellum eaked out a small victory. If Beyoncé’s tour gross was counted, even just by a small percentage, she would place higher than Antebellum. Selena Gomez just places where she should based on h100 and BB200, her massive social media points would seal a higher placement. I estimated Rihanna higher than Bruno because she is the biggest female on the social50 chart (#2 overall, bigger than BTS ). Post can climb so high because he is not blocked by artists with high tour grosses or social50 performance.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas on Nov 3, 2019 17:23:43 GMT -5
I personally think that the decade end list should be some combination of inverse and chart points. It would fit in nicely in comparison to all time and year end.
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,597
|
Post by iHype. on Nov 4, 2019 12:26:26 GMT -5
I’m really surprised they still haven’t posted anything officially announcing the Decade End lists. I guess they really were revealed accidentally way too early. They must be hyperventilating lmao. Yes, and the links to those charts were they supposedly were "viewable" don't work anymore, so there's no proof from Billboard to show for this. It's also highly doubtful they'd end the decade as early as September 28, as they've never ended a decade or any year-end that early, but who knows, they do change things all the time so I guess it might be possible, but it would be even more inaccurate and less reflective of an actual calendar year/decade period than their usual mid-November cutoff. A lot of chart activity can happen in these 6-8 weeks. Also, they haven't even released or unintentionally leaked the year-ends for 2019 yet, so ending the decade before the very last year of said decade would be very suspect, unless they also plan to have the cutoff be earlier for this year as well? I don't get the skepticism when basically all the info that got out adds up correctly lol. They did a ranking of the all-time female albums on Billboard 200 back in 2017 and the female albums released this decade that charted were: - 21 - 1989 - 25 - Red - Anti - Pure Heroine - The Truth About Love - Teenage Dream - Speak Now - Prism - BEYONCE - Title On the leaked decade-end chart the highest ranked female albums this decade were.... 1. Adele - 21 2. Taylor Swift - 1989 19. Adele - 25 29. Rihanna - Anti 32. Taylor Swift - Red 33. Lady Gaga & Bradley Cooper - A Star is Born 38. Cardi B - Invasion of Privacy40. Lorde - Pure Heroine 43. P!nk - The Truth About Love 44. Katy Perry - Teenage Dream 50. Taylor Swift - Speak Now 53. Billie Eilish - When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?56. Katy Perry - PRISM 62. Taylor Swift - Reputation
65. Beyoncé - BEYONCE 67. Meghan Trainor - Title The albums crossed out were released after the all-time female albums list was revealed. If you ignore them, the rankings are essentially indentical. Thus the leaked chart is not just some random ranking accidentally revealed. It clearly follows their formula. The Hot 100 Songs list was also essentially identical to what people have been predicting. The only difference was they reweighed 2019. They could possibly be adding another month or two to the tracking, but that's just a drop in a bucket of nearly 120 months already tracked. Thus there really won't be notable changes.
|
|
Kris
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2013
Posts: 2,222
|
Post by Kris on Nov 4, 2019 12:43:50 GMT -5
At least we know from that list High Hopes it the #1 radio song this year.
How is Shallow #3 digital? There's no way. Is it based on digital sales chart position?
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,597
|
Post by iHype. on Nov 4, 2019 12:43:57 GMT -5
the links to those charts were they supposedly were "viewable" don't work anymore And lmao, I have no clue why you're trying to hint that this was just all made up out of thin air. You saw this over 1 day late. Everyone on the first 2 pages literally was discussing the links and what they were seeing. All of it was officially posted on Billboard's site.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas on Nov 4, 2019 22:05:19 GMT -5
Songs I don't think should've made it or are too high (imo): Better Now No way would this not make it. Sure, it may not have gotten huge weeks or anything, but its massive longevity on the charts and in the top 40/top 20 would be more than enough for it. Also, it would be in the top 5 on the YE if its entire chart run was in either 2018 or 2019.
|
|
spoons
New Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 303
|
Post by spoons on Nov 4, 2019 22:51:56 GMT -5
Songs I don't think should've made it or are too high (imo): Better Now No way would this not make it. Sure, it may not have gotten huge weeks or anything, but its massive longevity on the charts and in the top 40/top 20 would be more than enough for it. Also, it would be in the top 5 on the YE if its entire chart run was in either 2018 or 2019. Yeaaa ik I just don't like it :(. Also I have never heard better now outside of the radio since everyone seems to like lucid dreams more
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,734
|
Post by 85la on Nov 4, 2019 23:35:45 GMT -5
the links to those charts were they supposedly were "viewable" don't work anymore And lmao, I have no clue why you're trying to hint that this was just all made up out of thin air. You saw this over 1 day late. Everyone on the first 2 pages literally was discussing the links and what they were seeing. All of it was officially posted on Billboard's site. First of all, if you'll notice you were one of the people I quoted in the first place because I was agreeing with you because it seemed you also expressed skepticism, so I don't know exactly why you're now complaining about my skepticism lol (you also actually contradicted yourself because at first you said nothing official has come from Billboard and that you thought the charts were accidentally revealed, but now you are saying the charts were officially posted on Billboard. I'm not quite sure how accidentally leaking the charts in a way in which you can only navigate to them from an artist's chart history is official). I wouldn't call seeing this thread "one day late" and missing since deleted charts within that one day severely delayed or out of the loop or anything, but even so, what I said was still correct, the charts simply aren't viewable anymore because Billboard deleted them. I was wondering about screenshots though, so thanks for providing those; at least I know they were there. My skepticism didn't come so much from the possibility of them "making things up out of thin air" or their methodology (though I do have some questions about that for the reasons many mentioned already in the thread) but more to do with the unusually early cutoff date and how they could have been made available, even if unintentionally, so unusually early. But I think like someone said before, It could be that they already have the main setup of the charts in place and that it is already in their backend, perhaps they are still testing them out and making last minute tweaks, and that somehow it was inadvertantly made public. Of course I'm not claiming to know anything for sure, I'm just expressing my doubts and opinion, and it very well could be that what we saw is a done deal, but I still think it's possible they might change things a bit and add a few more weeks data, especially if the formulas are already set in place, with the way modern software works, shouldn't all the fields be able to re-populate almost immediately?
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,597
|
Post by iHype. on Nov 4, 2019 23:59:21 GMT -5
And lmao, I have no clue why you're trying to hint that this was just all made up out of thin air. You saw this over 1 day late. Everyone on the first 2 pages literally was discussing the links and what they were seeing. All of it was officially posted on Billboard's site. First of all, if you'll notice you were one of the people I quoted in the first place because I was agreeing with you because it seemed you also expressed skepticism, so I don't know exactly why you're now complaining about my skepticism lol (you also actually contradicted yourself because at first you said nothing official has come from Billboard and that you thought the charts were accidentally revealed, but now you are saying the charts were officially posted on Billboard. I'm not quite sure how accidentally leaking the charts in a way in which you can only navigate to them from an artist's chart history is official). I wouldn't call seeing this thread "one day late" and missing since deleted charts within that one day severely delayed or out of the loop or anything, but even so, what I said was still correct, the charts simply aren't viewable anymore because Billboard deleted them. I was wondering about screenshots though, so thanks for providing those; at least I know they were there. My skepticism didn't come so much from the possibility of them "making things up out of thin air" or their methodology (though I do have some questions about that for the reasons many mentioned already in the thread) but more to do with the unusually early cutoff date and how they could have been made available, even if unintentionally, so unusually early. But I think like someone said before, It could be that they already have the main setup of the charts in place and that it is already in their backend, perhaps they are still testing them out and making last minute tweaks, and that somehow it was inadvertantly made public. Of course I'm not claiming to know anything for sure, I'm just expressing my doubts and opinion, and it very well could be that what we saw is a done deal, but I still think it's possible they might change things a bit and add a few more weeks data, especially if the formulas are already set in place, with the way modern software works, shouldn't all the fields be able to re-populate almost immediately? I said they were accidentally revealed -- they definitely were, but not that I thought they were fake, unofficial or inaccurate. Just that Billboard revealed them too early. I never contradicted. I think they are official charts that were accidentally revealed. You put air quotes around viewable when simply looking down the thread would've told you they were viewable to many people. We also acknowledged in this same thread the same day of your post, that they had just gotten taken down from viewing. So for you to put 'they were supposedly viewable' as if there is doubt they were actually viewable and we just all decided to make up seeing all of this was unnecessary. Also if they did add a few more weeks that would still mean the chart is over 99% finished for the decade. It practically is official. As stated by someone earlier in the thread, you'd see an album go from #174 to #171 or something but I would be surprised to see any huge changes.
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Nov 5, 2019 11:42:41 GMT -5
Does anyone know who was at #35 and #44 on the Artists list?
|
|
Soundcl🕤ck
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2017
Posts: 10,511
|
Post by Soundcl🕤ck on Nov 5, 2019 17:19:47 GMT -5
He's back! Can't wait to hear this.
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,734
|
Post by 85la on Nov 5, 2019 20:01:19 GMT -5
First of all, if you'll notice you were one of the people I quoted in the first place because I was agreeing with you because it seemed you also expressed skepticism, so I don't know exactly why you're now complaining about my skepticism lol (you also actually contradicted yourself because at first you said nothing official has come from Billboard and that you thought the charts were accidentally revealed, but now you are saying the charts were officially posted on Billboard. I'm not quite sure how accidentally leaking the charts in a way in which you can only navigate to them from an artist's chart history is official). I wouldn't call seeing this thread "one day late" and missing since deleted charts within that one day severely delayed or out of the loop or anything, but even so, what I said was still correct, the charts simply aren't viewable anymore because Billboard deleted them. I was wondering about screenshots though, so thanks for providing those; at least I know they were there. My skepticism didn't come so much from the possibility of them "making things up out of thin air" or their methodology (though I do have some questions about that for the reasons many mentioned already in the thread) but more to do with the unusually early cutoff date and how they could have been made available, even if unintentionally, so unusually early. But I think like someone said before, It could be that they already have the main setup of the charts in place and that it is already in their backend, perhaps they are still testing them out and making last minute tweaks, and that somehow it was inadvertantly made public. Of course I'm not claiming to know anything for sure, I'm just expressing my doubts and opinion, and it very well could be that what we saw is a done deal, but I still think it's possible they might change things a bit and add a few more weeks data, especially if the formulas are already set in place, with the way modern software works, shouldn't all the fields be able to re-populate almost immediately? I said they were accidentally revealed -- they definitely were, but not that I thought they were fake, unofficial or inaccurate. Just that Billboard revealed them too early. I never contradicted. I think they are official charts that were accidentally revealed. You put air quotes around viewable when simply looking down the thread would've told you they were viewable to many people. We also acknowledged in this same thread the same day of your post, that they had just gotten taken down from viewing. So for you to put 'they were supposedly viewable' as if there is doubt they were actually viewable and we just all decided to make up seeing all of this was unnecessary. Also if they did add a few more weeks that would still mean the chart is over 99% finished for the decade. It practically is official. As stated by someone earlier in the thread, you'd see an album go from #174 to #171 or something but I would be surprised to see any huge changes. Well alright, the thing is maybe I do feel a little left out and disappointed because I might have been a little late to the game and missed the charts after most everyone else saw them, and it all seems so anti-climactic with the way and timing of how they were revealed, I mean we've all been waiting the entire decade for this. I'll say one thing more though and that is how someone else mentioned that the Top Artists list definitely seems like they only included Hot 100 and Billboard 200 points and left out touring and social media (it would perfectly explain how people like Post Malone and Bruno Mars ranked higher than expected), however it seems like they would most probably include the latter two metrics, as they used both for all of the year-ends since 2011 and social media in the weekly Artist charts since 2014, so maybe they will still add those components. I mean, what would be the reasoning for not including them?
|
|