Billboard Hot 100: 03/02/13

[Au$tin]

^Radio did not boycott "Gangnam Style." Don't be absurd. People who listen to radio are not[/u][/b] the same people who stream or watch YouTube videos. This goes ALL the way back to the original argument. Just because people are streaming it or watching the video because they find something about it humorous does not mean they want to hear it on the radio. "Gangnam Style" NEVER got good call out scores, thus radio was not going to play it if people didn't want to hear it.

Feb 21, 2013 13:01:43 GMT -5 Codex said:

Feb 21, 2013 12:46:17 GMT -5 imbondz said:

so let's say 5 million of those Youtube views of this 'popular' song is to see what the fuss is about, and hate it. How does that factor in?

And what if 50 million people listening to a song every week don't like it, they're just lazy to change the station?

That doesn't matter. Whether you change the station or not, they don't know. AI is estimated numbers. A station can play a song fifteen times at 5:00pm, but no one is tuned in. They don't know that. They have to go by time of day, station ratings, and call out scores.

Feb 21, 2013 14:29:52 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Feb 21, 2013 12:50:38 GMT -5 Envoirment said:

The fact it has 103 million in streaming kinda confirms this. If they weren't counted, then it would only have a few million views for the original recording of the song.

it doesn't confirm anything. You're just guessing.

That's the most ridiculous statement. The only official video on YouTube doesn't have that many views. It's not like they're coming out and saying, "Yes, we are counting the 30 second videos," but they might as well be saying that with the facts we have.

Feb 21, 2013 14:48:10 GMT -5 Codex said:

So basically, it counts because the label makes money from advertisements on the videos. They make just as much from 30 second fan clips as entire music videos. We have to remember that Billboard isn't for fans, it's supposed to look at it from a label's perspective.

This still does not make it right. Billboard is monitoring for a song, not a video. To me, counting those 30 second clips is ridiculous. I completely understand if the videos used the entire song (like in lyric videos), but they don't. I can go out and make the EXACT same video for ANY other song, and it would still work.

Like I've stated many times before, this is a good move for Billboard, but the execution is poor.

[lugus15]

Anyways..... ¨Con los terroristas....¨ FTW!!!!!!!

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 15:06:29 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Feb 21, 2013 13:01:43 GMT -5 Codex said:

And what if 50 million people listening to a song every week don't like it, they're just lazy to change the station?

That doesn't matter. Whether you change the station or not, they don't know. AI is estimated numbers. A station can play a song fifteen times at 5:00pm, but no one is tuned in. They don't know that. They have to go by time of day, station ratings, and call out scores.

I realize that but it's still entirely possible that a large portion of people being force-fed songs on the radio do not like them. Yet they still get counted in the AI for it.

I agree that counting 30 second clips is a bit strange but it's not that absurd if you think about the revenue. Oh, and while it might have been introduced this week due to Harlem Shake, I have no doubt that it's been in the works for a long time and would have been out sooner than later anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if Rihanna's label was informed about it and that's why they decided to release the video Monday.

If you look at the overall picture, this is a very rare occurance it's not going to happen with every song. I see people saying "oh Gangnam Style would have been #1 for 10 weeks", well that's possible considering it was just a hair behind OMN for 10 weeks... But otherwise as you can see now it only jumped 48-26 despite still getting insane views every week.

If Harlem Shake didn't exist people would have no problem with this change, because otherwise it's not a huge change.

Does anyone know what rank Harlem Shake would be if it only had 1/7th as much Youtube views? (to account for the time)

[Au$tin]

"Only" jumped 48-26? That's a 22 spot jump. That's an insane jump for a song that's really not that popular anymore.

I don't know, I just don't like it. If they're going to use the videos with 30 second clips, then why aren't they weighted less? I think it's only sane that they should.

And of course I'm pissed because of the change because of Harlem Shake. Harlem Shake is the only song showing why it's flawed!

And, yeah, they're making revenue off of the 30 second clips. That's great and all, but they also make revenue off of clips used in commercials. Why aren't those counted?

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 15:28:11 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

That's great and all, but they also make revenue off of clips used in commercials. Why aren't those counted?

I thought about that but commercials are completely forced upon people, are they not? It'd basically be like counting payola.

[brucelover]

The Hot 100 is meant to represent the most POPULAR songs in America and needs to reflect the way music is consumed in the present day. YouTube is a HUGE part of that so it is absolutely the right decision to make it a part of the formula...now if silly parody songs start having one-week runs in the Top 40 all the time maybe they will need to reevaluate *how much* weight YouTube should carry, but looking at the Hot 100 this week it seems quite accurate. "Harlem Shake" was undeniably the biggest song in America over the past week, it completely took over popular culture and deserves that #1 spot. And "Stay" experienced a big bump post-Grammys/video premiere like it was expected to. Everything else remained pretty much the same and it's not like the charts are now unrecognizable.

[RadioBeatz]

Feb 21, 2013 14:56:55 GMT -5 newpower said:

So, what it is next? What do you think it would be the next Billboard change? How do they top this?

Including last.fm scrobbles to the formula? I don't know if they're gonna be able to top this mess.

[Au$tin]

Feb 21, 2013 15:40:08 GMT -5 Codex said:

Feb 21, 2013 15:28:11 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

That's great and all, but they also make revenue off of clips used in commercials. Why aren't those counted?

I thought about that but commercials are completely forced upon people, are they not? It'd basically be like counting payola.

Which is exactly what they counted for the airplay for BTW, YDO, HIAM, etc. etc.

This would be an ideal formula:
1,000 sales = 1 pt (both digital & physical)
1.000 AI = 1 pt
10,000 on-demand streams = 1 pt
1,000 passive streams = 1 pt
10,000 video streams = 1 pt
100,000 clip streams = 1 pt

I believe that would place "Thrift Shop" at #1, "Harlem Shake" at #2, and "Stay" and "Scream & Shout" would switch places. That just seems a lot more reasonable to me.

[Kurt]

Haven't read the last three pages yet, but:

Feb 21, 2013 4:16:56 GMT -5 Lozzy said:

What I'm wondering at the moment is how they counted the YouTube streams for "Harlem Shake" as it's from hundreds if not thousands of unofficial 30 second videos. Doing that manually would take forever, so what kind of system do they have in place for that?

I'd guess it's the audio fingerprinting technology they use to remove copyrighted/leaked audio.

Feb 21, 2013 9:40:10 GMT -5 @dawson said:

Feb 21, 2013 7:24:25 GMT -5 @2m said:

100 0 New 1 Hold On, Alabama Shakes 100

Kurt! Kurt!

I know!!

[johnm1120]

Feb 21, 2013 15:28:11 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

And, yeah, they're making revenue off of the 30 second clips. That's great and all, but they also make revenue off of clips used in commercials. Why aren't those counted?

This just seems like an ultimate form of payola. It's not like people can choose whether or not those play.

[Au$tin]

Feb 21, 2013 16:09:40 GMT -5 johnm1120 said:

Feb 21, 2013 15:28:11 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

And, yeah, they're making revenue off of the 30 second clips. That's great and all, but they also make revenue off of clips used in commercials. Why aren't those counted?

This just seems like an ultimate form of payola. It's not like people can choose whether or not those play.

Doesn't feel any different to me than the Clear Channel deals.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 16:11:05 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Feb 21, 2013 16:09:40 GMT -5 johnm1120 said:

This just seems like an ultimate form of payola. It's not like people can choose whether or not those play.

Doesn't feel any different to me than the Clear Channel deals.

People are chosing to watch the videos with the song on it. The label only gets money if people actually click on the advertisements.

[Au$tin]

Feb 21, 2013 16:13:00 GMT -5 Codex said:

Feb 21, 2013 16:11:05 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Doesn't feel any different to me than the Clear Channel deals.

People are choosing to watch the videos with the song on it. The label only gets money if people actually click on the advertisements.

People don't choose to listen to those songs on the radio, though, yet they count.

And besides, the chart isn't for the fans. It's for the industry.

[Deleted]

Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about commercials. I thought you meant the Harlem Shake videos.

They don't choose but they can call in and say how much they hate it, I'm assuming. Which is why songs like YDO and GMAYL plumetted 2 weeks after the deal. Radio just plays those songs out of the gate because they assume most people want to hear it, since they're from huge artists coming off of big hits.

[tommymonster44]

Here's some news about the changes for anyone interested. They "clarify" details about the formula's change. I used quotes because in reality, they just dodged the detail oriented questions with shady answers. His very last comment (bolded) is the most interesting. There is no set ratio for their new formula. Instead, it varies week to week based off of what they call "platform volume"

Personal opinion: They can "platform volume" all they want, it seems obvious that this new formula is open for Billboard to influence the outcome of the chart on a week to week basis.

@bwerde you guys are giving these #1's away too easily with these youtube views
Response: Baauer had a singular phenomenal week. Record-breaking at YouTube. Won't happen often.

@bwerde Does the new Billboard Hot 100 rule include live performances on YouTube as well
Response: it would if they generated enough plays

@bwerde What's considered "enough" plays?
Response: more than anyone else?

@bwerde literally every single Bieber song is going to go #1 from now on
Response: if his song gets played enough it's deserved.

@bwerde Wait! I have the ultimate question. If I covered pop songs on trombone and they blow up on YT, can I chart on the Hot 100? haha
Response: yes. Good luck getting to 20 million views tho.

@bwerde what will you guys do with bots? It's so easy to get 1K views with different IP addresses...
Response: YouTube de-spams and we all watch for data irregularities on all of our data feeds.

@silpiet Are you including parody views in this?
Response: As long as actual audio of a song is used in the clip, yes.

Bill also adds: "The new #Hot100 has a target chart ratio of sales (35-45%), airplay (30-40%) and streaming (20-30%). These change based on platform volume."

[SPRΞΞ]

This is going to greatly benefit 5 artists:

Rihanna
Lady Gaga
Katy Perry
Justin Bieber
One Direction

[Lozzy]

Feb 21, 2013 14:56:55 GMT -5 newpower said:

So, what it is next? What do you think it would be the next Billboard change? How do they top this?

• Including Facebook likes and dislikes/Twitter mentions
  
• Adding a voting component
  
• Removing sales
  
• Combining the songs and albums charts

Take your pick! The last one is my personal favorite.

[tommymonster44]

Here is a comment by a user named Magoo on another forum. I think it's worth hearing him because he is incredibly intelligent and informed:

"It says in the Billboard article:
"Shake," in fact, leads the Hot 100 with three-and-a-half times the overall chart points total of "Shop."

Before the change TS was estimated to be getting 60200 chart points vs HS 22300
But for HS to have 3.5x the points of TS it must have about 210700 points which means YouTube contributed about 188400 or 89% of its points.

Another way to look at it is for a song to have matched Harlem Shake on sales alone under the new rules it would have needed about 2.5 million sales in one week... now that would have been something."

[Eqbk]

I feel like had this not happened right in the midst of the HS phenomenon, and introduced more quietly during a week where no song would get such a huge benefit, a lot less people would be complaining.

This would have happened eventually and rightfully so. Many people go to youtube to listen to music, sometimes almost exclusively so. This may need some tinkering but it's good to see that they are making an effort. I would rather have that than have them just sit there and take forever to acknowledge and incorporate it into the formula like they did w/ digital sales.


I do have a problem with the current formula though:
The new #Hot100 has a target chart ratio of sales (35-45%), airplay (30-40%) and streaming (20-30%). These change based on platform volume.

Sales need to be weighted much heavier than other factors. Both streaming and sales are a more direct evaluation of a song's popularity. The difference is that people pay for a song whereas that isn't always the case w/ streaming. Imagine this scenario:

*Person A buys a song on itunes and then plays the songs multiple times afterward but only the song purchase counts, not the multiple plays.

*Person B goes on youtube and frequently listens to a particular song. Person B is doing essentially the same thing as Person A by playing a song multiple times; however, Person B did it for free and has his/her multiple plays counted whereas Person A does not have his/her multiple plays counted.

[Quixotic Music Lover]

Feb 21, 2013 17:19:49 GMT -5 tommymonster44 said:

Here is a comment by a user named Magoo on another forum. I think it's worth hearing him because he is incredibly intelligent and informed:

"It says in the Billboard article:
"Shake," in fact, leads the Hot 100 with three-and-a-half times the overall chart points total of "Shop."

Before the change TS was estimated to be getting 60200 chart points vs HS 22300
But for HS to have 3.5x the points of TS it must have about 210700 points which means YouTube contributed about 188400 or 89% of its points.

Another way to look at it is for a song to have matched Harlem Shake on sales alone under the new rules it would have needed about 2.5 million sales in one week... now that would have been something."

I have come to the conclusion that the Billboard chart department is staffed with people who love music but hate math (or logic for that matter)!

I guess the crux of the matter is, does one think that watching a music video means that the song is popular, or are other factors at play. I have watched many a music video for the visuals but not the music. I suspect that Gangnam Style continues to be watched on Youtube because people think it is funny to see a guy mimic riding a horse.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

I think people just hate change.

Some seem to even refuse to consider the obviousness and the benefits and would rather focus on the "types" of artists that will be the only ones to ever hit #1 again until the end of time.

I think about it this way, if we go over to topics that talk about artists who we wish could break through or get big, we constantly see lists containing those who have already broken through in nearly every area except radio airplay.
Florence & The Machine, Justin Bieber (before Believe), One Direction and many others. One Direction in particular is a group that few could argue are among the biggest groups in the world right now. Yet how have their songs done on the Hot 100? Two Top 10 hits. Now admittedly, I only know a few of their songs but like Justin Bieber before them, they still had/have some pretty well known songs that don't reflect their popularity on the Hot 100 because radio doesn't play them. Yet, they have millions of views on YouTube.
I admit taking into account multiple plays by one person is hopefully dealt with but other than that, I can't think of a better way to further assess song popularity than including sites like YouTube. Yes, they're *videos* but they're still clips for the *songs* themselves. And I know many people who use Youtube for the music rather than the song. People who have entire playlists to play at house parties on YouTube. It just makes sense. I don't know how people can argue against it other than the fact they don't like change.

[Quixotic Music Lover]

Bill also adds: "The new #Hot100 has a target chart ratio of sales (35-45%), airplay (30-40%) and streaming (20-30%). These change based on platform volume."

What Bill Werde means is that if all the chart points for each song on the HOT100 are added up each week, on average 35-45% of the points for all 100 songs will be from sales. Each song will have a different breakdown each week. THis week Harlem Shake's points came mainly from streaming.

[Deleted]

What's the minimum length of time a song has to be played on the radio for it to count for an AI point? Isn't it 90 seconds? That's the thing that most people arguing against the HS trend have been trying to point out, though no one has stated it in this way yet. A 30 second snippet being played on loop isn't really indicative of the song being liked that much. It's just a snippet, and in any other circumstance wouldn't be counted. Now if BB wants to count those 30 second snippets that's fine but then they need to allow ALL 30 second (or longer) snippets, via all measurable outlets, to be counted. They haven't been doing that and aren't giving any indication they plan on making the adjustment to allow for this. It's just another instance in which their idea was not well planned and clearly not designed with accuracy in mind.

This also kind of cuts into the argument that the charts aren't for fans but for the industry, b/c it's hard to see how this is actively beneficial to the suits or truly measures who/what is earning them the most money. Well, it gives them a component that is VERY easy to manipulate IMO so I guess that's the tradeoff. But if you're bringing in tons of views, 99 times out of 100 you are already popular (or the label poured a bunch of money into your promo to boost your popularity) and the label already knows that. So this measurement is somewhat redundant in that regard.

I've been a bit amused by the notion that this addition is a middle finger to radio or an effort to minimize radio's influence; when we were trying to figure out the former new formula, didn't we quickly deduce that the problem was that the streaming portion was added in by taking away points from sales, instead of radio (thus giving radio even more importance than before)? I am with dbhmr. This formula is just Billboard lazily trying to make headlines, albeit five years behind the times.

And I'm willing to bet that a lot of songs that are video-popular but lacking in one or more of the other components aren't actually going to start charting now...Billboard will conveniently make the final decision as to what qualifies and what doesn't, just like they get to decide what's a country song and what isn't.

Feb 21, 2013 10:29:37 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

"Gangnam Style" will break the record for longest stay on the Hot 100.

But not before Gotye does it first!

36 42 47 59 Somebody That I Used To Know, Gotye Featuring Kimbra 1

Feb 21, 2013 10:27:42 GMT -5 KeepDeanWeird said:

Since this is such a big development and many of us have comment more than once, should the mod create a separate thread just focusing on this BB policy? I'm sure we'll have lots to talk about during the coming days and weeks and it shouldn't be limited to 03/02/13 thread.

I thought someone else would have created a thread for it by now (any member can start a new thread and new threads for previous BB changes were created at the time). It's certainly allowed, either here in GMN or in the Your Opinion Please sections.

[Quixotic Music Lover]

Feb 21, 2013 17:32:58 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I think people just hate change.

Some seem to even refuse to consider the obviousness and the benefits and would rather focus on the "types" of artists that will be the only ones to ever hit #1 again until the end of time.

I think about it this way, if we go over to topics that talk about artists who we wish could break through or get big, we constantly see lists containing those who have already broken through in nearly every area except radio airplay.
Florence & The Machine, Justin Bieber (before Believe), One Direction and many others. One Direction in particular is a group that few could argue are among the biggest groups in the world right now. Yet how have their songs done on the Hot 100? Two Top 10 hits. Now admittedly, I only know a few of their songs but like Justin Bieber before them, they still had/have some pretty well known songs that don't reflect their popularity on the Hot 100 because radio doesn't play them. Yet, they have millions of views on YouTube.
I admit taking into account multiple plays by one person is hopefully dealt with but other than that, I can't think of a better way to further assess song popularity than including sites like YouTube. Yes, they're *videos* but they're still clips for the *songs* themselves. And I know many people who use Youtube for the music rather than the song. People who have entire playlists to play at house parties on YouTube. It just makes sense. I don't know how people can argue against it other than the fact they don't like change.

Actually when reading over the comments on this change, I feel the majority of the people support the inclusion of Youtube videos, I know I do (I am an avid music video watcher on Youtube). What people are objecting to is the weighting that streaming is receiving in comparison to paid downloads or on-demand streaming.

No one will dispute that "Harlem Shake" is a hit, even a big hit, but 350% more than a song that is selling more than 300,000 per week? If I tried to use that logic in my job I would soon be on the unemployment line (I am in finance).

[tommymonster44]

Feb 21, 2013 17:41:14 GMT -5 Quixotic Music Lover said:

Feb 21, 2013 17:32:58 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I think people just hate change.

Some seem to even refuse to consider the obviousness and the benefits and would rather focus on the "types" of artists that will be the only ones to ever hit #1 again until the end of time.

I think about it this way, if we go over to topics that talk about artists who we wish could break through or get big, we constantly see lists containing those who have already broken through in nearly every area except radio airplay.
Florence & The Machine, Justin Bieber (before Believe), One Direction and many others. One Direction in particular is a group that few could argue are among the biggest groups in the world right now. Yet how have their songs done on the Hot 100? Two Top 10 hits. Now admittedly, I only know a few of their songs but like Justin Bieber before them, they still had/have some pretty well known songs that don't reflect their popularity on the Hot 100 because radio doesn't play them. Yet, they have millions of views on YouTube.
I admit taking into account multiple plays by one person is hopefully dealt with but other than that, I can't think of a better way to further assess song popularity than including sites like YouTube. Yes, they're *videos* but they're still clips for the *songs* themselves. And I know many people who use Youtube for the music rather than the song. People who have entire playlists to play at house parties on YouTube. It just makes sense. I don't know how people can argue against it other than the fact they don't like change.

Actually when reading over the comments on this change, I feel the majority of the people support the inclusion of Youtube videos, I know I do (I am an avid music video watcher on Youtube). What people are objecting to is the weighting that streaming is receiving in comparison to paid downloads or on-demand streaming.

No one will dispute that "Harlem Shake" is a hit, even a big hit, but 350% more than a song that is selling more than 300,000 per week? If I tried to use that logic in my job I would soon be on the unemployment line (I am in finance).

I agree. Furthermore, I think people are tired of Billboard changing their formula every year or so only to make it even more complicated and deluded than it was before.

We have no ideas where they get the numbers they use and the precise details of their calculations. There really is no need to make the formula as difficult as they make it. Also, they need to publish the rules and technicalities of what can and cannot be counted.

So in short, their new rules are very shady.

[lugus15]

Can people understand that a the 103 million of HS of this week are a very RARE OCCURRENCE.

Normally, a hit gets around 2-5 million from Youtube... Thrift Shop, being the Huge Hit that it is, got 10 million.

When HS dies down, and it will (I hope), we will get back to real hits being #1.

[Au$tin]

Feb 21, 2013 17:48:09 GMT -5 lugus15 said:

Can people understand that a the 103 million of HS of this week are a very RARE OCCURRENCE.

But why is it that this rare occurrence gives it not only enough points to overcome a song with 10 million YouTube views, 412k in sales, 2 million on-demand and passive streams, and #4 in airplay, but also give it enough points to outdo said song by 250%?

I realize that that's roughly 10 times the YouTube views, thus 10 times the points in that area. However, it has a little under half of the sales, thus a little under half the points there, and it's incredibly lower in the other two formats.

We're not talking about a song that got to #1 due to huge first week sales in a normal week. "Thrift Shop" is a fucking monster on the chart right now. An equal equivalent would actually be "Friday" being able to overcome "Born This Way."

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Feb 21, 2013 17:41:14 GMT -5 Quixotic Music Lover said:

No one will dispute that "Harlem Shake" is a hit, even a big hit, but 350% more than a song that is selling more than 300,000 per week? If I tried to use that logic in my job I would soon be on the unemployment line (I am in finance).

I'm sure there has been a time in the past where one component of a song caused its total points to be a huge percentage above the #2 song. I understand why people take issue with it this week until they realize that this isn't going to be the norm.
And while I also understand why people are outraged over the YouTube views, I think it still makes sense. For every time someone hears the song playing in its 30 second form, they still hear the bulk of the song. And even though it's the video people watch, the video is still based off of the actual song itself. Watching it on mute doesn't nearly have the same effect. It's enough to make the song instantly recognizable in same way hearing "hey, I just met you" is instantaneous.

I'm sure Billboard will tinker with the current formula again soon until they feel it's perfected but as I've said before, this week isn't a normal week and had the current formula been in place months ago, I think this song still would have entered at #1 with the same total it has had because it's gotten *that* much attention.

Feb 21, 2013 17:48:08 GMT -5 tommymonster44 said:

I agree. Furthermore, I think people are tired of Billboard changing their formula every year or so only to make it even more complicated and deluded than it was before.

We have no ideas where they get the numbers they use and the precise details of their calculations. There really is no need to make the formula as difficult as they make it. Also, they need to publish the rules and technicalities of what can and cannot be counted.

So in short, their new rules are very shady.

I don't think the rules are deluded. I think that aspect is up to personal interpretation. I will agree that I think how the chart is formulated should be made available. I think it's understandable that they'd have to change it up as often as they do to keep with the growing and changing times and methods used to determine popularity but someone mentioned a few days back that by not revealing how they tabulate the chart, they lose more credibility than they should by keeping it secret.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2013 17:32:58 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I think people just hate change.

Some do, but I think in this case as well as last year, it's just that the change wasn't handled properly. There are a lot of people who are fine with YT videos being implemented - that's something I've seen proposed for quite a while now - but the way it's been done is a problem. Even if this change is good in theory (I'd say it is) you have to admit the weight is laughably wrong. HS more popular than TS this week? Maybe. HS three and a half times more popular than TS? Very doubtful.

Feb 21, 2013 17:26:32 GMT -5 Eqbk said:

I feel like had this not happened right in the midst of the HS phenomenon, and introduced more quietly during a week where no song would get such a huge benefit, a lot less people would be complaining.

Well of course that would be the case but it doesn't make the formula any less flawed. This is pretty much what happened when BB added streaming. No one batted an eye, and in fact we all thought it was a good thing - we thought that they'd taken away equal points from sales and radio to add streaming in, and like YT views, it was something that several had felt should have been included a while ago - but then a month later "Boyfriend" peaked at #2 and people were quite surprised. And then later on it became apparent that the sales weight had been reduced which was effectively the same as increasing radio's influence.

If BB had introduced this YT change during the middle of STIUTK or CMM's runs, almost no one would have complained b/c the change would not have drastically altered anything. And then a few months later GS would have come out of nowhere and people would have had a fit.

If a methodology is majorly flawed it WILL be exposed sooner or later. I personally prefer it to be revealed sooner.

I'm starting to feel myself getting repetitive so I'm going to try not to comment on this anymore b/c I don't want to become more obnoxious than I probably already am.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

I don't doubt Harlam Shake's popularity being much more than Thrift Shop.

Overall? Maybe not. But keep in mind that the Hot 100 measures for just the last week. What have I heard about in the last week? Harlam Shake. Everyone has been posting videos on Facebook. People I know want to make their own video. It's become its own conversation by the water cooler. In one week. I don't think the song will last a second week at #1 but if it does, it will be its last. It's a flash in the pan but one that I think the Hot 100 represents fairly because when we look back on this week years from now, we'll remember the week that Harlam Shake was everywhere.