(BIG UPDATE) 2010S Decade-End Hot 100 USING REAL POINTS

[Deleted]

FIRST UPDATE (3/11/2017)

SCREW THE FIRST UPDATE, SCROLL DOWN THIS PAGE FOR A MUCH BETTER NEW UPDATE

I may seem like a new member, but truth is I've been following charts and this forum and all for quite a while and now I decide to post something that a lot of you guys have talked about but never consummated that has required hours of effort for my part: 2010S DECADE-END HOT 100 UPDATE WITH REAL POINTS!!! Beefing about how comparatively misleading the old-fashioned way of doing decade-end predictions was (like, how Hello deserves a way higher spot using real points or whatever)? Sigh no more, LET'S SCREW THE INVERSE POINT SYSTEM HERE! (: 

How it works:
It's based upon my study of 2010-2016 year end charts as well as numerous songs' respective chart runs in hot 100 in different tracking years. Some data is the result of me comparing notes on different versions of year-end predictions. EVERY SINGLE YEAR'S POINTS ARE WEIGHED SO IT MIGHT LOOK DIFFERENT FROM THE RAW POINTS. The weighing is a nod to the chart methodology shift over the past few years and every year the pace of the chart is slightly different so there's some slightly different multiplier for each. BUT REMEMBER THAT I TRIED MY BEST ALL FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE ACCURACY I CAN DO AND I THINK THE RESULT IS BALANCED AND GREAT! At least now you can finally see a decade-end chart update using the MUCH MORE ACCURATE WEIGHED REAL POINTS IN PLACE OF THE MISLEADING INVERSE POINT SYSTEM THAT GIVES WAY TOO MUCH WEIGHT ON TOP 10 WEEKS/NO.1 WEEK AND ALL. 
2010-2013's data could be considered just a tiny bit funkier since 2010-2011 was before streaming's rolled in the hot 100 formula and the chart turnover rate and components were not the same as today's and i had to swap around the various multipliers as well as taking year end charts as references to attain an accurate result. One of the trickiest thing is the chart runs that were SPLIT BETWEEN YEARS that's why I had to hang them together with no loss of accuracy. Years following 2013 all see year end predictions posted in this forum and i get more reference to build this chart up! 

Props to georgetherunner314 and others for those awesome year end predictions which facilitated me to put datas together more easily and weigh them accordingly! 

AGAIN, REMEMBER THAT IT'S A REAL POINT VERSION OF DECADE-END HOT 100 CHART! (:

LEGEND:
**Song Title** = Currently charting
Red = The major year of the song's success 
2010-2017 = WEIGHED real points from each year  
IPS Ranking = The position of Inverse Point System version of decade-end chart (which I believe you guys are all familiar with huh) 
All-time Estimate = A ROUGH estimate of where the song could land on the All-Time Hot 100 Chart ASSUME THAT IT'S BASED ON REAL POINTS RATHER THAN THE FALLACIOUS INVERSE POINT SYSTEM 

[Deleted]

Notes:
1. Uptown Funk! is the easy no.1 here beyond a doubt. Inverse Point System works in Party Rock Anthem's favor a lot since it racked up quite a few weeks at the bottom of top 10
2. I always knew Billboard giving PRA the #5 song of all time is a hyperbole, now based on my estimate, it's more like around #20 biggest hit of all time or even a little bit lower.
3. Thrift Shop and Radioactive roar into the greatest of all time tier, flying to no.7 & no.8 from no.16 & no.21 that Inverse Point System brought .
4. Dark horse leaps 15->9, can approximately rise from the #100 biggest hit of all time to nearly #50. I'm not sure tho since I didn't go to the almost impossible task to calculate the greatest of all time stuff.
5. All of Me and See You Again are looking good to enter some high tier thanks to real points
6. Closer's already #6 of the decade based on Inverse Point System calculation. But in actuality? Not so fast. It's sitting at #13.
7. Just the Way You Are, Moves Like Jagger, All About that Bass and Royals all experience some bump-down getting them off the estimated greatest of all time zone if billboard uses real points for GOAT charts
8. Wait... where's We Found Love? Ye still think it's #3 of the decade? Try #28
9. As expected, Hello's ranked #20 here while the Inverse Point System gives it #44, acing out over Sorry, Love Yourself & One Dance
10. Such a good thing that Stressed Out sits #57 ! Heathens is not looking to pass it with real aggregated weekly real points
11. Surprising and non-surprisingly, the no.17 peaking and staying king Sail is here, and Harlem Shake... now you miss Inverse Point System a little bit?
.....
I don't want to type anymore... enjoy

[Deleted]

I will guess that the overall #1 is Candle in the Wind 1997

[truemusicreviews]

The other one seems more accurate tbh.

[truemusicreviews]

Great work with this though!

[bigbertha]

We Found Love looks too low.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2017 20:37:42 GMT -5 bigbertha said:

We Found Love looks too low.

I originally thought of the same thing. But trust me, it's not. probably because i remember 2012's year-end chart puts a lot of 2011-2012 transitioning songs into disadvantage.
But I can almost guarantee that using weighed real points WFL is just around 20-30 of the decade so far 

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2017 19:45:35 GMT -5 truemusicreviews said:

The other one seems more accurate tbh.

what are you talking about and why ? 

[fhas]

Really nice!

With this real point system, I can see Closer reaching #2, althought it's only #13 right now. With the IPS, I think Closer will be #3.

Payphone (7 weeks at #2) was bigger than One More Night (9 weeks at #1). Funny, but I love OMN, so let's stay with the IPS.

In both systems, DJ Got Us Fallin' In Love misses the cutoff by less than 5 positions.

Songs that I love are more than 20 positions down in this RPS:
OMG, Break Your Heart, Locked Out Of Heaven, Stronger, We Found Love.

Multipliers for each year?

[truemusicreviews]

Mar 2, 2017 20:52:28 GMT -5 @holden said:

Mar 2, 2017 19:45:35 GMT -5 truemusicreviews said:

The other one seems more accurate tbh.

what are you talking about and why ? 

The other one seems more accurate in terms of my personal perception of what songs were big. I think a huge factor is "We Found Love", which was inescapable.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2017 21:14:19 GMT -5 truemusicreviews said:

Mar 2, 2017 20:52:28 GMT -5 @holden said:

what are you talking about and why ? 

The other one seems more accurate in terms of my personal perception of what songs were big. I think a huge factor is "We Found Love", which was inescapable.

Well.. the fact is it's #69 on 2011 year end and #8 on 2012, even with the comparatively faster turnover rate back then it still at best draws a tie with "perceptibly smaller" songs like Dynamite (#9 on 2010 and #44 2011) or roar (#10 2013, #46 2014).
Well at least admit that Hello (#35 2015, #7 2016) is obviously a little bigger right even with the slower pace of the chart and the fact that billboard 2012 year end chart gave WFL (and other transitional songs) unfair disadvantage. Inverse point system put Hello #44 of the decade while WFL #3 is one of the most far-off thing ever.

[truemusicreviews]

Mar 2, 2017 21:20:51 GMT -5 @holden said:

Mar 2, 2017 21:14:19 GMT -5 truemusicreviews said:

The other one seems more accurate in terms of my personal perception of what songs were big. I think a huge factor is "We Found Love", which was inescapable.

Well.. the fact is it's #69 on 2011 year end and #8 on 2012, even with the comparatively faster turnover rate back then it still at best draws a tie with "perceptibly smaller" songs like Dynamite (#9 on 2010 and #44 2011) or roar (#10 2013, #46 2014).
Well at least admit that Hello (#35 2015, #7 2016) is obviously a little bigger right even with the slower pace of the chart and the fact that billboard 2012 year end chart gave WFL (and other transitional songs) unfair disadvantage. Inverse point system put Hello #44 of the decade while WFL #3 is one of the most far-off thing ever.

"Hello" had a huge peak, but not much longevity. I agree it should be higher, but I don't think its current placement is that inaccurate.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2017 20:55:45 GMT -5 fhas said:

Really nice!

With this real point system, I can see Closer reaching #2, althought it's only #13 right now. With the IPS, I think Closer will be #3.

Payphone (7 weeks at #2) was bigger than One More Night (9 weeks at #1). Funny, but I love OMN, so let's stay with the IPS.

In both systems, DJ Got Us Fallin' In Love misses the cutoff by less than 5 positions.

Songs that I love are more than 20 positions down in this RPS:
OMG, Break Your Heart, Locked Out Of Heaven, Stronger, We Found Love.

Multipliers for each year?

Payphone's 6 weeks at no.2 (not 7) and 9 weeks at no.3 racked up some huge points since it's blocked by at least one song among the biggest of all time. And it's a very strong year-end #4.
One more night and we found love on the other hands have some very skimpy 9-10 weeks at no.1 meaning they just barely hang in there.
One more night #18 of 2012 and #38 of 2013 is just as good as payphone's solid #4 of 2012.
Also, speaking of the multiplier it's not just that, I use different systems of real points imitation at least from 2010-2014

[fhas]

Mar 2, 2017 21:30:53 GMT -5 @holden said:

Mar 2, 2017 20:55:45 GMT -5 fhas said:

Really nice!

With this real point system, I can see Closer reaching #2, althought it's only #13 right now. With the IPS, I think Closer will be #3.

Payphone (7 weeks at #2) was bigger than One More Night (9 weeks at #1). Funny, but I love OMN, so let's stay with the IPS.

In both systems, DJ Got Us Fallin' In Love misses the cutoff by less than 5 positions.

Songs that I love are more than 20 positions down in this RPS:
OMG, Break Your Heart, Locked Out Of Heaven, Stronger, We Found Love.

Multipliers for each year?

Payphone's 6 weeks at no.2 (not 7) and 9 weeks at no.3 racked up some huge points since it's blocked by at least one song among the biggest of all time. And it's a very strong year-end #4.
One more night and we found love on the other hands have some very skimpy 9-10 weeks at no.1 meaning they just barely hang in there.
One more night #18 of 2012 and #38 of 2013 is just as good as payphone's solid #4 of 2012.
Also, speaking of the multiplier it's not just that, I use different systems of real points imitation at least from 2010-2014

Thank you!

I didn't know that Payphone spent 15 weeks in the top three without hitting #1. May be the all-time record. It's so frustating!

Also, Payphone was the strongest YE #4 of the decade.

[truemusicreviews]

Mar 2, 2017 21:45:58 GMT -5 fhas said:

Also, Payphone was the strongest YE #4 of the decade.    

Possibly..."Fancy" and "California Gurls" were also inescapable though. All three are coincidentally summer smashes lmao.

[Deleted]

Damn it, I forgot Bad Romance returned the chart for 1 week this year... But even with that week its ranking won't be impacted

[brady47]

Great job!

I agree, some interesting notes I found:

Someone Like You is #22 on the decade end chart currently. It's year end placement was #24 (2011) and #43 (2012). Wrecking Ball is #64 on the decade end chart currently. It's year end placement was #18 (2013) and #44 (2014). Then "So What" by Pink was #92 on the decade end chart for 2000s, and it's year end placement was #24 (2008) and #45 (2009).

So the relative performance of these songs in their charting years is similar, but there's a big discrepancy in how it translates into a decade end ranking.

[icefire9]

I'm surprised that Dark Horse surpassed Happy, tbh. Happy, but surprised.

[Au$tin]

Mar 2, 2017 22:13:29 GMT -5 truemusicreviews said:

Mar 2, 2017 21:45:58 GMT -5 fhas said:

Also, Payphone was the strongest YE #4 of the decade.    

Possibly..."Fancy" and "California Gurls" were also inescapable though. All three are coincidentally summer smashes lmao.

Well, you have to remember that this list is trying to base itself off of the actual point totals a song received, not perception of hit status. Those things are not always equal.

[truemusicreviews]

Mar 4, 2017 22:05:47 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Mar 2, 2017 22:13:29 GMT -5 truemusicreviews said:

Possibly..."Fancy" and "California Gurls" were also inescapable though. All three are coincidentally summer smashes lmao.

Well, you have to remember that this list is trying to base itself off of the actual point totals a song received, not perception of hit status. Those things are not always equal.

Ah I see.

[Deleted]

I can try to undertake the weighted real point version of 2000s decade end too, but the challenge is a bit higher and it's gonna take me a while. Is there anyone know where can I find single sales date from 2000-2005? like, before digital sales took off

[Deleted]

Anyway I believe there's space for improvement for the way I weigh the points of the songs. It's literally all more complex than I thought

[fhas]

Only two songs from 2016 in the Top 40 (Closer, One Dance). Weak year?

Why do songs from the same era have different multipliers? Example: OMG vs. California Gurls.

[Deleted]

Mar 16, 2017 15:32:16 GMT -5 fhas said:

Only two songs from 2016 in the Top 40 (Closer, One Dance). Weak year?

Why do songs from the same era have different multipliers? Example: OMG vs. California Gurls.

Geez how do I explain
If you draw comparison over a #50-ish 2010 year end song with a #50-ish 2016 year end song and ur gonna find out that their chart runs are pretty similar? Why? While granted streaming has almost ground charts to a logjam, it's in actuality making songs on the top of the top echelon STAND OUT more than say 2010. (For example, 1150000 points for an average year end no.1 pre-streaming era, with 300000 points average year end no.50
Vs.
A little more than 1300000 points average year end no.1 after streaming takes over, with still 300000 points average for year end no.50)
Get it? Kinda?
That's where I get to average things out by imposing bigger multipliers for songs on the very top of each year since they're the ones whose chart run essentially impacted by streaming way more than others.

[fhas]

Mar 17, 2017 4:19:09 GMT -5 @holden said:

Mar 16, 2017 15:32:16 GMT -5 fhas said:

Only two songs from 2016 in the Top 40 (Closer, One Dance). Weak year?

Why do songs from the same era have different multipliers? Example: OMG vs. California Gurls.

Geez how do I explain
If you draw comparison over a #50-ish 2010 year end song with a #50-ish 2016 year end song and ur gonna find out that their chart runs are pretty similar? Why? While granted streaming has almost ground charts to a logjam, it's in actuality making songs on the top of the top echelon STAND OUT more than say 2010. (For example, 1150000 points for an average year end no.1 pre-streaming era, with 300000 points average year end no.50
Vs.
A little more than 1300000 points average year end no.1 after streaming takes over, with still 300000 points average for year end no.50)
Get it? Kinda?
That's where I get to average things out by imposing bigger multipliers for songs on the very top of each year since they're the ones whose chart run essentially impacted by streaming way more than others.

Yes I understood.



A year-end #1 in 2010 with 1,200,000 is bigger than a year-end #1 in 2016 with 1,300,000 because the former was above the #1 average of its era while the latter was only average.



I just find it funny that in all systems the only song from 2015 or 2016 that stands out is Closer, despite several songs with 10+ weeks at #1. UF despite being huge in 2015 is a 2014 song.

[portermerrill]

I think the cutoff at the end of the decade will be in the lower thousands of one million, meaning my favorite song will probably barely miss it if I'm right

[Deleted]

NEW UPDATE!!! (4/15/2017)

Well, in the wake of some adjustments, I believe the current version bears the most accuracy it's ever had. 


LEGEND:
**Song Title** = Currently charting
Red = The major year of the song's success
2009-2017 = WEIGHED real points from each year
Multiplier = Multiplier based off of multiple factors, not as simple as one may think 

(00S TOTAL + 10S TOTAL does NOT necessarily add up to TOTAL, since everything's based off of song's performance in a certain time period earning different multipliers) 

[Deleted]

Yes, Uptown Funk is #1, in a version now with fair multipliers. 

Tik Tok would've been #13 of the decade so far if full chart run is included.
Need You Now would've been #13 (surprisingly high, almost all-time zone) 
Hey, Soul Sister would've been #31
Bad Romance would've been #51

Closer cracks top 10, aiming for #3 or #4 of the decade battling it out with Rolling In the Deep and STIUTK.
Can't Stop the Feeling rises up to #36! Now a bigger hit than One Dance! I'm predicting it ends up #31. 
Heathens stopped at #72, trails Stressed Out (#59) 
Starboy's #86 so far, if it wants to end up in dacade-end zone here, it gotta stay on hot 100 for at least 6 more weeks. 
Shape of You's looking to break into top 100 in 2 weeks! 

[Deleted]

MAY 2017 UPDATE (5/27/2017)

3/4 OF THE DECADE!!!!!!!!!!! Gotta be good! 

From update to update I would fine-tune the points of some certain songs for sake of more accuracy, so don't be surprised if a song or two are magically shaken up or down a spot.


LEGEND:
**Song Title** = Currently charting
Red = The major year of the song's success
2009-2017 = WEIGHED real points from each year

(Fine-tuning) Multiplier = Ok, let me explain this now...
The basic multiplier (which is NOT specifically listed in the screenshot but I will list right after this): Since 2010-early 2012 is one era (but by dint of billboard's year-end efforts I would count from year to year, so 2010-2011), and 2012-now is another big streaming era in general. However, from 2010-2011 streaming not counted toward the formula to 2012-2017 as streaming pushing forward by year, the raw points structure has shifted dramatically (like, obviously in 2010-2011 a no.1 song's like 30,000 pts in today's terms since it's like sales/1 and airplay/1 or something like that, and in 2012-2013 a weekly no.20/no.50/no.100 song would got way less points than today's songs even when everything else was balanced out.). I would go over the cases year by year and come up with such
Basic Multipliers:
2010 *1.55 (before streaming)
2011 *1.55 (before streaming)
2012 *1.15 (on-demand era)
2013 *1.1 (on-demand + youtube)
2014 *1.05 (streaming increases power)
2015 *1.025 (further increases power)
2016 *1 (yes, even with the 52-week recurrent rule it still doesn't deserve a higher multiplier)
2017 *0.95 (huge on-demand/youtube era, now you see why my year-end prediction update got this)

But that's not enough. Why? 
Because basic multipliers just suffice in holding up 2 years together without looking to raw and jarring. There's still a structural problem which Billboard's decade-end/biggest hit articles failed to wise up to:
After the basic multiplier:
2010 year-end
no.1 1,140,000 points
no.10 805,000 points
no.50 325,000 points
no.70 about 280,000 points

2014 year-end
no.1 1,320,000 points
no.10 765,000 points
no.50 295,000 points
no.70 about 240,000 points

This is just an example, but somehow in 2010 the turnover rate's faster and there are more charting songs in general and therefore makes a year-end no.70/100 song beefier than that of 2017 standard, but on the other hand 2008-2011's year-end top 3 is weaker than 2012-2017's counterparts even with the basic multiplier. 

That's why there's another Fine-tuning Multiplier as I call it, to further balance the challenging era shift whose point structure are at variance. 

THE MULTIPLIER SHOWN in the screenshots are fine-tuning ones. It hinges upon a song's raw points and whether it's before early 2012 or after). 


(And for that reason 00S TOTAL + 10S TOTAL does NOT necessarily add up to TOTAL, since everything's based off of song's performance in a certain time period earning different basic and fine-tuning multipliers)

[fhas]

May 21, 2017 6:18:27 GMT -5 @holden said:

MAY 2017 UPDATE (5/27/2017)

3/4 OF THE DECADE!!!!!!!!!!! Gotta be good! 

From update to update I would fine-tune the points of some certain songs for sake of more accuracy, so don't be surprised if a song or two are magically shaken up or down a spot.


LEGEND:
**Song Title** = Currently charting
Red = The major year of the song's success
2009-2017 = WEIGHED real points from each year

(Fine-tuning) Multiplier = Ok, let me explain this now...
The basic multiplier (which is NOT specifically listed in the screenshot but I will list right after this): Since 2010-early 2012 is one era (but by dint of billboard's year-end efforts I would count from year to year, so 2010-2011), and 2012-now is another big streaming era in general. However, from 2010-2011 streaming not counted toward the formula to 2012-2017 as streaming pushing forward by year, the raw points structure has shifted dramatically (like, obviously in 2010-2011 a no.1 song's like 30,000 pts in today's terms since it's like sales/1 and airplay/1 or something like that, and in 2012-2013 a weekly no.20/no.50/no.100 song would got way less points than today's songs even when everything else was balanced out.). I would go over the cases year by year and come up with such
Basic Multipliers:
2010 *1.55 (before streaming)
2011 *1.55 (before streaming)
2012 *1.15 (on-demand era)
2013 *1.1 (on-demand + youtube)
2014 *1.05 (streaming increases power)
2015 *1.025 (further increases power)
2016 *1 (yes, even with the 52-week recurrent rule it still doesn't deserve a higher multiplier)
2017 *0.95 (huge on-demand/youtube era, now you see why my year-end prediction update got this)

But that's not enough. Why? 
Because basic multipliers just suffice in holding up 2 years together without looking to raw and jarring. There's still a structural problem which Billboard's decade-end/biggest hit articles failed to wise up to:
After the basic multiplier:
2010 year-end
no.1 1,140,000 points
no.10 805,000 points
no.50 325,000 points
no.70 about 280,000 points

2014 year-end
no.1 1,320,000 points
no.10 765,000 points
no.50 295,000 points
no.70 about 240,000 points

This is just an example, but somehow in 2010 the turnover rate's faster and there are more charting songs in general and therefore makes a year-end no.70/100 song beefier than that of 2017 standard, but on the other hand 2008-2011's year-end top 3 is weaker than 2012-2017's counterparts even with the basic multiplier. 

That's why there's another Fine-tuning Multiplier as I call it, to further balance the challenging era shift whose point structure are at variance. 

THE MULTIPLIER SHOWN in the screenshots are fine-tuning ones. It hinges upon a song's raw points and whether it's before early 2012 or after). 


(And for that reason 00S TOTAL + 10S TOTAL does NOT necessarily add up to TOTAL, since everything's based off of song's performance in a certain time period earning different basic and fine-tuning multipliers)

Good job!

Can't Stop The Feeling is 38 positions higher than it is using inverse point system.
California Gurls and Love The Way You Lie always blocking each other. I'll call it a rivalry!
Do you have the adjusted real points each of the top 10 songs had in their peaks? I know Closer peaked with 68,000 points.