Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 14,176
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 22, 2017 5:21:27 GMT -5
I was talking about Gucci Gang. Can't see a dance craze related to that song
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,058
|
Post by felipe on Nov 22, 2017 6:02:28 GMT -5
LOL - there is noting subjective about a statistical formula. The "subjective" piece is your opinion of it. The way Billboard measure pure album sales is the only way possible, therefore objective. The way Billboard measures popularity has changed many times in the last decade, so yeah, I would say it's subjective. They do what they believe is the formula that's better suited for the current scenario. That is subjective. If you're assigning weights for different components or deciding that watching a VMAs performance on youtube count as a stream but watching it on TV doesn't, you're being subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by purplefebruary on Nov 22, 2017 6:26:55 GMT -5
I was talking about Gucci Gang. Can't see a dance craze related to that song That's irrelevant, what I was trying to figure out was if it was actually possible to get to #1 without any radio support I get that the weightings that YouTube had would've been different in 2013, but GG does have massive streaming on its side and I'm wondering if it is enough. Not that I want GG to get the #1 because personally I find it rubbish. |
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 14,176
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 22, 2017 6:49:27 GMT -5
Of course it's possible in theory (as it's possible to sell 600k and be a number one with sales alone).
|
|
forg
2x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,356 
|
Post by forg on Nov 22, 2017 7:33:10 GMT -5
I'm impressed with Too Good at Goodbye's streaming performance since ballads generally don't do well on US Spotify
|
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Nov 22, 2017 7:48:39 GMT -5
The way Billboard measure pure album sales is the only way possible, therefore objective. No it's not. They could measure by how much $ each album makes in a 7-day period. So when albums go on sale for $3.99, they take a hit on the album chart unless units sold make up for that loss. Billboard measures charts they were they think is most accurate. There have been other publications/measurements/competitors over the years who have done it slightly different. If you don't agree with their method, that's perfectly fine. But as of now, there's nobody else measuring album/single popularity so Billboard is all we have. I personally don't think there's one 'correct' way to do it, which is where interpretation comes in. One person's idea of what measures popularity may be something another person's disagrees with. There's no right or wrong. Going back to units vs. $ made in album sales, both have their pros and cons if using either to measure popularity, and arguments can be made for and against both. It's up to us individually to decide which method we think is most accurate and rather than trying to convince everyone else why they're wrong, maybe put more thought into informing others about why you think the way you do. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Nov 22, 2017 8:02:31 GMT -5
LOL - there is noting subjective about a statistical formula. The "subjective" piece is your opinion of it. The way Billboard measure pure album sales is the only way possible, therefore objective. The way Billboard measures popularity has changed many times in the last decade, so yeah, I would say it's subjective. They do what they believe is the formula that's better suited for the current scenario. That is subjective. If you're assigning weights for different components or deciding that watching a VMAs performance on youtube count as a stream but watching it on TV doesn't, you're being subjective. It is subjective only if you saying "streaming is my favorite there I am going to assign it more points". If you assign weights based on market data and things like streaming is what is driving the industry and everything else is now playing minor roles, then you are basing a formula on objective data. You lay in a statistical and let it flow. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Nov 22, 2017 8:13:09 GMT -5
It is subjective only if you saying "streaming is my favorite there I am going to assign it more points". If you assign weights based on market data and things like streaming is what is driving the industry and everything else is now playing minor roles, then you are basing a formula on objective data. You lay in a statistical and let it flow. There is no regression done to determine the weights. Someone in Billboard makes an subjective expert judgement on how important they think certain factors are. “Streaming is important. Let’s give is a weight of 2!” This is a subjective decision making process. Popularity is an unobservable parameter of the market, and can only be approximated subjectively based on other market factors. Sales are objective because we know exactly how much something sold. If we’re not including albums sold below $4.99$, that’s a subjective decision. Well...unless you work there you don't know for sure but anyway: Most conclusions from data analysis are indeed based on "expert judgment". They don't decide how important the factors are, the data does that. In other words they aren't choosing a favorite to give more weight tooo simply because the guy writing the formula thinks 'Gucci Gang' is a cool song. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Nov 22, 2017 8:33:16 GMT -5
Well...unless you work there you don't know for sure but anyway: Most conclusions from data analysis are indeed based on "expert judgment". They don't decide how important the factors are, the data does that. In other words they aren't choosing a favorite to give more weight tooo simply because the guy writing the formula thinks 'Gucci Gang' is a cool song. Obviously Billboard is aiming to be objective, but there is subjectivity involved if no regression is used. They just look at the data and say a number. If they used formulas, the weights would be random numbers like 1.616373 points/stream. They clearly don’t, because there’s no “popularity data” to benchmark it to. Even any decision to round the weights would be subjective. Not sure what you’re trying to prove. Regression is one way to look at data but not the only way. They may use regression, they may not. It really doesn't matter. Conclusions that fall out of actual data analysis are based on how the data looks not personal feelings or personal tastes I am of course assuming they have access to more "popularity data" than you or I do. I am also assuming they also have a method to analyze the data they have and are not just willy-nilly putting random crap out there. The results of statistical formulas are objective obviously. The process of putting a formula together granted requires SOME opinion but it is not based on feelings or what songs they like better. The formula set is based on how the market is at the time they set the formula. With the market constantly changing, the formula would need to change too to match. What I am trying to prove: The chart is dominated by streaming based on popularity data, not personal opinion Gucci Gang is #3 based on the results of a previously announced formula change to coincide with differences in market drivers over the past year, not personal opinion People in this thread would not care quite as much if pop songs were what kids were streaming these days and not rap In any case fine, since I am not going to drag this discussion out forever: If the thread consensus is that those wicked people at Billboard have forced songs we don't like to be #1 or #2 or #3, and therefore we have to believe that something is wrong with the formula because who in their right mind would ever listen to 'Gucci Gang'. I clearly don't and none of my friends do therefore no one else does either. So be it |
|
divasummer
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 10,043
|
Post by divasummer on Nov 22, 2017 9:08:10 GMT -5
Basically I feel the same about this years music. I was just talking about it to my friend yesterday. However I have heard a decent amount of the songs you mentioned but others through out the year I haven't. I also don't hear anything good or just don't hear anything from some songs that are hitting the top of the charts in the last year. Perhaps it is my age but I have always liked current music. Maybe it's rap/viral music???I don't know but I have been feeling this way for the past year or so. It's not even that I don't like rap/urban music, there have been many many rap and urban songs I have liked, however the current popular music just sounds so lazy, effortless and bland. The same can be said for a lot of pop songs too (especially those basic EDM drops I am getting sick of), but those haven't been annoyingly taking over the chart. LoL, I have been complaining about the EDM drops for the last year as well. I have always liked some rap music as well but not what has come out in the last year or so. I have been lingering on the Hot AC and Urban AC stations in my area more than ever lately. For awhile I used to know and own just about the whole Top 20. Now not so much. lol |
|
divasummer
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 10,043
|
Post by divasummer on Nov 22, 2017 10:23:30 GMT -5
3 SG Gucci Gang, Lil Pump Streaming 2 Airplay NC Digital 18 Ridiculous... The song, I can't speak for i don't know it. However people are buying and listening to it. Streaming affects sales I guess too. So radio won't play it but people Buy and listen to it on their own. Why is that ridiculous? I don't like it either but I guess times are changing.... |
|
djkhaled
Charting
Dupe
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 71
|
Post by djkhaled on Nov 22, 2017 12:00:16 GMT -5
Yep, and without radio support GG won't ever reach #1 so the pop world is safe  I get broads in atlanta, twisting dope lean and the Fanta |
|
djkhaled
Charting
Dupe
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 71
|
Post by djkhaled on Nov 22, 2017 12:03:09 GMT -5
Exactly, if Kelly Clarkson were experiencing a chart run of 7-12-3 and was the benefactor of this weeks formula change rather than a 2 minute and 4 second song that repeats the song title 46 times, there would be dancing in the streets Is there anyone on this forum who thinks Gucci Gang is musically superior to Love So Soft in any form? This is a serious question. Depends what you mean by musically superior. Lil pump is garbage as a rapper but his song is much more catchy than love so soft to me, which is just a generic pop song. |
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,058
|
Post by felipe on Nov 22, 2017 16:26:34 GMT -5
The way Billboard measure pure album sales is the only way possible, therefore objective. No it's not. They could measure by how much $ each album makes in a 7-day period. So when albums go on sale for $3.99, they take a hit on the album chart unless units sold make up for that loss. Billboard measures charts they were they think is most accurate. There have been other publications/measurements/competitors over the years who have done it slightly different. If you don't agree with their method, that's perfectly fine. But as of now, there's nobody else measuring album/single popularity so Billboard is all we have. I personally don't think there's one 'correct' way to do it, which is where interpretation comes in. One person's idea of what measures popularity may be something another person's disagrees with. There's no right or wrong. Going back to units vs. $ made in album sales, both have their pros and cons if using either to measure popularity, and arguments can be made for and against both. It's up to us individually to decide which method we think is most accurate and rather than trying to convince everyone else why they're wrong, maybe put more thought into informing others about why you think the way you do. I really didn’t know it was possible to track exactly how much money an album made. I thought having it go by different prices at different stores and so people getting discounts or using coupons would just make it virtually impossible to track. I don’t even know if the label actually earns less when a store lowers the price of if it’s the store taking the loss to attract more customers (which would generate the same profit for the label regardless of the retail price). But it’s nice knowing that could be an option. Maybe that could even be an alternative albums chart. Now about your second paragraph, that’s the idea I’m trying to get across, but I guess you’ve put it way better. |
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,058
|
Post by felipe on Nov 22, 2017 16:39:55 GMT -5
Obviously Billboard is aiming to be objective, but there is subjectivity involved if no regression is used. They just look at the data and say a number. If they used formulas, the weights would be random numbers like 1.616373 points/stream. They clearly don’t, because there’s no “popularity data” to benchmark it to. Even any decision to round the weights would be subjective. Not sure what you’re trying to prove. Regression is one way to look at data but not the only way. They may use regression, they may not. It really doesn't matter. Conclusions that fall out of actual data analysis are based on how the data looks not personal feelings or personal tastes I am of course assuming they have access to more "popularity data" than you or I do. I am also assuming they also have a method to analyze the data they have and are not just willy-nilly putting random crap out there. The results of statistical formulas are objective obviously. The process of putting a formula together granted requires SOME opinion but it is not based on feelings or what songs they like better. The formula set is based on how the market is at the time they set the formula. With the market constantly changing, the formula would need to change too to match. What I am trying to prove: The chart is dominated by streaming based on popularity data, not personal opinion Gucci Gang is #3 based on the results of a previously announced formula change to coincide with differences in market drivers over the past year, not personal opinion People in this thread would not care quite as much if pop songs were what kids were streaming these days and not rap In any case fine, since I am not going to drag this discussion out forever: If the thread consensus is that those wicked people at Billboard have forced songs we don't like to be #1 or #2 or #3, and therefore we have to believe that something is wrong with the formula because who in their right mind would ever listen to 'Gucci Gang'. I clearly don't and none of my friends do therefore no one else does either. So be it From your post it seems you got the wrong idea about what I was saying when I said the Hot 100 was subjective. I don’t mean subjective as in “Billboard loves this songs so they’re creating a new formula just to favor it” What I mean is, digital single sales are not subjective, if a song sold x copies than it sold that amount, there’s nothing to argue about (you can argue about why it sold that amount, if it was because of a discount or whatever, but you can’t dispute that it sold that amount). Now when you measure “popularity” than it becomes subjective. What is popular? Is it hearing a song 100 million times on the radio? Is it giving a bigger weight to streaming because listeners are less passive? Is it favoring sales because they are more expensive? Should viral videos count for streaming? How should it count when two songs are used in the same music video? There is no one answer for this. People are trying to come up with the best solution they can, and they do it objectively in a way it doesn’t favor anybody in particular but what they believe is right. But other people in charge might have made different decisions. That’s why the chart is subjective. Not subjective because they want Gucci Gang or Thunder to be on top. Subjective because they rely on human judgement. |
|
born
Diamond Member
can't come to the phone right now
BLACK LIVES MATTER
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 12,572
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by born on Nov 22, 2017 16:53:00 GMT -5
I'm impressed with Too Good at Goodbye's streaming performance since ballads generally don't do well on US Spotify If it wasn't a Sam Smith song slash copy of successful "Stay With Me", it probably wouldn't have been such a big hit. Probably. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on Nov 22, 2017 17:04:07 GMT -5
Regression is one way to look at data but not the only way. They may use regression, they may not. It really doesn't matter. Conclusions that fall out of actual data analysis are based on how the data looks not personal feelings or personal tastes I am of course assuming they have access to more "popularity data" than you or I do. I am also assuming they also have a method to analyze the data they have and are not just willy-nilly putting random crap out there. The results of statistical formulas are objective obviously. The process of putting a formula together granted requires SOME opinion but it is not based on feelings or what songs they like better. The formula set is based on how the market is at the time they set the formula. With the market constantly changing, the formula would need to change too to match. What I am trying to prove: The chart is dominated by streaming based on popularity data, not personal opinion Gucci Gang is #3 based on the results of a previously announced formula change to coincide with differences in market drivers over the past year, not personal opinion People in this thread would not care quite as much if pop songs were what kids were streaming these days and not rap In any case fine, since I am not going to drag this discussion out forever: If the thread consensus is that those wicked people at Billboard have forced songs we don't like to be #1 or #2 or #3, and therefore we have to believe that something is wrong with the formula because who in their right mind would ever listen to 'Gucci Gang'. I clearly don't and none of my friends do therefore no one else does either. So be it From your post it seems you got the wrong idea about what I was saying when I said the Hot 100 was subjective. I don’t mean subjective as in “Billboard loves this songs so they’re creating a new formula just to favor it” What I mean is, digital single sales are not subjective, if a song sold x copies than it sold that amount, there’s nothing to argue about (you can argue about why it sold that amount, if it was because of a discount or whatever, but you can’t dispute that it sold that amount). Now when you measure “popularity” than it becomes subjective. What is popular? Is it hearing a song 100 million times on the radio? Is it giving a bigger weight to streaming because listeners are less passive? Is it favoring sales because they are more expensive? Should viral videos count for streaming? How should it count when two songs are used in the same music video? There is no one answer for this. People are trying to come up with the best solution they can, and they do it objectively in a way it doesn’t favor anybody in particular but what they believe is right. But other people in charge might have made different decisions. That’s why the chart is subjective. Not subjective because they want Gucci Gang or Thunder to be on top. Subjective because they rely on human judgement. The term "subjective" is being used a little too loosely in my opinion sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective: subjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.No one here knows exactly what logic or method that was behind the creation of the formula. Granted, There is likely "human judgment" involved in their analysis however, I would rely on their judgment about the accuracy of the formula a little more than I would rely on the opinions in this thread (or even mine for that matter) The reason: They have the data and we do not. They have an established methodology that began decades ago and has been changed many times since based on input and data that you and I do not have. I would call this "educated human judgment" or even "expert human judgment" as opposed to a personal feeling. In any case, I look forward to the ongoing "Gucci Gang" discussion but I have nothing more to contribute to this topic. |
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,058
|
Post by felipe on Nov 23, 2017 6:39:04 GMT -5
From your post it seems you got the wrong idea about what I was saying when I said the Hot 100 was subjective. I don’t mean subjective as in “Billboard loves this songs so they’re creating a new formula just to favor it” What I mean is, digital single sales are not subjective, if a song sold x copies than it sold that amount, there’s nothing to argue about (you can argue about why it sold that amount, if it was because of a discount or whatever, but you can’t dispute that it sold that amount). Now when you measure “popularity” than it becomes subjective. What is popular? Is it hearing a song 100 million times on the radio? Is it giving a bigger weight to streaming because listeners are less passive? Is it favoring sales because they are more expensive? Should viral videos count for streaming? How should it count when two songs are used in the same music video? There is no one answer for this. People are trying to come up with the best solution they can, and they do it objectively in a way it doesn’t favor anybody in particular but what they believe is right. But other people in charge might have made different decisions. That’s why the chart is subjective. Not subjective because they want Gucci Gang or Thunder to be on top. Subjective because they rely on human judgement. The term "subjective" is being used a little too loosely in my opinion sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective: subjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.No one here knows exactly what logic or method that was behind the creation of the formula. Granted, There is likely "human judgment" involved in their analysis however, I would rely on their judgment about the accuracy of the formula a little more than I would rely on the opinions in this thread (or even mine for that matter) The reason: They have the data and we do not. They have an established methodology that began decades ago and has been changed many times since based on input and data that you and I do not have. I would call this "educated human judgment" or even "expert human judgment" as opposed to a personal feeling. In any case, I look forward to the ongoing "Gucci Gang" discussion but I have nothing more to contribute to this topic. If Billboard stopped doing and somebody else decided to, would they have the exact same rules and the exact same results? That would be objective, wouldn't it? But also highly unlikely since the concept of popularity is subjective in itself. Now if this other company started doing the charts they'd probably show the same results for singles sales, since that is an objective chart. |
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,058
|
Post by felipe on Nov 23, 2017 6:52:36 GMT -5
Also, about Gucci Gang and whether it's bigger than Thunder or not, a lot of people have already bought the Imagine Dragons song or its parent album. Some of those people surely listened to it again this past week (without buying it again, of course). How does the Hot 100 account for that? How are they able to know how many times you listened to a song you had already bought previously? Or doesn't that count at all, despite streaming counting each time you listen to that song?
|
|
