Billboard Hot 100: 4/28/2018

[Gary]

Although there is no actual formal definition. The Hot 100 has been a songs chart now for 2 decades. As it pertains to this chart there is no real need to differentiate between the two.

[badrobot]

I would be curious to see what the chart would look like if there was a requirement a song be above a certain airplay threshold (say, 10m audience impressions maybe?).

The album bombs do seem odd to me in the respect that digital sales of an album do not count toward the Hot 100, but streaming does, even though effectively it’s the same thing just different methods of obtaining the music.

[jayhawk1117]

Apr 22, 2018 13:29:54 GMT -5 badrobot said:

I would be curious to see what the chart would look like if there was a requirement a song be above a certain airplay threshold (say, 10m audience impressions maybe?).

The album bombs do seem odd to me in the respect that digital sales of an album do not count toward the Hot 100, but streaming does, even though effectively it’s the same thing just different methods of obtaining the music.

I would probably be even worse for the charts lol. One sale of an album me and more than a full stream of an album so an album that sells something like 300k physical copies would then be 300k sales for each song on the album plus however much the album was streamed for. So we'd have multiple artists holding 4 or 5 spots of the top 10 compared to the occasional 1 or 2 but these next few weeks, expect 2 or 3 top 10 songs from each of these albums

[Sherane Lamar]

What are Avicii's chances of being on the Hot 100 again?

[badrobot]

Apr 22, 2018 14:00:56 GMT -5 jayhawk1117 said:

Apr 22, 2018 13:29:54 GMT -5 badrobot said:

I would be curious to see what the chart would look like if there was a requirement a song be above a certain airplay threshold (say, 10m audience impressions maybe?).

The album bombs do seem odd to me in the respect that digital sales of an album do not count toward the Hot 100, but streaming does, even though effectively it’s the same thing just different methods of obtaining the music.

I would probably be even worse for the charts lol. One sale of an album me and more than a full stream of an album so an album that sells something like 300k physical copies would then be 300k sales for each song on the album plus however much the album was streamed for. So we'd have multiple artists holding 4 or 5 spots of the top 10 compared to the occasional 1 or 2 but these next few weeks, expect 2 or 3 top 10 songs from each of these albums

Yeah to be clear I think it’s a bad idea to include album sales — I’d prefer it to be somehow consistent though with streaming— some way to indicate the difference between a song being popular and an album being popular that doesn’t result in album bombs.

[jenglisbe]

Apr 22, 2018 10:48:00 GMT -5 renaboss said:

I would argue that individual promotional release should be what diferentiates singles from album tracks.

Is there any chance the next big new trend is this rising wave of latin music? Cos at least that's fun.

But now the charts are "Country Songs" and "R&B Songs," which was a clear move away from "Singles" to me. You don't have to like it, but the point is they aren't even intended to be 'singles' charts anymore. As has been pointed out in this thread, songs gain recognition in so many ways now - the traditional ones, but also TV shows, social media, and on and on.

So much of this just comes down to people not liking what is doing well in streaming, so they want to change the charts to prevent it.

[jenglisbe]

Apr 22, 2018 13:29:54 GMT -5 badrobot said:

The album bombs do seem odd to me in the respect that digital sales of an album do not count toward the Hot 100, but streaming does, even though effectively it’s the same thing just different methods of obtaining the music.

It doesn't seem odd to me at all. Streaming the entire album is sort of beside the point; it's measuring the times the individual songs are listened to, they just happened to be part of the album. If you download an entire album, it doesn't necessarily mean you listened to all of the songs. In that case you are purchasing the album.

[jenglisbe]

Apr 22, 2018 11:30:01 GMT -5 Soulsista said:

April 30, 1988

01 01 Where Do Broken Hearts Go - Whitney Houston (2nd and final week at #1)
02 04 Wishing Well - Terence Trent D'Arby
03 06 Angel - Aerosmith
04 02 Devil Inside - INXS
05 08 Anything For You - Gloria Estefan & The Miami Sound Machine
06 03 Get Outta My Dreams, Get Into My Car - Billy Ocean
07 09 Pink Cadillac - Natalie Cole
08 10 Prove Your Love - Taylor Dayne
09 07 I Saw Him Standing There - Tiffany
10 05 Girlfriend - Pebbles

1988 continues to give me life! I like every song in this top 10.

[Choco]

Apr 22, 2018 14:55:23 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

What are Avicii's chances of being on the Hot 100 again?

Wake Me Up is selling well, but sales are so low that it will need a sizable total of streams. Youtube is doing really well (#1 for the past few days), so I think it can probably re-enter.

[Golden Bluebird]

It's worth noting that "Wake Me Up!" has spent 53 weeks on the chart, so it would need to have enough points to land on the Top 25 for it to reenter.

[Sherane Lamar]

Apr 22, 2018 16:30:46 GMT -5 Choco said:

Apr 22, 2018 14:55:23 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

What are Avicii's chances of being on the Hot 100 again?

Wake Me Up is selling well, but sales are so low that it will need a sizable total of streams. Youtube is doing really well (#1 for the past few days), so I think it can probably re-enter.

You can get daily YouTube updates? Link? 

[85la]

Apr 22, 2018 17:55:52 GMT -5 Codex said:

Apr 22, 2018 15:24:04 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

It doesn't seem odd to me at all. Streaming the entire album is sort of beside the point; it's measuring the times the individual songs are listened to, they just happened to be part of the album. If you download an entire album, it doesn't necessarily mean you listened to all of the songs. In that case you are purchasing the album.

It doesn’t mean you listened to the song, but you purchased a copy of it. You essentially spent ~ 1$ to buy a digital copy of each song on the album for your computer.

If streaming an album counts for individual songs, then album sales should also count for individual songs to be consistent. Can you give a reason why the two are different at all?

(Note: I think neither should count, but it’s biased to only count streaming)

Yup, I agree, and furthermore, it is technically possible for streaming of even just one song from an album to count towards complete album units on the Billboard 200 if that song is streamed enough times. The argument with that is that it reflects "general interest" in the album, so by that logic, buying a digital or physical copy of an album should reflect "general interest" in each of the songs on that album, even if all of them aren't listened to by every consumer (though I imagine almost everyone who would be willing to shell out the money to buy an album would listen to each track at least once).

To me the reason Billboard doesn't allow this, even though it violates their measurement logic, is that album bombs would be even stronger and more apparent, and that would be too much for them. It would happen in fact every week based on whoever is #1 on the Billboard 200. The tracks might not always be as high as the current situations with J. Cole and Drake, but the Hot 100 would be littered with them.

[Gary]

SPOILER: Click to show

How many wholesale changes has the Hot 100 gone through since 1958?

Went from sales/airplay
to sales only
back to sales/airplay needing both
to sales/airplay can have either
to sales/airplay/streaming

With constant tweaking of formulas and recurrent rules

Of those, how many of those changes happened because fans demanded it?

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}
Answer is zero

[House Lannister]

Apr 22, 2018 14:55:23 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

What are Avicii's chances of being on the Hot 100 again?

It's possible for this week, but I think maybe he'll have a better one next week.

[Sherane Lamar]

Apr 22, 2018 17:55:52 GMT -5 Codex said:

Apr 22, 2018 15:24:04 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

It doesn't seem odd to me at all. Streaming the entire album is sort of beside the point; it's measuring the times the individual songs are listened to, they just happened to be part of the album. If you download an entire album, it doesn't necessarily mean you listened to all of the songs. In that case you are purchasing the album.

It doesn’t mean you listened to the song, but you purchased a copy of it. You essentially spent ~ 1$ to buy a digital copy of each song on the album for your computer.

If streaming an album counts for individual songs, then album sales should also count for individual songs to be consistent. Can you give a reason why the two are different at all?

(Note: I think neither should count, but it’s biased to only count streaming)

This one good thing about this problem is that it'll eventually solve itself as more and more iTunes users transition to the more practical streaming services. 

[jenglisbe]

Apr 22, 2018 19:46:46 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Apr 22, 2018 17:55:52 GMT -5 Codex said:

It doesn’t mean you listened to the song, but you purchased a copy of it. You essentially spent ~ 1$ to buy a digital copy of each song on the album for your computer.

If streaming an album counts for individual songs, then album sales should also count for individual songs to be consistent. Can you give a reason why the two are different at all?

(Note: I think neither should count, but it’s biased to only count streaming)

This one good thing about this problem is that it'll eventually solve itself as more and more iTunes users transition to the more practical streaming services. 

True. I mean, how many copies of digital albums are even sold at this point?

[badrobot]

Overall this is an interesting discussion that gets at whether the concept of a “single” is even a valid idea anymore.

To me it’s kind of like trying to define a “celebrity” today. Someone can be hugely famous among a certain group (like many YouTubers) and completely unknown by the majority of the population. Same with songs. The internet has just changed the game so much, there just aren’t any universal outlets anymore, everything is a niche.

[Sherane Lamar]

Apr 22, 2018 20:46:11 GMT -5 badrobot said:

Overall this is an interesting discussion that gets at whether the concept of a “single” is even a valid idea anymore.

To me it’s kind of like trying to define a “celebrity” today. Someone can be hugely famous among a certain group (like many YouTubers) and completely unknown by the majority of the population. Same with songs. The internet has just changed the game so much, there just aren’t any universal outlets anymore, everything is a niche.

Yet interestingly enough, the charts are more dominated and centralized by a select few artists in the 2010s than they've ever been. 

Drake, Rihanna and Taylor Swift already hold a higher percentage of this decade's chart positions than any artist ever has for any other decade. (52,852, 39,944, and ~38,390 on inv point system respectively). 


And you might be thinking "Oh, well, that statistic's probably been increasing every decade". But nope. They surpass Elivs Presley and Beatles, who had a stranglehold on the 1960's (37,739 and 37,698 respectively). 

And so maybe you're thinking "Well, maybe it has to do with songs having so much longevity now". Not really. Usher, Mariah, and Beyonce (~27,000, 34,749, and 27,080 respectively) dominated decades where songs had plenty of longevity, yet they couldn't beat Elvis and Beatles, who could barely get a song past 20 weeks. 

Or maybe you're thinking "Maybe it has to do with all these album takeovers?" That can't be the case, because Rihanna's never had an album takeovers. 

IDK what it is that causes the centralization of the charts to a select few artists this decade. But it's so counter-intuitive to what you would expect from the internet generation. It's like if you gave people 500 channels and they all started tuning into the big three networks stronger than ever. 

[iHype.]

Apr 22, 2018 19:06:31 GMT -5 Gary said:

SPOILER: Click to show

How many wholesale changes has the Hot 100 gone through since 1958?

Went from sales/airplay
to sales only
back to sales/airplay needing both
to sales/airplay can have either
to sales/airplay/streaming

With constant tweaking of formulas and recurrent rules

Of those, how many of those changes happened because fans demanded it?

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}
Answer is zero

Well, everything they've done also isn't simply because labels demanded it.

For example they announced last year they planned to weigh premium streams higher than free streams. That'd be hurtful to artists who do well on YouTube & Spotify vesus Apple Music. 

Also last year they essentially banned label-compilation albums from charting. Albums such as 'RCA Hits', 'Epic AF', etc which were a label's compilation of songs not on albums yet that got streams to essentially put a label release at #1 was seen to Billboard as reaching the concept of an album. Especially when those albums had essentially 0 sales. They were just adding streams/sales of different songs not attached to albums yet in one project nobody was actually checking out itself. 

Not to mention the rule against deep-discounting added in 2011 after Gaga's Born this Way fiasco. 

So clearly, Billboard also will make decisions they feel push their chart's purpose in a best way possible. If 5 artists covering the entire Hot 100 or 1 artist constantly choke-holding the top 10 is to them not showcasing Hot 100's purpose they'll make a rule or two whether labels are jumping for it or not. Comes down to how Billboard staff feel.

[Leo ✔]

Could "Levels" finally hit top 50 on Billboard Hot 100??

[Gary]

Apr 22, 2018 22:36:39 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Apr 22, 2018 19:06:31 GMT -5 Gary said:

SPOILER: Click to show

How many wholesale changes has the Hot 100 gone through since 1958?

Went from sales/airplay
to sales only
back to sales/airplay needing both
to sales/airplay can have either
to sales/airplay/streaming

With constant tweaking of formulas and recurrent rules

Of those, how many of those changes happened because fans demanded it?

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}
Answer is zero

Well, everything they've done also isn't simply because labels demanded it.

For example they announced last year they planned to weigh premium streams higher than free streams. That'd be hurtful to artists who do well on YouTube & Spotify vesus Apple Music. 

Also last year they essentially banned label-compilation albums from charting. Albums such as 'RCA Hits', 'Epic AF', etc which were a label's compilation of songs not on albums yet that got streams to essentially put a label release at #1 was seen to Billboard as reaching the concept of an album. Especially when those albums had essentially 0 sales. They were just adding streams/sales of different songs not attached to albums yet in one project nobody was actually checking out itself. 

Not to mention the rule against deep-discounting added in 2011 after Gaga's Born this Way fiasco. 

So clearly, Billboard also will make decisions they feel push their chart's purpose in a best way possible. If 5 artists covering the entire Hot 100 or 1 artist constantly choke-holding the top 10 is to them not showcasing Hot 100's purpose they'll make a rule or two whether labels are jumping for it or not. Comes down to how Billboard staff feel.

So what their chart's purpose?   To publish a popularity chart?  If Drake happens to own the top 25 (someday he probably will) then they are accurately displaying the most popular songs.

Epic AF isn't an album so much as it is a streaming playlist?

If they willy-nilly published a chart just to upset one fan base or another, they wouldn't be in business.  

I think the decisions they make about the product they put out doesn't come without input from their stakeholders

They have long said, this is an industry  magazine, not a fan magazine.

Threads like this one can complain about how the chart is laid out and many threads like this one certainly has before but, Billboard will tell you  that although they are glad they have fans, appeasing them is not their purpose

[iHype.]

Apr 22, 2018 23:03:18 GMT -5 Gary said:

Apr 22, 2018 22:36:39 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Well, everything they've done also isn't simply because labels demanded it.

For example they announced last year they planned to weigh premium streams higher than free streams. That'd be hurtful to artists who do well on YouTube & Spotify vesus Apple Music. 

Also last year they essentially banned label-compilation albums from charting. Albums such as 'RCA Hits', 'Epic AF', etc which were a label's compilation of songs not on albums yet that got streams to essentially put a label release at #1 was seen to Billboard as reaching the concept of an album. Especially when those albums had essentially 0 sales. They were just adding streams/sales of different songs not attached to albums yet in one project nobody was actually checking out itself. 

Not to mention the rule against deep-discounting added in 2011 after Gaga's Born this Way fiasco. 

So clearly, Billboard also will make decisions they feel push their chart's purpose in a best way possible. If 5 artists covering the entire Hot 100 or 1 artist constantly choke-holding the top 10 is to them not showcasing Hot 100's purpose they'll make a rule or two whether labels are jumping for it or not. Comes down to how Billboard staff feel.

So what their chart's purpose?   To publish a popularity chart?  If Drake happens to own the top 25 (someday he probably will) then they are accurately displaying the most popular songs.

Epic AF isn't an album so much as it is a streaming playlist?

If they willy-nilly published a chart just to upset one fan base or another, they wouldn't be in business.  

I think the decisions they make about the product they put out doesn't come without input from their stakeholders

They have long said, this is an industry  magazine, not a fan magazine.

Threads like this one can complain about how the chart is laid out and many threads like this one certainly has before but, Billboard will tell you  that although they are glad they have fans, appeasing them is not their purpose

And you could argue the recurrent rules are not representing a popularity chart. If a song is the #100 biggest song combining airplay/streams/sales under their formula, but can't chart because of its age then that is distorting popularity regarding the most popular songs currently.

Yet Billboard has recurrent rules because songs having their life limited to them pushes a chart with activity to what they would like. 

Epic AF (along with other label compilations were sold on iTunes)
itunes.apple.com/us/album/epic-af/1135112211
They were real albums in a technical sense. However Billboard went directly against labels, and washed them out the chart.

Industry does play a role, but they're not dictators. Billboard will also make their own decisions, as they rightfully should. 

[iHype.]

And also regarding recurreny rules I wanna bring this up:
I think there's good reasoning for and against recurrency rules, but I always thought it was hypocritical/ironic that the Billboard 200 allows albums from ANY period to chart anywhere for anytime, yet the thought of that on the Hot 100 is insane to Billboard. 


Album charts for 1000 weeks on Billboard 200: Billboard make articles praising the huge achievement.
Song charts for 52+ weeks on Hot 100: they make stricter recurrent rules to get rid of it.

[Gary]

Apr 22, 2018 23:31:09 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Apr 22, 2018 23:03:18 GMT -5 Gary said:

So what their chart's purpose?   To publish a popularity chart?  If Drake happens to own the top 25 (someday he probably will) then they are accurately displaying the most popular songs.

Epic AF isn't an album so much as it is a streaming playlist?

If they willy-nilly published a chart just to upset one fan base or another, they wouldn't be in business.  

I think the decisions they make about the product they put out doesn't come without input from their stakeholders

They have long said, this is an industry  magazine, not a fan magazine.

Threads like this one can complain about how the chart is laid out and many threads like this one certainly has before but, Billboard will tell you  that although they are glad they have fans, appeasing them is not their purpose

And you could argue the recurrent rules are not representing a popularity chart. If a song is the #100 biggest song combining airplay/streams/sales under their formula, but can't chart because of its age then that is distorting popularity regarding the most popular songs currently.

Yet Billboard has recurrent rules because songs having their life limited to them pushes a chart with activity to what they would like. 

Epic AF (along with other label compilations were sold on iTunes)
itunes.apple.com/us/album/epic-af/1135112211
They were real albums in a technical sense. However Billboard went directly against labels, and washed them out the chart.

Industry does play a role, but they're not dictators. Billboard will also make their own decisions, as they rightfully should. 

We will go back to my original point now.   This is not a fan chart, it is an industry chart.  All the fan complaining about one rule or another or that it hurts one artist or another from fans of the artist, will do no good at all.

I think that as the market changes they try to change  with it.  However, I do not think there is any bias in the formula that goes into the product they put out.  I also think they get input before they make major decisions.

You disagree - fine.

[iHype.]

Apr 22, 2018 23:44:39 GMT -5 Gary said:

Apr 22, 2018 23:31:09 GMT -5 iHype. said:

And you could argue the recurrent rules are not representing a popularity chart. If a song is the #100 biggest song combining airplay/streams/sales under their formula, but can't chart because of its age then that is distorting popularity regarding the most popular songs currently.

Yet Billboard has recurrent rules because songs having their life limited to them pushes a chart with activity to what they would like. 

Epic AF (along with other label compilations were sold on iTunes)
itunes.apple.com/us/album/epic-af/1135112211
They were real albums in a technical sense. However Billboard went directly against labels, and washed them out the chart.

Industry does play a role, but they're not dictators. Billboard will also make their own decisions, as they rightfully should. 

We will go back to my original point now.   This is not a fan chart, it is an industry chart.  All the fan complaining about one rule or another or that it hurts one artist or another from fans of the artist, will do no good at all.

I think that as the market changes they try to change  with it.  However, I do not think there is any bias in the formula that goes into the product they put out.  I also think they get input before they make major decisions.

You disagree - fine.

I do agree its an industry chart, and they do not care about fan's opinion as far as priority. 

However the point was they don't make all rules/decisions, because the industry told them to or even wanted it. They also make changes because they feel they're necessary.

Which is why something like rules to stop album bombs could occur if Billboard feels the need to intervene even if the labels can't be bothered to care. I doubt labels were rallying for recurrent rules on Hot 100. Amongst other rules/decisions brought up.

Or that dumb airplay week that makes should-be #1 debuts, debut early. I'm sure labels would rather toot a #1 debut, than a 79-1 jump ala LWYMMD. But Billboard insists that airplay week makes the chart 'more accurate' (albeit I'd argue it does the opposite.)

[Golden Bluebird]

kworb.net/airadio/

*** = Dropped or added a format

Overall AI (Top 20) - 2018/04/23
1. (=) BEBE REXHA - Meant To Be f/F.G.L. (201.452) (+0.331)
2. (=) ZEDD/MAREN MORRIS/GREY - The Middle (166.254) (+0.228)
3. (=) DRAKE - God's Plan (164.234) (+1.111)
4. (+1) CAMILA CABELLO - Never Be The Same (132.790) (+1.954)
5. (-1) BRUNO MARS & CARDI B - Finesse (129.483) (-1.445) ***
6. (=) ED SHEERAN - Perfect (125.013) (-0.956)
7. (=) THE WEEKND & KENDRICK LAMAR - Pray For Me (121.193) (-0.477)
8. (=) IMAGINE DRAGONS - Whatever It Takes (107.631) (+0.446)
9. (=) DUA LIPA - New Rules (98.333) (+0.209)
10. (=) MAX - Lights Down Low (92.319) (-0.289)
11. (=) POST MALONE - Psycho f/Ty Dolla $ign (80.134) (+0.748)
12. (=) CAMILA CABELLO - Havana f/Young Thug (78.422) (-0.817)
13. (=) MAROON 5 - Wait (78.136) (+1.010) ***
14. (+1) JASON ALDEAN - You Make It Easy (71.170) (+0.365)
15. (-1) PORTUGAL. THE MAN - Feel It Still (71.133) (-0.261)
16. (+1) BLOCBOY JB - Look Alive f/Drake (70.592) (+0.442)
17. (-1) G-EAZY & HALSEY - Him & I (69.838) (-0.873)
18. (+2) BAZZI - Mine (69.417) (+1.080)
19. (=) BRETT ELDREDGE - The Long Way (68.564) (+0.204)
20. (-2) KENDRICK LAMAR & SZA - All The Stars (68.364) (-0.815)

Outside the Top 20:
25. (+3) DRAKE - Nice For What (57.500) (+2.393)
66. (+4) KENNY CHESNEY - Get Along (29.074) (+1.052)

[areyoureadytojump]

^ 87. (+22) ARIANA GRANDE No Tears Left To Cry (23.292) (+3.430)

[Kris]

Does anyone know Need You Now's spin total? Seeing MTB at 44k (above Uptown Funk and Shape of You) Curious to know how much that crossover hit had.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

Apr 23, 2018 0:22:52 GMT -5 Codex said:

Apr 22, 2018 19:48:09 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

True. I mean, how many copies of digital albums are even sold at this point?

The same logic applies to regular album sales as well, I just used digital in my example for simplicity. Those are collapsing too, but I think 50-100k+ debuts won’t disappear for a while.

I mean, were the reputation album tracks less popular than the J.Cole ones that are about to bomb the chart? 1 million+ people owned them within a week, and listened to their legally purchased copies millions of times collectively.

They made the Billboard 200 an album consumption chart which allows albums to be popular indirectly through the streaming and sales of of its tracks. This has allowed albums that have hit songs remain in the top 10, such as Stoney and Divide, remain in the top 10. In spite of the growth of streaming, the numbers have shrunk considerably and not many albums are getting certified even gold by RIAA. What's most weird about this is how Invasion of Privacy was already gold when it came as a consequence of Bodak Yellow (Money Moves) being 5X Platinum.

Regarding counting album sales toward the popularity of tracks contained in them, I'd definitely be against that. While reputation is probably an extreme example, consider albums that can sell double or triple the next best single album in a given week. Its tracks would likely hold the top 10/20 positions which would really distort the chart for that particular week.  You probably have heard that when Divide came out, all 16 of its tracks debuted on the top 40 in Official Singles chart in the UK. Imagine if they would have counted the album sales that particular week. Top 16 dominated by Divide. Getting Gold certification by RIAA has become too easy and many recent non-hits have managed to do so.

I personally don't agree that liking a song means you actually like the album it came from and viceversa.

[renfield75]

Apr 22, 2018 23:38:19 GMT -5 iHype. said:

And also regarding recurreny rules I wanna bring this up:
I think there's good reasoning for and against recurrency rules, but I always thought it was hypocritical/ironic that the Billboard 200 allows albums from ANY period to chart anywhere for anytime, yet the thought of that on the Hot 100 is insane to Billboard. 


Album charts for 1000 weeks on Billboard 200: Billboard make articles praising the huge achievement.
Song charts for 52+ weeks on Hot 100: they make stricter recurrent rules to get rid of it.

For decades the BB200 had a recurrency rule similar to the Hot 100, and that's why they created the Catalog Album Chart. They eliminated this rule after 2009 when the popularity of Michael Jackson's catalog (after his death) forced their hand. His album "Number Ones" was the best selling album in the country for 6 straight weeks but it was nowhere to be found on the BB200 because it was a catalog album. It eventually became embarrassing for Billboard, similar to when songs like "Don't Speak" didn't appear on the Hot 100 before 1998, so they allowed all albums back onto the BB200. Unfortunately for Michael he lost out on another number one album because they made the change after the fact.