Inverse Point System Inaccurate

[Private Dancer]

When it comes to the old inverse point system I feel as of it really is an inaccurate way of measuring the biggest hits of that year. By inverse point system, I mean if your #1 you get 100 points. If the new chart system was used some songs wouldnt be ranked so low.

Ex: When it comes to Madonna's songs they are ranked really low.
Dress You Up peaked at #4 and was ranked #98 of that year. If the new system was used then it would probably be a lot higher than it is now.

Material Girl was a huge hit and was number 50 something for the year end.

True Blue also a huge hit and was like number 70 something.

Papa Don't Preach was a #1 and the song of the summer but was ranked #29.

The inverse point system in some ways was accurate and inaccurate. What are yall thoughts on it?

[Private Dancer]

Another inaccuracy that I believe is the fact songs will spend little time in the top 10. In the 70s and 80s song would rise up the top ten for 4 weeks hit its peak then within the next 2 or 3 weeks it's gone out the top ten. I'm pretty sure songs that left the top ten were really "still in the top ten" if you catch my drift.

[rockgolf]

I think you're oversimplifying the inverse point system most of us use.

We don't assign 100 pts to #1 going linearly down to 1 pt for #100. That means two weeks at #51 is equal to a week at #1, which is indefensible.

I use different point assignments for my year end charts and all-time charts. The latter is based on the 60,000 point system that so accurately matched the Billboard all-time 600. The numbers below apply the 0.8 multiplier. The my year-end prediction chart uses the last column, with bonus points applied for additional weeks at #1, #2 or #3.

Chart	All-time	Year-end
1	48000	370
2	32000	317
3	30400	284
4	28800	262
5	27200	241
6	25920	220
7	24640	219
8	23360	218
9	22080	217
10	20800	216
11	9280	175
12	8960	174
13	8640	173
14	8320	172
15	8000	171
16	7680	170
17	7360	169
18	7040	168
19	6720	167
20	6400	166
21	6160	145
22	5920	144
23	5680	143
24	5440	142
25	5200	141
26	4960	140
27	4720	139
28	4480	138
29	4240	137
30	4000	136
31	3920	125
32	3840	124
33	3760	123
34	3680	122
35	3600	121
36	3520	120
37	3440	119
38	3360	118
39	3280	117
40	3200	116
41	3120	105
42	3040	104
43	2960	103
44	2880	102
45	2800	101
46	2720	100
47	2640	99
48	2560	98
49	2480	97
50	2400	96
51	2320	95
52	2240	94
53	2160	93
54	2080	92
55	2000	91
56	1920	90
57	1840	89
58	1760	88
59	1680	87
60	1600	86
61	1552	85
62	1504	84
63	1456	83
64	1408	82
65	1360	81
66	1312	80
67	1264	79
68	1216	78
69	1168	77
70	1120	76
71	1088	55
72	1056	54
73	1024	53
74	992	52
75	960	51
76	928	50
77	896	49
78	864	48
79	832	47
80	800	46
81	784	45
82	768	44
83	752	43
84	736	42
85	720	41
86	704	40
87	688	39
88	672	38
89	656	37
90	640	36
91	624	35
92	608	34
93	592	33
94	576	32
95	560	31
96	544	30
97	528	29
98	512	28
99	496	27
100	480	26

BTW, the reason Dress You Up ended so low in the year end was that it entered the charts in August, so only got a couple of months of points before the year-end cut off. If its full run was compared using my method to other 1985 tracks it would move up to about #76.

[HolidayGuy]

It also would depend on points used for the inverse points system. For instance, it may not be a matter of simply 1 point for 100, 2 pts. for 99, etc. Plus, Billboard now weighs some eras because of the changes in chart methodologies over the years. If you look at the newer lists for all time, which would encompass a single's full run (not just the chart year), a lot of singles would rank higher on the latter vs. Billboard's old year-end charts.

[Deleted]

Meanwhile Start Me Up by The Rolling Stones is the 598th biggest song of all time but did not make a year end list.

[jebsib]

Songs really WERE gone in 4 weeks. You had to be there.

[rockgolf]

Aug 5, 2020 14:41:53 GMT -5 @slipperyslope said:

Meanwhile Start Me Up by The Rolling Stones is the 598th biggest song of all time but did not make a year end list.

Neither did I Think I Love You by the Partridge Family, and it's #288 of all time on the updated all-time list

or The 4 Seasons Big Girls Don't Cry which is at #192 all-time!

[jebsib]

Yeah, I wouldn't put much faith in those Year End Charts pre 1992. The manager throughout the 70s and into 1983 was corrupt, and the chart years made accuracy flawed.

The year was often tracked starting from mid November of the previous year.

The top song of 1989 was a song that peaked and was on its way down the chart before 1989 even started!

[Private Dancer]

It just baffles me especially how can you have a song of the summer (1986) then in the YE your #29.

[WolfSpear]

And how did MC Hammer not have the #1 album of 1990... oh, he missed half of the tracking year = no points.

[Private Dancer]

Aug 5, 2020 20:38:14 GMT -5 WolfSpear said:

And how did MC Hammer not have the #1 album of 1990... oh, he missed half of the tracking year = no points.

I thought the #1 album was for the most sold that year...

[jebsib]

No, back then the #1 album was the one that had accumulated the most points in the chart year, based on positions.

Sales were not precise back then, so you went by record company shipments to stores to estimate whether albums got to the 500k mark, the 1 million mark, etc. But it was all just an estimate.

Regarding those Madonna songs, you have to remember that she was pumping out singles fast, and so the public's attention moved quickly from one song to the next. Like I mentioned above, songs did not linger the chart, so the 'weeks on chart' (a crucial tie breaker in year ends calculations) was critical - Madonna's songs were on the chart for respectable, but not unbelievable amounts of time (except Borderline, which ironically peaked relatively low).

A song like Papa Don't Preach may have been the song of the summer - and was indeed ubiquitous for 3 months - but wasn't on the Hot 100 for an amazing amount of time. In fact most of those 28 songs ahead of it on the YE hung around for weeks longer on the chart. Having lived in that era I can attest that as huge as PDP was that summer, it was only in the top 10 for 7 weeks, and many of the higher songs on the 1986 YE FELT more popular by year's end.

[Private Dancer]

Aug 6, 2020 8:52:18 GMT -5 jebsib said:

No, back then the #1 album was the one that had accumulated the most points in the chart year, based on positions.

Sales were not precise back then, so you went by record company shipments to stores to estimate whether albums got to the 500k mark, the 1 million mark, etc. But it was all just an estimate.

Regarding those Madonna songs, you have to remember that she was pumping out singles fast, and so the public's attention moved quickly from one song to the next. Like I mentioned above, songs did not linger the chart, so the 'weeks on chart' (a crucial tie breaker in year ends calculations) was critical - Madonna's songs were on the chart for respectable, but not unbelievable amounts of time (except Borderline, which ironically peaked relatively low).

A song like Papa Don't Preach may have been the song of the summer - and was indeed ubiquitous for 3 months - but wasn't on the Hot 100 for an amazing amount of time. In fact most of those 28 songs ahead of it on the YE hung around for weeks longer on the chart. Having lived in that era I can attest that as huge as PDP was that summer, it was only in the top 10 for 7 weeks, and many of the higher songs on the 1986 YE FELT more popular by year's end.

What about On My Own by Patti Labelle. I'm obssessed with that song. Do you feel that song is was huge enough to rank #4?

[jebsib]

Yeah - it deserves it. It spent 23 weeks on the chart which back then was big. Also 3 weeks at #1 was considered unusually good in those days.

[WolfSpear]

Patti Labelle was also in the 2nd prime of her career with the “Winner In You” era. No doubt!

[Private Dancer]

Ok and another thing is Klymaxx's I Miss You peaked at #5 and was ranked #3 in YE. Probably because it spent 29 weeks on the chart and a song in the 80s spending almost 30 weeks on the chart is rare.

[jebsib]

You got it!

I remember that December (1986) and was just stunned that Klymaxx peaked YE (#3) higher than its regular peak (#5).
I don't think that happened again till 1998 (Paula Cole).

[Private Dancer]

Aug 6, 2020 16:05:08 GMT -5 jebsib said:

You got it!

I remember that December (1986) and was just stunned that Klymaxx peaked YE (#3) higher than its regular peak (#5).
I don't think that happened again till 1998 (Paula Cole).

I sent you a PM. And by paula cole u mean the I dont wanna wait song?

[rockgolf]

Aug 6, 2020 10:52:45 GMT -5 Private Dancer said:

What about On My Own by Patti Labelle. I'm obssessed with that song. Do you feel that song is was huge enough to rank #4?

When complete chart runs are included and songs assigned to the year they peaked, I have On My Own as a solid #3, behind #1 That's What Friends Are For and #2 Walk like an Egyptian. It'S ahead of Whitney's Greatest Love of All, even when it re-charted after her death.

[Private Dancer]

Aug 6, 2020 20:39:15 GMT -5 rockgolf said:

Aug 6, 2020 10:52:45 GMT -5 Private Dancer said:

What about On My Own by Patti Labelle. I'm obssessed with that song. Do you feel that song is was huge enough to rank #4?

When complete chart runs are included and songs assigned to the year they peaked, I have On My Own as a solid #3, behind #1 That's What Friends Are For and #2 Walk like an Egyptian. It'S ahead of Whitney's Greatest Love of All, even when it re-charted after her death.

Wow! On My Own must've been huge. Hate I wasnt around to witness it.

[Michael1973]

I'm inclined to agree with this topic for the most part. I feel like the heavy emphasis on weeks-on-chart gave certain songs a huge advantage at the end of the year, while songs that got more attention and were overall more popular got the shaft.

Think of it this way -- Song A comes out and is massive out of the starting gate. It's on the radio everywhere and everybody knows it. It skyrockets into the top 10. Meanwhile, Song B, which gets nowhere near that kind of attention, slowly climbs the charts for months, finally cracking the top 5 in week #15.

Come year end, Song A is the one most people remember and consider the song of the year. But Song B has all those extra weeks, and charts higher on the top 100. Doesn't seem right to me.

This sort of thing became a lot more common after 1984, when lengthy #1 songs faded away.

[Private Dancer]

Sooo I have been doing my research. I'm a little upset because the Pointer Sisters were robbed of a number one hit. Slow Hand was #1 in sales AND airplay but it was still #2. This makes no sense and if we actually used the billboard formula today slow hand would be inside the top 10 YE of 1981. Imma need billboard to go back and give the PS their #1.

[Private Dancer]

And how did songs like Endless Love, Physical, and Bette Davis Eyes peak at 1 for sooo long? Was it high sales?

Cant be airplay cause Physical was #2 for 2 weeks then started to freefall.

The airplay is not matching up with the chart and billboard needs to re-do it.

[dawhite76]

Considering how long "Physical" reigned in Billboard (ten weeks), Record World (nine weeks) and Cashbox (eight weeks), it is stunning that it only peaked at # 2 in R&R. (Interestingly, her next single, "Make A Move On Me," would top the R&R chart, but peak at # 4 in Record World and at # 5 in Billboard and Cashbox.) Sales likely drove the lengthy stay at # 1 on all these charts. Olivia also really pushed this song with numerous television appearances and videos for the entire album, not just its singles, winning her fourth Grammy for this.

I always wondered whether radio was uncomfortable with this song's lyrics. The video cleverly disguised the song as an aerobics anthem. But, lyrics about getting horizontal and animal were quite racy by 1981 standards. Olivia often boasts how she was banned in Utah for such suggestive lyrics. (Of course, no one would even flinch hearing that today!)

If Billboard would redo a chart because of Olivia, it should be the 1980 year-end AC chart. Olivia spent five weeks at # 1 and 20 overall on the AC chart with "Magic" which was her biggest AC hit ever. The song's chart run fell within the entire 1980 chart year and was only one of four songs that year to lead the chart for five or more weeks. (Air Supply's "Lost In Love" ruled the longest for six.) Yet, when Billboard released its year-end AC chart, "Magic" was not even ranked! Instead, Maxine Nightingale's "Lead Me On" was ranked as the # 8 song of 1980 when it charted in 1979!

[jebsib]

Physical was enormous culturally and was heard EVERYWHERE. Dance clubs, family picnics, roller-discos, TV specials, commercials, news shows…. you name it. And it came at the right time, when Aerobics was a huge US pastime. It was the Macarena of its day, the Old Town Road. It was also far too spicy for most Top 40 stations. (Can you believe it? What would they think of WAP?!?) As a result, airplay was good, but not enough to topple Foreigner. But those sales were big, and offset the reluctance at radio.

Also please keep in mind to treat R&R with a grain of salt until the big CHR comeback of 1983… A lot of the stations in their sample were very AC-leaning, giving slightly different results from Billboard - with a big bias against R&B crossover songs.

[jebsib]

Aug 7, 2020 14:47:00 GMT -5 Private Dancer said:

And how did songs like Endless Love, Physical, and Bette Davis Eyes peak at 1 for sooo long? Was it high sales?

Cant be airplay cause Physical was #2 for 2 weeks then started to freefall.

The airplay is not matching up with the chart and billboard needs to re-do it.

All those songs came out in 1981 and 1982, which was during a big Top 40 doldrums period (like 1994-96, 2001-2006 and… now)
As a result, competition was weaker, and the music industry was in a slump.
No excitement.
So when a song was an actual hit, it stayed a longer time, with less to challenge it.

Plus the chart manager at the time - who was overseeing the Hot 100 during the disco years (and was widely suspected of 'fixing the charts' for years) was fired in 1983 just as the charts started to speed up again.

[newpower]

For people interested in charts and methodologies, there are several articles published in research journals.
Some of them are easy to read, others you need a degree in statistics to understand the methods.
I believe the first one below is not behind a paywall, the others, the abstracts are available and you can probably read the full article if you have an email account in an US university.

Power Laws and Market Shares: Cumulative Advantage and the Billboard Hot 100

A Bayesian Lifetime Model for the “Hot 100” Billboard Songs

Race, gender, and the Billboard Top 40 charts between 1997 and 2007

Survival of the hippest: life at the top of the hot 100

[paulhaney]

Believe it or not, some stations wouldn't play "Physical" because it was too suggestive! Others played it, but only at night. Others played it a lot. All depended on the market. I'm certain that the 10 week run at #1 was fueled by sales. My local record stores had a hard time keeping it in stock at the time. Conversely, both "Bette Davis Eyes" and "Endless Love" had equally strong sales and airplay.

As for the inverse point system, it has it's pros and cons.  I recently did a Top 4000 chart based on the radio surveys posted at ARSA, using a form of the inverse system.  I then had to weigh the different years, as some years had more surveys than others.  However, I think it turned out pretty good.  In the end, no system is perfect.

[Private Dancer]

Aug 11, 2020 13:46:15 GMT -5 paulhaney said:

Believe it or not, some stations wouldn't play "Physical" because it was too suggestive! Others played it, but only at night. Others played it a lot. All depended on the market. I'm certain that the 10 week run at #1 was fueled by sales. My local record stores had a hard time keeping it in stock at the time. Conversely, both "Bette Davis Eyes" and "Endless Love" had equally strong sales and airplay.

As for the inverse point system, it has it's pros and cons.  I recently did a Top 4000 chart based on the radio surveys posted at ARSA, using a form of the inverse system.  I then had to weigh the different years, as some years had more surveys than others.  However, I think it turned out pretty good.  In the end, no system is perfect.

Can I see that list?

[paulhaney]

Aug 11, 2020 17:13:10 GMT -5 Private Dancer said:

Aug 11, 2020 13:46:15 GMT -5 paulhaney said:

Believe it or not, some stations wouldn't play "Physical" because it was too suggestive! Others played it, but only at night. Others played it a lot. All depended on the market. I'm certain that the 10 week run at #1 was fueled by sales. My local record stores had a hard time keeping it in stock at the time. Conversely, both "Bette Davis Eyes" and "Endless Love" had equally strong sales and airplay.

As for the inverse point system, it has it's pros and cons.  I recently did a Top 4000 chart based on the radio surveys posted at ARSA, using a form of the inverse system.  I then had to weigh the different years, as some years had more surveys than others.  However, I think it turned out pretty good.  In the end, no system is perfect.

Can I see that list?

I'm currently revealing it on Pat Downey's Top 40 Music On CD chat board.  I'm posting 40 songs per day.  Still 1480 to go!