Using points for weekly charts

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I really don't like using inverse points for my yearend charts anymore because for me, some #1s are stronger and/or weeker than other #1s during different weeks and I like to have it so that even a #2 song in one week could be stronger than a #1 song other weeks and stuff. So I'm considering compiling my chart with weekly points starting in the new year.
I'm not sure how I'd go about doing it. I'd have a general average threshold for #100 and #1, maybe like 100 points for #100 and then #1 would average 1,000 or 10,000 or something like that. Basically, it would work similar to airplay (LOL!) but it won't be airplay, it'll be how many points I decide to give a song. I also think it would make the chart more natural because I'd apply points to songs before I'd find their position.

Any ideas or comments or anything? Does anyone else use points when compiling their personal chart?

[Deleted]

I think if you have a really big problem with the placement of songs and you think it had to do with a week quarter or whatnot, then it wouldn't hurt to do a little bit of shifting of songs on the year-end chart. I wouldn't go moving songs from #196 to #3 or anything though.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Oh I did that! ;) Songs didn't belong where they were, I felt, so I did some shifting in the top quarter of the yearend chart and it looks alittle better.
I think adding the points feature to my chart would add a new dimension of it though. Songs that I REALLY love that are #1 would pass a certain mark and would go into that grouping of songs that do manage to pass it. Like with CHR/Pop, songs rarely pass 9,000 but when they do, it's a pretty big thing.

I'm not sure how I'd work out the points though. It probably would out to a more speedy and accurate chart for me though, I think. I won't feel the need to follow certain trends for chart positions and stuff anymore.

[FreakyFlyBry]

I don't assign points to any of my weekly charts. For my year-end, I use a more complex formula that is based on the inverse square root of the chart position; this gives a balance between high peaks and longevity and results in an accurate year end chart.

[Deleted]

FreakyFlyBry said:

I don't assign points to any of my weekly charts. For my year-end, I use a more complex formula that is based on the inverse square root of the chart position; this gives a balance between high peaks and longevity and results in an accurate year end chart.

I don't understand how exactly it would be more accurate, but since I'm not very happy with much of how my year-end chart is looking this year, would you mind sharing that formula?

[FreakyFlyBry]

The said:

I don't understand how exactly it would be more accurate, but since I'm not very happy with much of how my year-end chart is looking this year, would you mind sharing that formula?

I've used many variations of the same basic formula, but this is the one I've used the most recently:

(# of positions / square root of chart position) + (# of positions - chart position) / 2

Using a formula like that that produces irrational numbers for points, it's very rare for 2 songs to tie in points unless they occupied the exact same chart positions in their chart runs.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I used it last year and I did like it except that it weighs WAY too heavily on high songs compared to low songs. #1 was 100 points, #2 was something like 74.xyz, #3 was 66 points, #4 was 54 points and eventually led to #100 being 1 point. I think the exact halfway point was #7 being 50 points? As a result, after only 12 weeks in my Top 100 (8 of which were #1), 'In This Life' was #5 for the full year. I was trying to make a formula similar to Bryan's but with less weight on the top of the chart but couldn't make one in Excel.

[Deleted]

Yeah, I think that ways a little too heavily on the peak. A song with a peak of #1 and 12 weeks on would get more points than a song that hit #4 with 35 weeks on.

[Joe1240]

I use inverse points for weekly charts. I find it be the only way to represent the year end charts but some things don't like right on the chart but it shows how every song ranks up for the year based on positions.

[Matt4319]

The first two years of my year-end chart, it was based only on inverse points. This year, I didn't really like how the chart turned out using that method, so I took the liberty of pushing up some songs that I listened to a lot before being released or got consistent "play" after it fell off my chart. The result was a year-end chart I'm a lot more satisfied with.

[insect2]

I'm going with whatever the inverse points tell me to. :)

Actually, strike that, since my chart doesn't entirely weigh inverse points. It's actually a formula I used, which essentially really just adds "bonus points" to the inverse total. I don't like to consider them bonus points, though, but weighing the weeks and peak of the song; here's what it looks like:

inverse points + 10(weeks on) + (inverse peak)^1.5

I've used that on every year-end chart I've calcuated. However, I've considered tweaking it to accomodate for weeks at peak. Since, technically, a song peaking at #4 for 5 weeks gets just as many points at one that peaked there for 1 week. Of course, I'd hope the inverse points would reflect that duration. I've considered adding 0.01 to the exponent for every extra week it spends at the position. It would look like this:

(inverse peak)^[1.5 + (weeks at peak-1)/100]

My problem with that, though, is I fear it will weigh more toward #1 songs, since they're usually the ones spending many weeks at their peaks, not necessarily #17 songs. So I don't really think there's perfect way are deriving a year-end chart, short of rearranging the positions yourself, but I'd personally rather not want to do that.

[prenatt1166]

It looks like I might be in the minority. I use the simple inverse points method. My chart goes by the calendar year from the first week of January through December (using Staurdays). The formulas listed in this thread would be interesting to use, but I have been happy with my method for all these years. My view is, if you are going to bother "fixing" your chart because it doesn't look right, what is the point of creating a point method to begin with.

:)

[Deleted]

The said:

I think if you have a really big problem with the placement of songs and you think it had to do with a week quarter or whatnot, then it wouldn't hurt to do a little bit of shifting of songs on the year-end chart. I wouldn't go moving songs from #196 to #3 or anything though.

For the record, I don't do this. ;)

[mst3k]

prenatt1166 said:

It looks like I might be in the minority. I use the simple inverse points method. My chart goes by the calendar year from the first week of January through December (using Staurdays). The formulas listed in this thread would be interesting to use, but I have been happy with my method for all these years. My view is, if you are going to bother "fixing" your chart because it doesn't look right, what is the point of creating a point methos to begin with.

:)

I'm with you (except my chart is dated Fridays instead of Saturdays). I may not "agree" with how my yearend chart looks (f'rinstance, there may be a highly ranked song that I'm completely sick of now), but it directly reflects each song's weekly performance during the year.

[Matt4319]

I knew I'd get flak for the method I'm using this year, but in the end, it's my chart and no one can tell me how to compile it. It can be argued that my method is every bit as accurate as the direct inverse point method, and maybe even more so. When a song falls off your chart, you don't just stop listening to it, do you? Likewise, if you listen to a song a lot before it becomes a single, but once it finally comes out, you're sick of it, the song doesn't deserve to suffer on the year-end chart because of that.

Why shouldn't you agree with the way your year-end chart looks?

And at least I'm basing the chart mostly on points. I wonder what some of you would say to the people that compile their year-end chart with no regard to points earned during the year? (Not that I disagree with those who do it that way, though.)

[insect2]

Matt4319 said:

I knew I'd get flak for the method I'm using this year, but in the end, it's my chart and no one can tell me how to compile it. It can be argued that my method is every bit as accurate as the direct inverse point method, and maybe even more so. When a song falls off your chart, you don't just stop listening to it, do you? Likewise, if you listen to a song a lot before it becomes a single, but once it finally comes out, you're sick of it, the song doesn't deserve to suffer on the year-end chart because of that.

Why shouldn't you agree with the way your year-end chart looks?

And at least I'm basing the chart mostly on points. I wonder what some of you would say to the people that compile their year-end chart with no regard to points earned during the year? (Not that I disagree with those who do it that way, though.)

I don't think anyone was saying you shouldn't bump songs up or down your chart if that's what you want to do (at least I wasn't). I was just saying, for me personally, using the formula strictly to determine the year-end chart just seems accurate to me. If I felt there was some way to improve the accuracy of my chart, I'd pursue the option. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with adjusting positions on my chart.

On the point of hearing songs after they fall off, that's definitely true. But the way I see it is after they fall off, they're falling below the chart. So if I felt that I was hearing and liking a song enough that it would be rising, depending on how long it's been since it's fallen off, I may consider re-entering it.

My point is, I don't think there's a standard that every person needs to follow to create his or her chart. If you feel that some songs are out of place when using points, no one should stop you if that's how you feel. Just like if I felt like, for example, doubling a songs points after it reaches 26 weeks, because I felt it was be more accurate, then no one should stop me from doing it either.

[Deleted]

insect2 said:

So if I felt that I was hearing and liking a song enough that it would be rising, depending on how long it's been since it's fallen off, I may consider re-entering it.

Great point. Some people may complain that my chart is a mess if a song peaks at #20 and then a couple months later comes back on and peaks in the Top 5, but if the song is growing on you, you should let it back on.

[mst3k]

Matt4319 said:

I knew I'd get flak for the method I'm using this year, but in the end, it's my chart and no one can tell me how to compile it. It can be argued that my method is every bit as accurate as the direct inverse point method, and maybe even more so. When a song falls off your chart, you don't just stop listening to it, do you? Likewise, if you listen to a song a lot before it becomes a single, but once it finally comes out, you're sick of it, the song doesn't deserve to suffer on the year-end chart because of that.

Why shouldn't you agree with the way your year-end chart looks?

And at least I'm basing the chart mostly on points. I wonder what some of you would say to the people that compile their year-end chart with no regard to points earned during the year? (Not that I disagree with those who do it that way, though.)

Hey, they're personal charts, so everyone's free to compile 'em however they want to. I was just explaining the way I do it, which directly reflects my weekly charts. What I may do in addition to that, however, is compile a separate year-end list based entirely on how much I currently like the songs (sort of like how people update their all-time charts annually).

[Matt4319]

insect2 said:

I don't think anyone was saying you shouldn't bump songs up or down your chart if that's what you want to do (at least I wasn't).

I know, and I wasn't referring to you in my last post.

insect2 said:

I was just saying, for me personally, using the formula strictly to determine the year-end chart just seems accurate to me. If I felt there was some way to improve the accuracy of my chart, I'd pursue the option. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with adjusting positions on my chart.

I understand this as well. Most of the time, the inverse points method is accurate enough for me (that was the way I did it in 2002... in 2001 I used a points x peak formula, but I didn't consider using just points to be less accurate).

insect2 said:

On the point of hearing songs after they fall off, that's definitely true. But the way I see it is after they fall off, they're falling below the chart. So if I felt that I was hearing and liking a song enough that it would be rising, depending on how long it's been since it's fallen off, I may consider re-entering it.

That's true, but for most of the songs on my chart it was too late to re-enter them. I'll give you an example -- Eminem's "Lose Yourself" only spent 4 weeks on my chart in 2002, but as the year passed, I realized how good a song it was (to me). Therefore, it comes in at #85 on my year-end chart even though it barely made the top 200 in points.

[Matt4319]

mst3k1 said:

What I may do in addition to that, however, is compile a separate year-end list based entirely on how much I currently like the songs (sort of like how people update their all-time charts annually).

That's an interesting concept. I do admit my chart is a little bit biased toward how much I like the songs now, but that's the result of changing attitudes to the songs over the course of the year, which in my opinion is valid.

Also, I didn't mean to come off as too snappy in my response. If I seemed that way to anyone, I apologize.

[mst3k]

Matt4319 said:

Also, I didn't mean to come off as too snappy in my response. If I seemed that way to anyone, I apologize.

Nah... after reading the locked posts in the CHR/Pop forum, I wouldn't blame you for being snappy today. ;)

[BlahBlahBlah]

I just use inverse points too. I don't like the concept of bonus points because if a song is already doing well, there really is no need to give it any more additional boost. Seems a bit unfair to me. I don't like modifying my year-end chart, because I like to just straight-up show the entire Top 100 list with the exact number of points it actually earned throughout the year. Sometimes (such a last year), I may end up having a song on my top 100, a song that I may not like anymore. It's fine to me because it shows that at one point I did like that song and gives me a reason to laugh at myself and go "What the hell was I smoking?"

[Matt4319]

BlahBlahBlah said:

I just use inverse points too. I don't like the concept of bonus points because if a song is already doing well, there really is no need to give it any more additional boost. Seems a bit unfair to me. I don't like modifying my year-end chart, because I like to just straight-up show the entire Top 100 list with the exact number of points it actually earned throughout the year. Sometimes (such a last year), I may end up having a song on my top 100, a song that I may not like anymore. It's fine to me because it shows that at one point I did like that song and gives me a reason to laugh at myself and go "What the hell was I smoking?"

Yeah, but didn't you manipulate your recurrent list during the final weeks of the year to get Chad Kroeger & Josey Scott's "Hero" off the year-end chart?

[prenatt1166]

Everyone has their own way of compiling their chart and that's the joy of doing it. Everyone has different ideas and some of them are quite creative. Even if I wouldn't consider using them, I think it's impressive reading what some of the methods are.

:)

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Well for me, 'Still Desire You' would have been #4 for the year. I liked the song but never once did I really consider it a "strong" hit on my chart and it (should have) had a relatively faster drop than it did. Most of it's points were received during the song's slow rise. Needless to say, Melanie isn't #4 anymore. I mostly gave bonus points to songs that I continued to play long after they fell off my chart to make up for the time they would have spent in my "old songs under the Top 100" chart, if it existed.

[BlahBlahBlah]

Matt4319 said:

Yeah, but didn't you manipulate your recurrent list during the final weeks of the year to get Chad Kroeger & Josey Scott's "Hero" off the year-end chart?

Only one week. The points were so close that I thought I might as well.

Even that I was still unable to get rid of Vanessa Carlton and Celine Dion though. :(

[Unexpected]

I've been using this method for a couple years and it's given me some nice results. It's also really quick to tabulate since everything is done for you in excel(the point tabulation and ranks). I assign a block of positions a point value giving the higher positions more points at greater increments to really delineate the songs that rise and remain at top positions.

< 6 = 7pts/wk
< 11 = 4
< 21 = 2
< 31 = 1.26 (made this a weird number to break ties)
< 41 = 1
< N&A = .25

For example, one week in the top 5 would give the song 7+4+2+1.26+1+.25= 15.51 pts, while one week in top 10 would be 4+2+1.26+1+.25= 12.51 pts.

So what excel does is count how many times the song is in that position and multiplies it by the assigned point value.

So this chart system relies more on quality of positions and longevity, and songs aren't discriminated against as a result of strong/weak chart seasons.

[Yunohu]

I assess points to every song I think has a chance to make any of my weekly, monthly, seasonal, semiannual or annual charts. So far there are well over 800 such songs this year. The stronger the song, the higher the points. Then I rank all the songs for the week based on those points. For longer time periods, I merely sum up the weekly points during that time period, even going so far as divide the points within a week that fall over 2 different months (or other larger time period), so I've gotten pretty good with my multiples of 7. Songs keep getting points whether they make my chart or not, as long as there remains some interest in them, which often exceeds a year. In case of ties, I always chart the one that was previously ahead, and thus had not yet been surpassed, above the one coming from behind. The one behind has to earn its way ahead. I notice that R&R does the opposite.

The points I assess are arbitrary, but I consider 1000 as the ultimate peak possible. The top songs these days usually peak at about 1/3 that amount. I try to make a smooth point transition from one week to the next, and sometimes I have to adjust the points of a song, perhaps over a period of several weeks, if it's not projected where I want it to be.

Obviously this method takes a lot of time, but it ends up a quite accurate assessment of how strong I think a song is through its course, and songs that happen to be charting during a competitive period will not be at a disadvantage compared to songs charting during a weak period. In other words, it is possible for the #5 song of one week to have more points than the #1 song of another week, just as it is possible that you may prefer your fifth favorite song of a strong week over your favorite song of a weak week. The weekly ranking is just a relative, not absolute, assessment of the strengths of the songs, while the original assessed points are absolute.

I also have developed a complex, but what I consider a fair and accurate way of attributing points to songs when compiling a multitude of charts, no matter how large or small, which I may reveal some time in the future.