Pulse 100 yearend compilation method: Pts or PPR?

[Matt4319]

There's only one week to go in the 2003 year for the Pulse 100, and I've compiled the songs' performance using two methods: total points and points per reporter. (I only used PPR last year.)

Points is just the sum of all the point totals earned by a song each year in the 50-49-48-...-1 system (50 points for a #1 placement, 49 for a #2 placement, etc.). For example, "Hey Ya!" got 1634 points this week and 1583 last week. Songs are not credited any points if they were not eligible to chart for that week. (If a song had 39 points from 1 reporter in a particular week, that doesn't count toward its total.)

The second method I could use is the sum of Points Per Reporter totals. It's basically the same as the points method, except each week is weighted equally to account for changing levels in reporters. Example: "Hey Ya!" had 1634 points this week, and there were 55 reporters total (not 55 reporters for the song). It results in a PPR of 29.71 PPR (1634 ÷ 55) for the week. All the PPR totals are then added to make the sum.

There are advantages to either method (total points is the same method that R&R uses for its year-end charts, and allows for a round number; PPR weights each week equally in the results).

I'm kind of leaning toward one of the options, but I'd like to know what some of you think.

If you don't understand something I said, feel free to say here, and I'll try to explain it more efficiently.

[mst3k]

I'm leaning toward PPR (it is more fair, as it balances out any major fluctuations in number of reporters... which was definitely necessary in 2002). But either way would be fine by me, really. I'm sure the number one song won't change. :)

[BlahBlahBlah]

I agree.

[af18c]

PPR

[irice22]

Wait? I thought this was already complied, lol! What was that show you posted earlier about?

[Matt4319]

irice22 said:

Wait? I thought this was already complied, lol! What was that show you posted earlier about?

That was the year-end show for my personal chart. Did you listen to it? It's in my signature. :)

And you guys are going for the option I wasn't leaning toward. I'll keep it open for more votes though.

[FreakyFlyBry]

I also agree that the Points Per Reporter is the most accurate way to go, it worked fine last year, so hopefully this year it'll work just as well.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I like the PPP the best, I think.

Actually, assuming the # of reporters didn't fluctuate that much, use the first way and simply add up the points. If you had 10 reporters for the first chart of the year and 100 reporters for the last year, the #1 song of the last chart is more "special" because of more competition and stuff to deal with from more charts than the first #1 with only 10 reporters.

OR find some way to combine them. ;)

[chebingeo]

If you already did the totals, why not do both?

[irice22]

Matt4319 said:

That was the year-end show for my personal chart. Did you listen to it? It's in my signature. :)

And you guys are going for the option I wasn't leaning toward. I'll keep it open for more votes though.

I only had time to listen to some of it, but I plan on listening to the rest later.

[insect2]

I voted for PPR since it was the method used last year, and there's no point in making the year-end charts inconsistent.

On the other hand, the points method is the one I like more, since that's what's used every week, thus it should be used for the cumulative chart as well. So I could go with whatever winds up being used.

[Matt4319]

chebingeo said:

If you already did the totals, why not do both?

I could do that, but there would be question as to which chart is the "correct" one.

insect2 said:

I voted for PPR since it was the method used last year, and there's no point in making the year-end charts inconsistent.

That is a good point, but PPR was definitely needed last year because the reporter levels were so low at the beginning of the year (in the 30s) that the chart would be heavily weighted toward songs that were out later in the year.

If anyone was wondering, the reporter levels ranged from 54 to 73 this year. That's still a fairly decent range (about 30% of the average reporter level) though.