Posh one, slaggy one and anonymous young ones have indeed been pulled back into the orbit of Sharon D Clarke and her villainous thirst for fame.I hear that Six Chix have been spotted congregating at the Clapham Junction branch of Pumpkin, fuelling speculating that they will be reuniting for this event.
The final top 100 might need tie breaking, and might have a wider audience, so I don't think it's a waste of time to have a second pass at it. Keep rankings in PMs so the result isn't a forgone conclusion to anyone but ButtersI think both work but if you rate all the songs in each heat, there then isn’t a need for a final top 100 vote as you’ve already got one in ranking order right there as each song has already independently been rated.
If you did Eurovision-style voting in each heat (or even just chose a set number of qualifiers like Ag did) then that’s just as valid but you then would need to do a final rate with the shortlisted songs as you won’t have an overall ranking.
So basically it boils down to how long you want to drag it out!
The rating everything idea is the one I'm slightly leaning towards just because it's feasible that somebody could have 40 songs they like in one heat but only 5 in another but a set amount of scores to dish out for both, which might mean songs which would otherwise have got nothing from that poster end up getting points just because of the heat they're in.I think if you’re going to have a final vote on the top 100 (or whatever shortlist we end up with after the viewing parties) then we may as well just do an ESC style vote or a “choose 10 qualifiers” from each batch to get to that. It worked well for the ESC 100 last year.
The rate-for-every-viewing idea was just a way of streamlining the process really.
I kind of agree about just getting a shortlist by getting people to choose if we're going to end up doing a final rate anyway (which is absolutely right as you get the richness of data then). I don't know how many songs you've got on your shortlist @ButterTart but if you do ten evenly spread heats with 30 songs each and have 12 going through from each one then that's still quite lot for people to choose from in the final list.My opinion is that at this stage it’s better to just get the 100 favourites by asking people to make Sophie’s Choices and allocate points. You just need to make sure that the heats are evenly balanced by decade and how well known they are, with the obvious big-hitters not all in one.
Although I didn’t realise the idea was to get a full ranking of every song suggested, so if that’s the goal then rating them all is obviously fairer, but also potentially quite long and boring. I also feel like in that scenario 7/10 songs fare better than those that are loved by small but significant numbers.
Okay, this seems like a great idea. So the heats would be a straight 1-10 rate at first?Additional idea: split them all into different heats then rate them as normal as it goes along. At the end, once all the heats are finished and the complete list is out, have the chance to award 25, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12 and 11 to your top ten, as with the Eurovision Hot 100.
Oh yes I forgot that’s how we did the top 100, that was fun.Okay, this seems like a great idea. So the heats would be a straight 1-10 rate at first?
The reason I’m favouring a rate is that all songs get equal footing and they aren’t being judged in terms of the heat they’re in. I think the simplest idea is to get everyone to rate 1-10 in the heats, then allocate their higher points once the full list is available.Oh yes I forgot that’s how we did the top 100, that was fun.
When we did that, the heats were just “Pick X qualifiers” - I think I’d favour that as I do wonder whether a 1-10 rate might make the final bunch kind of Sweden-heavy due to the higher averages a lot of the more polished ones might get?
Whereas if you have to actually discriminate and make a choice we might get some more colourful choices through… possibly… might not make much difference.
This is excellent and I wholeheartedly endorse this idea.The reason I’m favouring a rate is that all songs get equal footing and they aren’t being judged in terms of the heat they’re in. I think the simplest idea is to get everyone to rate 1-10 in the heats, then allocate their higher points once the full list is available.
I feel like this is straightforward, there’s no need for an additional rate for the top 100, and people still get the chance to reward their absolute favourites and don’t have to make a Sophie’s choice when their top 3 of all time end up in the same heat.
Just make a ?? equal to a 05. It isn't overly punishing or rewarding, but it means that things can't be averaged into a weird place.Oh HANG ON…
What to do about incomplete rates? Because presumably not everyone will send in a rate every week after each viewing sesh…
I’m possibly back to favouring the “nominate 12 qualifiers” way… or a big enough number that’s it’s not a Sophie’s Choice and I’m sure your expert playlisting will avoid any one heat being too stacked.