RM Top 87 Artists-COMPLETE OFFICIAL LIST ANNOUNCED

[Mickey]

My scheme to make this the longest thread in RM history is working...

radiohead actually got the most votes, didn't they

No they're #2

[Simple Torture]

Reply 1001.

[Mickey]

Oh no it happened again,

[knee tunes]

[Simple Torture]

Mickey comes into this thread wearing a hot dog costume: "We've got to find the guy who won't let Argo get the top post on a page!"

[Jorge]

Boy that original list is BORING

Is the new list more or less boring?

A little less boring. But that's to be expected especially with the dumb three-mentions rule

[spike]

My scheme to make this the longest thread in RM history is working...

radiohead actually got the most votes, didn't they

No they're #2

why do you put your trust in the argonaut

[The Argonaut]

RM: please note that the guys complaining the most about the three ballot hurdle are the same guys who are complaining about the presence of your beloved Soundgarden and Alice in Chains on the list. They think they're better than you

[The Argonaut]

These hipsters think that because they like a band you've never heard of, that they're cooler than you and their opinion is more valid. Hipsters!

[psychobain]

i told you
exclude PEARL JAM

fuck

[verb_to_trust]

Argos really milking this out.

[psychobain]

lets not reveal the #1

please

maybe its Joy Division

[The Argonaut]

no one wants this to end more than me

[Kevin Davis]

Boy that original list is BORING

Is the new list more or less boring?

A little less boring. But that's to be expected especially with the dumb three-mentions rule

Genuine question: What would be the best way to weigh something like this? I totally agree with Argo that assigning 20 points to someone's top choice and 1 point to their bottom choice could, especially with only 43 respondents, create weird outliers that wouldn't really be representative of the information the list is trying to measure. Yeah, you can make the argument that maybe Pete loves The Mynabirds so much that there is more total "love" for the Mynabirds on RM coming from that one person than there is collective love for Thelonious Monk coming from 20 people, and maybe that's true, but that still feels like a level of unquantifiability that's too farfetched even for an exercise based on largely unquantifiable criteria. I feel like a statistics exercise ought to try to control for unrepresentative outliers, not find ways to include them just so the data can be less boring. Not to say there isn't a way to reflect differing levels of preference in people's voting, but I think Argo's reasoning in not using a 1 to 20 range is sound.

[psychobain]

all this trouble to make Ed Vedah #1

holy

[Anders]

Another band I voted for.

[Anders]

Boy that original list is BORING

Is the new list more or less boring?

A little less boring. But that's to be expected especially with the dumb three-mentions rule

Genuine question: What would be the best way to weigh something like this? I totally agree with Argo that assigning 20 points to someone's top choice and 1 point to their bottom choice could, especially with only 43 respondents, create weird outliers that wouldn't really be representative of the information the list is trying to measure. Yeah, you can make the argument that maybe Pete loves The Mynabirds so much that there is more total "love" for the Mynabirds on RM coming from that one person than there is collective love for Thelonious Monk coming from 20 people, and maybe that's true, but that still feels like a level of unquantifiability that's too farfetched even for an exercise based on largely unquantifiable criteria. I feel like a statistics exercise ought to try to control for unrepresentative outliers, not find ways to include them just so the data can be less boring. Not to say there isn't a way to reflect differing levels of preference in people's voting, but I think Argo's reasoning in not using a 1 to 20 range is sound.

Surely 1X20 points is better than 3X3 points.

[psychobain]

[Anders]

[Anders]