Red Mosquito

spike wrote:

The Argonaut wrote: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

Reply 1001.

Oh no it happened again,

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!"

BurtReynolds wrote:

Jorge wrote: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

Mickey wrote:

spike wrote:

The Argonaut wrote: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

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

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!

i told you
exclude PEARL JAM

fuck

Argos really milking this out.

lets not reveal the #1

please

maybe its Joy Division

no one wants this to end more than me

Jorge wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Jorge wrote: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.

all this trouble to make Ed Vedah #1

holy

Another band I voted for.

Kevin Davis wrote:

Jorge wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Jorge wrote: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.