RM Top 87 Artists-COMPLETE OFFICIAL LIST ANNOUNCED

[The Argonaut]

1. Pearl Jam

From the ashes of Mother Love Bone rose the prototypical Seattle grunge band, with a driving sound and a long run as one of the most principled and hard-working groups in rock.

[knee tunes]

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.

I think because the number of responses ended up being less than anticipated, the 3-person criteria could have been reduced to 2.

[knee tunes]

Great. Now I have to log off to see what made the top page

[tree_]

boo PJ are not good

[spike]

[elliseamos]

I officially had 11.
Thanks, Argo!

Spoiler: show

1. Pearl Jam
2. Radiohead
3. Bob Dylan
4. Neil Young
5. Nathaniel Rateliff & The Nightsweats
6. Alabama Shakes
7. Fiona Apple
8. Beck
9. The Grateful Dead
10. The Beatles
11. Hiss Golden Messenger
12. Bahamas
13. Khruangbin
14. Liana La Havas
15. Soundgarden
16. Lewis Del Mar
17. Mt. Joy
18. Fleet Foxes
19. Fruit Bats
20. Pink Floyd

[tragabigzanda]

[Chris_H_2]

gee. what. a. surprise.

[BurtReynolds]

It's finally done, for better or for worse.

[Simple Torture]

1. Pearl Jam

From the ashes of Mother Love Bone rose the prototypical Seattle grunge band, with a driving sound and a long run as one of the most principled and hard-working groups in rock.

Argo totally redeems himself.

[spike]

congratulations pearl jam and participants!

[Anders]

Ended up on 2.

[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.

I think because the number of responses ended up being less than anticipated, the 3-person criteria could have been reduced to 2.

I think I misread how this works. I thought it was going on number of votes received, and then within the number of votes received, they were ranked based on points. So, all artists who received four votes would appear higher than those who received three votes, but in order to sort within the vote counts, weights were applied.

Disregard my post, I don't know where I got that idea.

[bada]

Only 9 I started off so good thought I was gonna dominate.

A Tribe Called Quest
Beastie Boys ✓
Black Sabbath
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Parliament\Funkadelic
Ice Cube
Iron Maiden ✓
Johnny Cash ✓
Louis Armstrong
Marvin Gaye
Michael Jackson
Otis Redding ✓
The Police
Prince ✓
Rick James
Sam Cooke ✓
Sly & The Family Stone
Smokey Robinson
Stevie Wonder ✓
Tom Petty ✓
Van Halen ✓
Willie Nelson

[Chris_H_2]

i'm not about to take any pride in the fact that some of my picks were also picked by the same people that had pearl jam at or so near to the no. 1 spot.

[wease]

I ended with 11.

[knee tunes]

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.

I think because the number of responses ended up being less than anticipated, the 3-person criteria could have been reduced to 2.

I think I misread how this works. I thought it was going on number of votes received, and then within the number of votes received, they were ranked based on points. So, all artists who received four votes would appear higher than those who received three votes, but in order to sort within the vote counts, weights were applied.

Disregard my post, I don't know where I got that idea.

The way you just described would have worked better.

[knee tunes]

I had 12.

I won

[Anders]

Not sure that’s winning.

[Mickey]

The obvious solution is to have a complex weighting system which awards additional points for multiple appearances but doesn't exclude any entries