[bernabby]

Alistair S, on 24 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

1-13 works fine. I just didn't think of the simple solution!

Bernabby, the averaging is for your own score. In the current system, it's a (fallible) way of ensuring that you don't score everyone low to make your own entry do better. It wouldn't work in a ranking system, for obvious reasons.

Quote

That's one of the problems of averaging. Entrants artificially inflate their scores so as to ensure a higher score for their own entries. It doesn't reflect a true representation of their opinions. Ranking would eliminate that concern because they wouldn't have to worry where their score will be placed in relation to the rest of the scores.

However, in a ranking system, you could score the best song last (for example). That is why I suggest removing anonymity - if we have to go for ranking. Well now Ali, that's the beauty of ranking. Who is to say which is the best song? To each his own don't you think? You're not going to prevent the rascal from trying to sabotage votes no matter the scoring system that is used. I like to think those who participate in the contests and the voters have better things to do.

P.S. On another matter, I think the contest is only designed to give raw feedback in the form of a score. Any detail is what the crits fora are for.

Yes, and those who want crits usually post in the forums.

[Scotto]

I kind of like option 3. The guidance notes help add more meaning. I don't mind option 2 either.

Ranking doesn't really describe the quality of the song. It just ranks them in order. I don't think I'd learn as much that way.

So my official vote is 3...

[ScenesFromPalacio]

I vote #2..Keep things the same..and let people rank if they want..

I like the fact that votings basically anonymous -but not anonymous enough-with the columns showing scores-that someone could get away with really obvious cheat voting..
Its a happy compromise..

I think that open totally accountable voting would ironically make things less honest -not more..
There's so many strong friendship ties people naturally have here -and 'open' voting is likely going to put pressure on people to vote artificially high for friends -so's not to upset them -and that can't be good..

[Ironknee]

My question is....are we upset with the way these contests turn out?....or the lack of comments as to why we get the low marks? I believe we have the tools already set up for feedback....
...Myself and only two others have posted thier contest entries on the songs forum. That tells me that most aren't interested as to why they got the marks they got, or any opinions on thier entry .........And that, to me, means that they are looking for something else.
Anyways....I vote for #2........if anyone really wants footnotes, post the song on the song's forum.......I believe that should be a matter of protocol, anyways.
I got a few 6's and some 4's....I'd sure like to know what was the turn offs.......but then again, I'm not getting much commenters on my song
-Tom

[kimberlyinnc]

I think I have already stated my preferences but will do so again for hopefully a vote to be calculated

I chose

Quote

3. Use (1 to 10) but with guidance notes e.g. 1=Poor and 10=Mega hit
This will be how it was 4 or 5 years ago and similar to how the lyric comp is now (but without those pesky half marks

BUT I would like those pesky (not sure what is so pesky or hard about them) marks, because when one has 19 lyrics, it is hard to avoid many ties unless you mark one lower than it deserves, maybe the half point will help with that some?

I also want there to be a guideline made for song contest as there is one for lyrical. That way when I get for instance a 6 on a score
I know that person picked it for reason a, b and c...when scoring.
Of course later I would enter mine in the regular crit. forum but sometimes the same people who scored the contest may not crit. in the crit. forum. To know that 6 may mean..for example
the lyric was good, understandable but lacked flow, content or rhyme (or whatever) song was barely remembered after done, could use vast changes.
then I would know that the 6s felt it needed quite a bit of work..

then if it is not visited by that same scorer in the crit. forum, at least I know how they felt when they scored it.

I am not sure we should put names on scores. If that person wants to speak up and say YES I gave so and so a 3 then so be it, but it is their right and choice to do so, just make it clear by the scorecard what a 3 means..by having it written down, basics...if we don't know if its a rank or a score, it confuses~~

Kim

[jonie]

#2 with the possibility of allowing for .5 scoring if the contest gets a great number of entries. (I wish the lyric contest would allow for .5 scoring considering there is anywhere from 15 - 20 lyrics to score) Song contests don't have that same issue now, but may at times in the future.

Crits should be left to the Forum designed for them. I can see even the most minimal crits given alongside a score leading to a full blown discussion on the contest thread. Not where they belong, IMO.

I agree with Alistair's thoughts on a pure 1 - 10 ranking system and it's potential for abuse and hanky panky.

A combination of the two, as long as the ranked scores are designated at such r1, r8, etc, could work but the set mindsets of some, may not be able to separate the intent of a 1 meaning least liked from a 1 meaning dog crap.

I think we've been doing well with the #2 scoring system and wonder why it's necessary to fix what isn't broke.

[Alistair S]

Just to be clear, my vote is #2.

[NigeQ]

Just to clarify my views on 0.5 marks. I don’t have a problem with them, it’s just a spreadsheet after all The reason I call them ‘pesky’ is that I find it odd that some people want half marks to differentiate songs when they don’t even use the range that is already available.

Ok, here’s a variation on Option 2:

Option 2 but with half marks - if we went for this I probably would not be able to annotate the ranking scores because they will be harder to detect (basically because chances are there will be gaps in the scoring and many scores not used)

[ScenesFromPalacio]

Quote

Option 2 but with half marks - if we went for this I probably would not be able to annotate the ranking scores because they will be harder to detect (basically because chances are there will be gaps in the scoring and many scores not used)

I vote not have them.There's enough range with the numbers we've got already.

[Thinman]

Thinman votes for straight ranking of songs:

Whole numbers 1 to (N) representing favourite to least-favourite - where 1 is your favourite and N is any whole number greater than 1 and equal to the number of entries.

If you can't decide between (say) 3 songs then give them all a 1 and the next favourite in your list will be 4, etc

Add up vote placings - divide by number of voters (V) to give average ranking - lowest score wins

If you want to add a mathematical complexity for when the number of entries is not exactly 10 then the the results could easily be normalised to a situation with 10 entries by multiplying all final scores by (10/N) - this enables an entrant to compare his average ranking month by month (should he or she be interested).

I would also vote for non-anonymity as it would save all the meaningless "I had XXXX first with YYY and ZZZ a close 2nd".

Robby

[neuroron]

It absolutely befuddles me why you don't have the most obvious choice that captures the best of both systems:

Everyone just scores the songs on absolute scale with anchors (e.g., 10 =classic... 1 = poor) and use however many decimal point precision you want - this gives the writer/performer feedback as to how good the scorer thought the song was on its own, BUT for the COMPETITION tally, the score is converted to a ranking within each scorer - the spreadsheet does the conversion so there is actually no work involved, then you average all the ranks [although using a median would be more proper] to determine the winners.

The feedback each contestant would get would be a string of figures like this: 4.6/7 which would indicate that from scorer #1 s/he got a 4.6 absolute score which was 7th place among that scorers rankings.

This system is easy for the scorer, just indicate how good you think the song is - it gives maximum feedback to the contestants - and by using the computations on rankings it mitigates the effect when outlier low absolute scores are given. Maximum feedback, minimum ambiguity and work! and

Taking Thinman's comment above, after the contest, people could declare, I was scorer #1, e.g. if they liked. Also, if you used percentile ranking instead of Rank as the conversion (sort of the logical inverse) you could eliminate the inane concept of using everyone's average score for others as a score in their own tally. Also, by using any number of decimal points people wanted you could probably eliminate ties since it would probably be psychologically easier for scorers to untie the scores by infinitesimally separating them.

Actually, I would love to moderate a one-off comp just to use a scoring system like that and provide detailed graphic feedback to the contestants just to demonstrate the concept.

[Dottie]

For what it’s worth I like the way we used to score the lyric contest 1-10 based on that lyric alone. Also I think it would a very good idea to keep the scoring the same in the song and lyric contest, I think you might even get more voters that way. But at the very least I think everyone should be voting the same way otherwise what good is the score to the writer? I mean if you’re not sure what a 1 or a 5 means it’s no help at all. I rather like the idea of using half points too, I know if we’d done that in the past I could have separated some that I had to tie.

Dottie

[Alistair S]

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

It absolutely befuddles me why you don't have the most obvious choice that captures the best of both systems:

Well, probably because none of us thought of it!

I like the idea.

I don't understand this bit. Could you explain a little? It sounds good, but I'm not sure I fully grasp it. I are dumb sometimes.

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Also, if you used percentile ranking instead of Rank #1 as the conversion (sort of the logical inverse) you could eliminate the inane concept of using everyone's average score for others as a score in their own tally.

I'd certainly be interested in trying it!

[porcupine]

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

It absolutely befuddles me why you don't have the most obvious choice that captures the best of both systems:

Everyone just scores the songs on absolute scale with anchors (e.g., 10 =classic... 1 = poor) and use however many decimal point precision you want - this gives the writer/performer feedback as to how good the scorer thought the song was on its own, BUT for the COMPETITION tally, the score is converted to a ranking within each scorer - the spreadsheet does the conversion so there is actually no work involved, then you average all the ranks [although using a median would be more proper] to determine the winners.

The feedback each contestant would get would be a string of figures like this: 4.6/7 which would indicate that from scorer #1 s/he got a 4.6 absolute score which was 7th place among that scorers rankings.

This system is easy for the scorer, just indicate how good you think the song is - it gives maximum feedback to the contestants - and by using the computations on rankings it mitigates the effect when outlier low absolute scores are given. Maximum feedback, minimum ambiguity and work! and

Taking Thinman's comment above, after the contest, people could declare, i was scorer #1, e.g. if they liked. Also, if you used percentile ranking instead of Rank #1 as the conversion (sort of the logical inverse) you could eliminate the inane concept of using everyone's average score for others as a score in their own tally. Also, by using any number of decimal points people wanted you could probably eliminate ties since it would probably be psychologically easier for scorers to untie the scores by infitesimally separating them.

Actually, I would love to moderate a one-off comp just to use a scoring system like that and provide detailed graphic feedback to the contestants just to demonstrate the concept.

BAZINGA!

LOVE IT!

[Scotto]

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

It absolutely befuddles me why you don't have the most obvious choice that captures the best of both systems:

Everyone just scores the songs on absolute scale with anchors (e.g., 10 =classic... 1 = poor) and use however many decimal point precision you want - this gives the writer/performer feedback as to how good the scorer thought the song was on its own, BUT for the COMPETITION tally, the score is converted to a ranking within each scorer - the spreadsheet does the conversion so there is actually no work involved, then you average all the ranks [although using a median would be more proper] to determine the winners.

The feedback each contestant would get would be a string of figures like this: 4.6/7 which would indicate that from scorer #1 s/he got a 4.6 absolute score which was 7th place among that scorers rankings.

This system is easy for the scorer, just indicate how good you think the song is - it gives maximum feedback to the contestants - and by using the computations on rankings it mitigates the effect when outlier low absolute scores are given. Maximum feedback, minimum ambiguity and work! and

Taking Thinman's comment above, after the contest, people could declare, i was scorer #1, e.g. if they liked. Also, if you used percentile ranking instead of Rank #1 as the conversion (sort of the logical inverse) you could eliminate the inane concept of using everyone's average score for others as a score in their own tally. Also, by using any number of decimal points people wanted you could probably eliminate ties since it would probably be psychologically easier for scorers to untie the scores by infitesimally separating them.

Actually, I would love to moderate a one-off comp just to use a scoring system like that and provide detailed graphic feedback to the contestants just to demonstrate the concept.

In!

[neuroron]

Alistair S, on 25 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

It absolutely befuddles me why you don't have the most obvious choice that captures the best of both systems:

Well, probably because none of us thought of it!

I like the idea.

I don't understand this bit. Could you explain a little? It sounds good, but I'm not sure I fully grasp it. I are dumb sometimes.

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Also, if you used percentile ranking instead of Rank #1 as the conversion (sort of the logical inverse) you could eliminate the inane concept of using everyone's average score for others as a score in their own tally.

I'd certainly be interested in trying it!

Assume, there are 10 entries. A non-entrant scorer ranks for example 10 songs in order: 1st place would be given a percentile score of 100 [the score is > or = 100% of the scores), 2nd 90, etc. Now an entrant scorer scores only 9 songs [since they are not scoring their own]. 1st place gets a %ile rank of 100, 2nd place 89 [8/9 X 100 ~ 89%], etc. Then all the competitive computations are based on these scores - there is no need to impute another score based on the entrant's scoring of others.

[bernabby]

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

Alistair S, on 25 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

It absolutely befuddles me why you don't have the most obvious choice that captures the best of both systems:

Well, probably because none of us thought of it!

I like the idea.

I don't understand this bit. Could you explain a little? It sounds good, but I'm not sure I fully grasp it. I are dumb sometimes.

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Also, if you used percentile ranking instead of Rank #1 as the conversion (sort of the logical inverse) you could eliminate the inane concept of using everyone's average score for others as a score in their own tally.

I'd certainly be interested in trying it!

Assume, there are 10 entries. A non-entrant scorer ranks for example 10 songs in order: 1st place would be given a percentile score of 100 [the score is > or = 100% of the scores), 2nd 90, etc. Now an entrant scorer scores only 9 songs [since they are not scoring their own]. 1st place gets a %ile rank of 100, 2nd place 89 [8/9 X 100 ~ 89%], etc. Then all the competitive computations are based on these scores - there is no need to impute another score based on the entrant's scoring of others.

You lost me after percentile score. I can't, for the life of me, understand why it has to be so complex. What's wrong with just straight ranking 1 thru 20. For informationsl purposes, why is it any different if your song is ranked an average 11th or scored an average 3? What does that tell you? In either scoring system it suggests that it was not well received as the others ahead but better than those below. In either case, you're not going to know why unless those who scored are willing to go on the record to tell you why. Those wondering why some scored it a 2 while others a 7 can only conclude that some liked it while others didn't - the same information you will get in the ranking system. A 1 ranked song may be 20 in the eyes of another and vice versa. Ranking is a more pure indicator as it is less vulnerable to manipulative scoring. Someone mentioned the "friends" factor in scoring. I suspect there is an element of that in the 1 to 10 scale but if forced to rank that element is removed. I don't favor an aforementioned sharing of ranking as this is only an extension of the 1 to 10 rule where people can continue that friendship vote with the use of ties. I think we need to get away from the cluttering tie voting comments - it's becoming a boring read. It seems you want to have this contest but don't want anyone to finish last or with scores less than 4. Keeping the dual scoring system allows scorers to rank an entry a 1 which, it seems, is not as offensive as scoring it a 1. Come on people, thicken your skins. You can still be friends even if your friend doesn't rank your song as high as you ranked his/hers. Am I being insensitive or practical?

[neuroron]

bernabby, on 25 April 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

You lost me after percentile score. I can't, for the life of me, understand why it has to be so complex. What's wrong with just straight ranking 1 thru 20. For informationsl purposes, why is it any different if your song is ranked an average 11th or scored an average 3? What does that tell you? In either scoring system it suggests that it was not well received as the others ahead but better than those below. In either case, you're not going to know why unless those who scored are willing to go on the record to tell you why. Those wondering why some scored it a 2 while others a 7 can only conclude that some liked it while others didn't - the same information you will get in the ranking system. A 1 ranked song may be 20 in the eyes of another and vice versa. Ranking is a more pure indicator as it is less vulnerable to manipulative scoring. Someone mentioned the "friends" factor in scoring. I suspect there is an element of that in the 1 to 10 scale but if forced to rank that element is removed. I don't favor an aforementioned sharing of ranking as this is only an extension of the 1 to 10 rule where people can continue that friendship vote with the use of ties. I think we need to get away from the cluttering tie voting comments - it's becoming a boring read. It seems you want to have this contest but don't want anyone to finish last or with scores less than 4. Keeping the dual scoring system allows scorers to rank an entry a 1 which, it seems, is not as offensive as scoring it a 1. Come on people, thicken your skins. You can still be friends even if your friend doesn't rank your song as high as you ranked his/hers. Am I being insensitive or practical?

There is absolutely nothing complex in this. The problem with a straight RANK scoring is it tells you nothing about what anyone thought of your song - only relative to the others. If people thought all the songs entered one month were excellent, a low ranking wouldn't give you that information. The rankings give you no information about what people thought about your song only relative to that month's other entries. In the broad picture, the rankings mean nothing, people don't go out and buy records of their #1 ranked artist, if they love five songs,they buy the five - if they don't "love" their #1, they don't even buy that. So AFAIC the "rank score" doesn't give me meaningful feedback. The ranking only matters to the contest at hand - if all you care about the score you get is whether you win this contest [and all the accompanying fame and prizes] then of course you just want the ranks, but if you care about what people thought about your song (did they really like it), the ranks tell you nothing. And if you do the math, you will see that this system is no more susceptible to gaming than the ranks.

[Alistair S]

I like it, Ron. It's really quite elegant.

[bernabby]

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

bernabby, on 25 April 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

You lost me after percentile score. I can't, for the life of me, understand why it has to be so complex. What's wrong with just straight ranking 1 thru 20. For informationsl purposes, why is it any different if your song is ranked an average 11th or scored an average 3? What does that tell you? In either scoring system it suggests that it was not well received as the others ahead but better than those below. In either case, you're not going to know why unless those who scored are willing to go on the record to tell you why. Those wondering why some scored it a 2 while others a 7 can only conclude that some liked it while others didn't - the same information you will get in the ranking system. A 1 ranked song may be 20 in the eyes of another and vice versa. Ranking is a more pure indicator as it is less vulnerable to manipulative scoring. Someone mentioned the "friends" factor in scoring. I suspect there is an element of that in the 1 to 10 scale but if forced to rank that element is removed. I don't favor an aforementioned sharing of ranking as this is only an extension of the 1 to 10 rule where people can continue that friendship vote with the use of ties. I think we need to get away from the cluttering tie voting comments - it's becoming a boring read. It seems you want to have this contest but don't want anyone to finish last or with scores less than 4. Keeping the dual scoring system allows scorers to rank an entry a 1 which, it seems, is not as offensive as scoring it a 1. Come on people, thicken your skins. You can still be friends even if your friend doesn't rank your song as high as you ranked his/hers. Am I being insensitive or practical?

There is absolutely nothing complex in this. The problem with a straight RANK scoring is it tells you nothing about what anyone thought of your song - only relative to the others. If people thought all the songs entered on month were excellent, a low ranking wouldn't give you that information.

Quote

Not necessarily. The variation in ranking would give that indication. If all the voters ranked different songs at the top this would suggest a good crop of songs, don't you agree?

The rankings give you no information about what people thought about your song only relative to that month's other entries.

Quote

We'll have to disagree because you get the same information in ranking that you do in scoring. For example, in a group of 10 entries what is the information you get if your song is ranked 7th or scored a 3?

In the broad picture, the rankings mean nothing, people don't go out and buy records of their #1 ranked artist, if they love five songs,they buy the five - if they don't "love" their #1, they don't even buy that. So AFAIC the "rank score" doesn't give me meaningful feedback. The ranking only matters to the contest at hand - if all you care about the score you get is whether you win this contest [and all the accompanying fame and prizes] then of course you just want the ranks, but if you care about what people thought about your song 9did they really like it), the ranks tell you nothing. And if you do the math, you will see that this system is no more susceptible to gaming than the ranks.

Maybe I'm missing something but aren't all the scores published be it ranking or other? You can reconcile the same information from the individual ranks that you can from the scores. I don't understand your analogy regarding artists/songs. This is not your favorite artist contest - though that might be the case in a scoring format.

[porcupine]

Maybe I'm missing something but aren't all the scores published be it ranking or other? You can reconcile the same information from the individual ranks that you can from the scores. I don't understand your analogy regarding artists/songs. This is not your favorite artist contest - though that might be the case in a scoring format.
Then answer this question...without you having heard the 10 songs that were in the contest, were they all good or bad? what does a 10 mean as far as the #1 song, was it good or just the best of the 10 crappy songs entered?

Lets say these were the songs entered and they finished...
1. My Humps-The Black Eyed Peas
2. The Town is Ours by The Jonas Brothers
3. Achy Breaky Heart by Billy Ray Cyrus
4. You're Beautiful James Blunt
5. How Am I Supposed to Live Without You Michael Bolton
6. We Built This City Starship
7. Prom Queen Lil Wayne
8. Popozao Kevin Federline
9. Baby by Justin Beiber
10. Friday by Rebecca Black
does that make My humps a great song? NO
does it make Friday the worst song? NO


Sorry Alistair, not quite as elegant from me! lol

[neuroron]

bernabby, on 25 April 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

bernabby, on 25 April 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

You lost me after percentile score. I can't, for the life of me, understand why it has to be so complex. What's wrong with just straight ranking 1 thru 20. For informationsl purposes, why is it any different if your song is ranked an average 11th or scored an average 3? What does that tell you? In either scoring system it suggests that it was not well received as the others ahead but better than those below. In either case, you're not going to know why unless those who scored are willing to go on the record to tell you why. Those wondering why some scored it a 2 while others a 7 can only conclude that some liked it while others didn't - the same information you will get in the ranking system. A 1 ranked song may be 20 in the eyes of another and vice versa. Ranking is a more pure indicator as it is less vulnerable to manipulative scoring. Someone mentioned the "friends" factor in scoring. I suspect there is an element of that in the 1 to 10 scale but if forced to rank that element is removed. I don't favor an aforementioned sharing of ranking as this is only an extension of the 1 to 10 rule where people can continue that friendship vote with the use of ties. I think we need to get away from the cluttering tie voting comments - it's becoming a boring read. It seems you want to have this contest but don't want anyone to finish last or with scores less than 4. Keeping the dual scoring system allows scorers to rank an entry a 1 which, it seems, is not as offensive as scoring it a 1. Come on people, thicken your skins. You can still be friends even if your friend doesn't rank your song as high as you ranked his/hers. Am I being insensitive or practical?

There is absolutely nothing complex in this. The problem with a straight RANK scoring is it tells you nothing about what anyone thought of your song - only relative to the others. If people thought all the songs entered on month were excellent, a low ranking wouldn't give you that information.

Quote

Not necessarily. The variation in ranking would give that indication. If all the voters ranked different songs at the top this would suggest a good crop of songs, don't you agree?

The rankings give you no information about what people thought about your song only relative to that month's other entries.

Quote

We'll have to disagree because you get the same information in ranking that you do in scoring. For example, in a group of 10 entries what is the information you get if your song is ranked 7th or scored a 3?

In the broad picture, the rankings mean nothing, people don't go out and buy records of their #1 ranked artist, if they love five songs,they buy the five - if they don't "love" their #1, they don't even buy that. So AFAIC the "rank score" doesn't give me meaningful feedback. The ranking only matters to the contest at hand - if all you care about the score you get is whether you win this contest [and all the accompanying fame and prizes] then of course you just want the ranks, but if you care about what people thought about your song 9did they really like it), the ranks tell you nothing. And if you do the math, you will see that this system is no more susceptible to gaming than the ranks.

Maybe I'm missing something but aren't all the scores published be it ranking or other? You can reconcile the same information from the individual ranks that you can from the scores. I don't understand your analogy regarding artists/songs. This is not your favorite artist contest - though that might be the case in a scoring format.

Your logic is all off B. Let's say this was the 100 meter dash. Runners' rankings [i.e., place] give you no information about how fast they run. On the other hand their absolute time tells you everything about their ranking/place.

"Artist" was a typo - just refers to songs - "place" means nothing - absolute liking is everything about whether you would actually buy a record.

[Thinman]

Isn't it just a contest ? You want to know placings only ? is anyone interested in an average mark out of 10 ?

Keep it simple

[bernabby]

Quote

Your logic is all off B. Let's say this was the 100 meter dash. Runners' rankings [i.e., place] give you no information about how fast they run. On the other hand their absolute time tells you everything about their ranking/place.

"Artist" was a typo - just refers to songs - "place" means nothing - absolute liking is everything about whether you would actually buy a record.

My logic is logic - your example of the 100 meter dash has a big problem. Runners' rankings before the race means nothing other than getting preference for lane assignments. When the race is finished they are ranked 1st, 2nd etc and their running times are posted. All that tells you is the order of finish. What else does it tell you? Ranking songs allows the voters to determine the order of finish, for sure. That, in and of itself, tells a lot. If we were to use your example we would have to rank all the contestants before their entries are submitted but that means absolutely nothing in terms of where their entries will finish. It's just like a horse race where betting determines the order bettors expect the horses to finish. Unfortunately, no one told the horses. My point is ranking before outcome means nothing in a 100 meter or horse race.
Do you know how many people buy records because of the artist? If it was just buying because of liking there would be no Justin Bieber.

[bernabby]

porcupine, on 25 April 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Maybe I'm missing something but aren't all the scores published be it ranking or other? You can reconcile the same information from the individual ranks that you can from the scores. I don't understand your analogy regarding artists/songs. This is not your favorite artist contest - though that might be the case in a scoring format.
Then answer this question...without you having heard the 10 songs that were in the contest, were they all good or bad? what does a 10 mean as far as the #1 song, was it good or just the best of the 10 crappy songs entered?

Quote

Um, without hearing the 10 songs in the contest I wouldn't know if they were all good or bad!!!! It means I liked that song the best (I think the ranking order has been changed where 1 is tops). Isn't that what we are asked to judge? In your example, if this were 10 crappy songs all the scores would be 1's,2's and 3's right? So, what does that tell you? You'll never see that kind of scoring because people will lie first before offending. Ranking brings out the truth and you get much more information than you can extract from average scores.

Lets say these were the songs entered and they finished...
1. My Humps-The Black Eyed Peas
2. The Town is Ours by The Jonas Brothers
3. Achy Breaky Heart by Billy Ray Cyrus
4. You're Beautiful James Blunt
5. How Am I Supposed to Live Without You Michael Bolton
6. We Built This City Starship
7. Prom Queen Lil Wayne
8. Popozao Kevin Federline
9. Baby by Justin Beiber
10. Friday by Rebecca Black
does that make My humps a great song? NO
does it make Friday the worst song? NO

Quote

Would averaging make either one the best or worst? I can't follow your logic.

Sorry Alistair, not quite as elegant from me! lol

Great/worst song from the perspective of whom??? Certainly, from the perspective of people shelling out money to buy records this ranking is a good indicator of what people like. How is it any different when applied to our voting the song we like best? Bottom line is listeners not where it fits in a scale of 1 to 10.

[neuroron]

bernabby, on 25 April 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Quote

Your logic is all off B. Let's say this was the 100 meter dash. Runners' rankings [i.e., place] give you no information about how fast they run. On the other hand their absolute time tells you everything about their ranking/place.

"Artist" was a typo - just refers to songs - "place" means nothing - absolute liking is everything about whether you would actually buy a record.

My logic is logic - your example of the 100 meter dash has a big problem. Runners' rankings before the race means nothing other than getting preference for lane assignments. When the race is finished they are ranked 1st, 2nd etc and their running times are posted. All that tells you is the order of finish. What else does it tell you? Ranking songs allows the voters to determine the order of finish, for sure. That, in and of itself, tells a lot. If we were to use your example we would have to rank all the contestants before their entries are submitted but that means absolutely nothing in terms of where their entries will finish. It's just like a horse race where betting determines the order bettors expect the horses to finish. Unfortunately, no one told the horses. My point is ranking before outcome means nothing in a 100 meter or horse race.
Do you know how many people buy records because of the artist? If it was just buying because of liking there would be no Justin Bieber.

I didn't think it was possible to miss the argument by analogy with the race, because it is in fact dead on - but I was wrong

[bernabby]

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

bernabby, on 25 April 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Quote

Your logic is all off B. Let's say this was the 100 meter dash. Runners' rankings [i.e., place] give you no information about how fast they run. On the other hand their absolute time tells you everything about their ranking/place.

"Artist" was a typo - just refers to songs - "place" means nothing - absolute liking is everything about whether you would actually buy a record.

My logic is logic - your example of the 100 meter dash has a big problem. Runners' rankings before the race means nothing other than getting preference for lane assignments. When the race is finished they are ranked 1st, 2nd etc and their running times are posted. All that tells you is the order of finish. What else does it tell you? Ranking songs allows the voters to determine the order of finish, for sure. That, in and of itself, tells a lot. If we were to use your example we would have to rank all the contestants before their entries are submitted but that means absolutely nothing in terms of where their entries will finish. It's just like a horse race where betting determines the order bettors expect the horses to finish. Unfortunately, no one told the horses. My point is ranking before outcome means nothing in a 100 meter or horse race.
Do you know how many people buy records because of the artist? If it was just buying because of liking there would be no Justin Bieber.

I didn't think it was possible to miss the argument by analogy with the race, because it is in fact dead on - but I was wrong

Ok, so will you change your vote to ranking?

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 26 April 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

neuroron, on 25 April 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

I didn't think it was possible to miss the argument by analogy with the race, because it is in fact dead on - but I was wrong

Ok, so will you change your vote to ranking?

Irony is often wasted.

[porcupine]

Here's the botton line...
If you place dead last in a contest, how do you improve knowing ONLY that you got last place? The number defines nothing.

[Bruce N]

3. Use (1 to 10) but with guidance notes e.g. 1=Poor and 10=Mega hit
This will be how it was 4 or 5 years ago and similar to how the lyric comp is now (but without those pesky half marks )

That's my pick, although Nige feels half mark increments are pesky, I find them invaluable for spacing the "also ran." But he mods the contest, he calls the tune, I can live with that.

I like the idea of equating a 1 with poor through too, and 10 as being superior of the bunch.

I'm 56 years old, I've listened to just about every style and genre of music possible for all my life, I think by now I can certainly decipher the difference between a song that is crap and one that has merit.

If you get a 1 - 3 from me it means one of two things, you should seriously consider taking some music lessons, or you should maybe take up another hobby.

4 - 7 You're kind of struggling but keep at it, practice makes perfect.

8 - 9 You're just about there, put the song away, then come back to it in about a months time, listen to it with fresh ears and you'll hear where the improvements should be made.

- 10 - song is ready for a pro studio, either record your performance or hire session musicians to do it for you and then demo it around if that's your objective.

This is a contest, I'm judging the song, not the person, if a low score hurts your feelings and you're taking it personally, then you shouldn't enter these contests, if you're hoping to get in the music business then you should know the music business is a vicious game, if you want to participate in it but have insecurities, then stay away from it.

If you want feedback on it, then post the song in the "Song Forum" after the contest, or PM select people for their opinion.

And that's about as honest as it gets.

[Ironknee]

porcupine, on 26 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Here's the botton line...
If you place dead last in a contest, how do you improve knowing ONLY that you got last place? The number defines nothing.

The lone voice in the wilderness suggests that your post you song in the song's feedback section

[porcupine]

Ironknee, on 26 April 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

porcupine, on 26 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Here's the botton line...
If you place dead last in a contest, how do you improve knowing ONLY that you got last place? The number defines nothing.

The lone voice in the wilderness suggests that your post you song in the song's feedback section

I received great info on my song, Im glad I get the feedback I do. I placed 7th out of 16, which Im ok for the first contest. It was already posted there lol, i can also understand you not reading the first part of this thread where a few people had the concern. I just agreed with it

[SoddyBottoms]

No matter what the system , 1 thing I have learned from the comps on this board is, If you get High scores and low scores with not much middle ground ,you have a good song no matter your place in the contest..

My opinion about music is if they love it or hate it,mission accomplished ... Luke warm in the middle is nowhere... Excitement is found in the extremes .. One mans pleasure is another mans poison

[scubed]

Bruce N, on 26 April 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

[/color]If you get a 1 - 3 from me it means one of two things, you should seriously consider taking some music lessons, or you should maybe take up another hobby.

This is a perfect illustration of why the contest should either be all scores or all ranks, instead of a random mixture of the two (which I think was the concern that ginned up this latest round of discussion).

In this last contest, for example, I ranked the songs. If I had used scores, I probably would have given my least-favorite song a 5. Someone looking at the scores on that song wouldn't know whether the 1 was someone saying, "It's OK, but I like the other ones better this month," or was telling the songwriter to get another hobby. Furthermore, mixing the two systems will affect the relative scores of all songs on which there isn't unanimity of opinion among the voters.

Best not to mix apples and oranges.

[NigeQ]

Would this sort of thing help? [r] denotes a ranker - thanks goodness my lisp doesn't come over in print

[Alistair S]

That's interesting, Nige. It helps, but what makes you think voter 10 was using a ranking system?

It would be interesting to see Ron's suggestion applied to that set of votes.

[NigeQ]

Alistair S, on 27 April 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

It helps, but what makes you think voter 10 was using a ranking system?

Good point, there seems to be a 9 missing. My bad, I suspect the person was using the ranking system but cocked up

[ScenesFromPalacio]

Looks good to me Nige..

[scubed]

Certainly addresses the ambiguity in what the raw numbers mean , but I don't think it accounts for the possibiltiy of skewed results from mixing the two systems. Maybe Ron's idea would help with that.

[FunkDaddy]

Though I haven't been too active in the contests the past few months (or on the Muse in general), I think the contests were just fine as they were. People are going to take from it what they want any way you slice the turkey. Why people feel the need for feedback on their scores is a bit strange when there's a Song Critiques forum right next to the Song Contest one. My placing in the contests, and I've placed everywhere from first to last, tells me absolutely nothing on how to improve my song and I've never expected it to.

Only thing I've noticed is that the mixed scoring system doesn't seem to work. People sit there and question who ranked and who scored and blah blah blah. And certain people are going to get their feelings hurt by 1s and 2s no matter what.

[porcupine]

Nige,
I like it!
Porcupine.

ps
I like that the songs get ranked by how good they are. not against each other. Its really hard to say that song A is better than song b if you cant compare them, being different genres, styles, ect. not all of us know everyting about everything.

[Bruce N]

I just don't see why the songs need to be, or should be ranked against each other. What's the logic behind that ?

There is no set criteria that the songs must follow, entrants simply submit a song that they may have just completed, or one that they have had sitting around for who knows how long, or ones that they may have had good success with, in submitting them in other contests outside of the Muse.

The only way I could see songs as being ranked against each other, is if there was a stipulation that all the songs must be country, or rock, or electronica etc. etc. Or if there was a certain criteria to be met within the songs.

When they rank new cars in publications, they rank them in the same class, subcompacts against subcompacts, luxury against other luxury cars, You don't often see a Toyota being compared with a Hummer.

The Grammy's "Record of the Year" "Song of the Year" and "Album of the Year" are voted on as "best" over all, the voters pleasure if you like. Regardless of what genre they represent, with no set criteria, nor how they are ranked against each other.

[Lazz]

NigeQ said:

a ranker - thanks goodness my lisp doesn't come over in print

The lithp ith fine.
But the rhotacism is twubblingly pwoblematic.

[R-N-R Jim]

Hi Gang

I'm still wondering what is the point of a contest here at the Muse? We are creating art in some musical fashion, are we not? If your wondering the worth or value of your art, you post it in the lyric or song critique forum. To put a time limit on creating art only cheapens it. A song that may seem great written in country music genre may not even appeal to everyone and would get a lower score because of it. Is that fair?

I'll be honest, when I occasionally enter a song in one of the national contests or even my local songwriting org. once a year, its to be heard or get exposure to a number of judges that are in the industry. Contest to me is "code for demo submission to people in the industry that you the songwriter normally would not have access soliciting to on the outside."

Even the lyric/music collab contest seems uneven. If you pair the best melody maker with the best lyric writer, your most likely going to win 9 times out of 10. I understand the coy nature of the contest since most of the lyric writers wouldnt attract many of the melody or full songwriters here. But to put "contest" in front of it as well as a time limit puts a strange constraint that for me has nothing to do with songwriting. My opinion is that the contests which are hardly used or entered in here at the Muse should be removed. They serve little or no purpose in the art of songwriting.

just my two sense worth
R-N-R Jim

[FunkDaddy]

R-N-R Jim, on 28 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

I'm still wondering what is the point of a contest here at the Muse?

Fun. If you are looking for another reason for the contests here on the Muse they'd be personal and wouldn't apply to everyone. For instance, I also see the contests as a small sampling of my demographic, I write plenty of different styles (I like to think) and want my music to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Seeing how I rank in the contests gives me somewhat of an idea of that with any given song as there is quite an eclectic group of music listeners here on the Muse.

[Scotto]

For me it is because there's a captive audience that will listen to the song and I'll get a vote. Then when I post it in the crit forum after that I can get a little more explanation from the folks that cross over from the contest. That's my reasponing. The contest also gives me a deadline to drive something to completion. I've got songs that have been in work for 6 months that I really should just call done at some point and a contest gives me a motivation to complete something. That's my reason anyway. Everyone's will be different.

[R-N-R Jim]

FunkDaddy, on 28 April 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

R-N-R Jim, on 28 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

I'm still wondering what is the point of a contest here at the Muse?

Fun.Fair enough.
If you are looking for another reason for the contests here on the Muse they'd be personal and wouldn't apply to everyone.I see the point of the collab contests creating at least a bond between the lyric writers and melody writers, but still wonder about the short time constraints. Having a monthly contest may be too hasty? Having something more quarterly would along with different genre's or sub-categories be more fair I would think instead of having an open genre submission. But I guess the number of participants determines this.
For instance, I also see the contests as a small sampling of my demographic, I write plenty of different styles (I like to think) and want my music to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Seeing how I rank in the contests gives me somewhat of an idea of that with any given song as there is quite an eclectic group of music listeners here on the Muse. I would think just posting a song in the song forum would accomplish this goal. By having genre tag under the title it would at least set up the listener for what they are in store for. I guess I question whether or not you get more listeners at the song forum or the song contest.

It might be interesting if the Muse held a yearly contest with sub categories or genres much like my Wisconsin songwriters does. It would give a longer time for people to vote as well.

just my two cents worth
R-N-R Jim

[Thinman]

SoddyBottoms, on 26 April 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

No matter what the system , 1 thing I have learned from the comps on this board is, If you get High scores and low scores with not much middle ground ,you have a good song no matter your place in the contest..

My opinion about music is if they love it or hate it,mission accomplished ... Luke warm in the middle is nowhere... Excitement is found in the extremes .. One mans pleasure is another mans poison

Now there is the truth !

I LOVE 1's - not as much as I love 10's - "ranked" 1's or " feedback" 1's - bring em on

[Ricky Layne]

I like the ranking system as it's just nice and simple. But I will say that since the individual results are posted you can really see how your song moved people. You may get a lot of high scores but also some low ones so your song is more polarizing. You may get all high scores which means your song is more popular. Low scores, well you know... And most are somewhere in the middle.

What I really appreciate is when the voters comment at the end and sort of explain their voting of the songs. That becomes VERY useful. And then you can put it on the mp3 board and get more comments on top of that. Really should give you a pretty good idea of how to improve a song if you need too.

I agree that giving out a 1 is tough but also feel it really makes you listen to the songs with much more of a critiquing eye. "This song is pretty good but I have to give it a one in relation to these other songs."

However it is finally decided I like the contests and how they are run and hope to continue to participate when I have a good enough song to enter.

Ricky

[ScenesFromPalacio]

Dunno if this is the right place to discuss it,but thinking about it, have decided to leave all my entries in for the open format song of the year and not just enter the highest scoring 'most likely to win' one as the runner like last year..
Hope other multiple winners Jason Tom and Jonie choose to do the same -but if they don't - i still want to keep all my songs in -if i'm allowed..

A couple of people pointed out last year that their favourite song wasn't even in the mix to vote for - and i'd hate that too n feel abit cheated if it was me voting - People should be able to have the choice to support the song they love best..Its about that in the end -not the individual artist..
So even if its a disadvantage to me 'cos people may choose to spread their votes among the artists -not the songs-thats what i'm gonna do and let the chips fall where they may..
Would love to hear Jason,Jonie n Toms views especially here tho..