Yet Another Year In Pop: 36

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Jigga deals with his North London problems well enough to beat Heidi & Co to the top spot.

[Poll #1454305]

Do feel free to go back and change your ticks on any of this year's chart polls - voting will remain open on all of them until the end of the year. Here's how they're shaping up so far...

1 Lily Allen - The Fear
2 Britney Spears - Circus
3 Veronicas - Untouched
4 Girls Aloud - Untouchable
5 Britney Spears - If U Seek Amy
6 Ciara ft Justin Timberlake - Love Sex Magic
7 Miley Cyrus - Fly On The Wall
8 Dizzee Rascal - Holiday
9 Florence & The Machine - Rabbit Heart (Raise It Up)
10 Kelly Clarkson - I Do Not Hook Up
11 Pet Shop Boys - Love etc
12 VV Brown - Shark In The Water
13 Gossip - Heavy Cross
14 Lady Gaga - Just Dance
15 Lily Allen - Not Fair
16 Kelly Clarkson - My Life Would Suck Without You
17 Black Eyed Peas - Boom Boom Pow
18 Cascada - Evacuate The Dancefloor
19 Little Boots - Remedy
20 Dizzee Rascal & Armand Van Helden - Bonkers
21 Beyonce - Halo
22 TI ft Justin Timberlake - Dead And Gone
23 Lily Allen - 22
24 Keri Hilson ft Timbaland - Return The Favour
25 Little Boots - New In Town
26 Bat For Lashes - Daniel
27 Pink - Funhouse
28 Keri Hilson ft Kanye & Ne-Yo - Knock You Down
29 Freemasons ft Sophie Ellis-Bextor - Heartbreak Make Me A Dancer
30 Taylor Swift - Love Story

Rankings calculated via the extremely complicated method of multiplying raw votes by percentage (hence the relevance of the 'Don't Like Any' boxes) - Lily and Britney have a clear lead ahead of the rest of the field.

Favourite single missing from the list? Taylor cruelly languishing while Miley rides high? It's up to you to go back and tick (or un-tick) anything you might have missed!


Reminder: You have until Friday to nominate tracks for the 2002 heats - please comment on the nomination post over here so they don't go missing. I'll post up a list of noms so far on Tuesday.

Comments

[koganbot]

Hmmm. Not sure that Kat's explanation explains everything. We want to include the people who voted "not heard any" because if there were no "not heard any" option then there'd be fewer total voters on weeks when there were only two or three new tracks - the "not heard any" people not having anything to tick. Hence on those weeks the songs that did get ticks would pull in higher percentages - because the percentage is of a smaller total - and would appear more popular than they actually were in comparison to equivalent songs that showed up during weeks when there were a lot of new songs and therefore a larger number of voters.

[meserach.livejournal.com]

See, for me, what you want is a number that expresses "of all the people who heard this song, what proportion liked it?". Anything else would seem to penalise songs that people didn't get around to hearing.

(although technically the people who are ticking songs have not necessarily heard ALL the songs in order to do so - they're just claiming to at least have heard the ones they ticked).

Anyhow I'm'a have a bash at running the numbers my way instead and see if it makes much difference. Probs not.

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

By all means have a bash if you have the time! I'm stupidly busy at werk at the moment so cutting corners is the name of my game.

[koganbot]

Don't see how you can possibly determine "all the people who heard the song," since you don't know how many of the people who didn't tick a song nonetheless heard it. Right now we've got 22 voters; subtracting the one who ticked "haven't heard any," we've got 21 left, but I guarantee you that not all of those 21 people heard the Jamie T track. Well, we know for certain that Jel didn't since he said the only track he'd heard was the Sugababes. And if Lex heard the thing this would entirely have been an accident, someone nearby playing an iPod too loud, perhaps. Lots of voters don't bother to listen to what they haven't already heard.

[koganbot]

(Of course we know that if Lex had heard he wouldn't have liked it, but this won't necessarily be true of, say, an American voter who pops in to tick Wale or Jay-Z/Rihanna but doesn't have a chance to YouTube the rest.

[meserach.livejournal.com]

Right, as I said in my above paranthetical. But we have to make the best of what we have, and those who definitively stated they "haven't heard any" can definitely be removed from the dataset, right?

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

One other thing to bear in mind is that if we want to compare percentages with last year's polls, I did it in the same way then (obv this may be of little interest to everyone).

[koganbot]

No, because then the top flyers on a slow week have an unfair advantage over top flyers on a busy week, which is why we included a "haven't heard any" choice in the first place.

[meserach.livejournal.com]

Hmm.

Essentially I guess there is no correct way to go about this, as we have a self-selected sample and they aren't all hearing the same things (as we've said even those voting for a song haven't heard ALL the songs).

It probably doesn't really matter anyhow :) carry on!

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Almost makes me wish I'd paid attention in A-level Statistics instead of flicking bits of paper at the boys in the row behind me/bunking off with 'a mysterious rash on my thumb' (I thought I had meningitis so I spent half of the previous lesson writing my will).