Best Song of 2002: Heat #1

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

It's a new year, it's time for some...

...NEW VOTING RULES!

• To make things a bit more interesting, there is now a maximum of SIX TICKS over the three bits of the poll. That's right - six.


• The top five will still go through to the next stage, but now it's going to be that little bit tougher to get there. If your favourite song isn't doing so well then try and convince people in the comments as to why it's so good!


• As I'm sure you all know by now, the rules are always subject to change thx to my ongoing struggle for perfection, so if this year proves agonising for one and all we can rethink it for 2003. Also please bear in mind that I'm the one having to type all these bloody songs out and therefore I can do what I like, mwahahahah.


• If you want to change your vote (or tick too many by mistake), you can edit your votes by clicking on 'Poll #12345' then 'Fill Out Poll'.


• You have until Friday lunchtime to vote.

So let's get on with it!


[Poll #1457810]


Q for the comments box: What's the best song up there that you hadn't heard before today?

Comments

[koganbot]

And I agree with Andrew and Jeff. The new rule cuts out one of our incentives to listen to stuff we hadn't heard before.

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

I notice no-one has answered my supplementary question yet! :)

[koganbot]

Well, the answer for many days is likely to be "One of the ones I still haven't heard," though the one and only new one I've listened to so far (Shakedown's "At Night") might have an outside shot at my Top Six.

Sorry, but another thing I dislike about the new rules is that it makes it less likely that anyone other than me, Chuck, Greg, and Dave will tick any of the country songs we nominate, so there's more likely to be a Lex feeling of "What's the use?" when we see the results. I just think you're cutting out voter feedback and incentives in regard to the more obscure stuff, and only so that we can have somewhat tighter races for our high vote getters. Seems to me that's what the playoffs are for, to really assess the popular tracks, whereas this is our only chance to take stock of the obscurities.

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Can you think of a better compromise solution then?

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Have a write-in "Best New To Me" song vote and the winner in that goes through too. It would be a bit of an honesty box but would encourage evangelism.

Personally I find the checking new stuff out doesn't affect my ticks, though. It'll be interesting to see whether there's more or fewer run-offs this way.

[koganbot]

Have the top two winners go through.

[koganbot]

Yeah, well Moggy ticked Jamie O'Neal and now I think the likelihood of that ever happening again is nil (especially given that, owing to Lex's selfishly walking away when he must know that for 2005 I will need him to nominate Foxy Brown's "Come Fly With Me," thereby freeing up my tenth spot for O'Neal's "Devil On The Left," O'Neal may never appear here again).

[koganbot]

What's there to compromise? Go back to ten ticks for 2003. The poll was working fine, except for poor Lex who wanted everything to go his way.

Fwiw I almost always have to go to something I hadn't heard previously to reach ten, since I'm not British and sometimes haven't even heard ten of the nominees.

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

The problem is with ten ticks that you end up with people using ticks for tracks that are OK, rather than those that they actually love. If you restrict people to fewer ticks you are more likely to let more potentially divisive songs through, which will hopefully lead to a more interesting battle later on.

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

So, this is basically all a plot to get Andrew WK through. Now I see.

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

Less likely, but it also means that the votes count more. Right now, the fifth placed track only has seven votes (from 25 voters). In the last heat with the old rules, the fifth placed track had 21 from 47. So it actually makes it easier for a small number of people to affect the outcome of the poll.

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

I'm not (that) ashamed to admit that I'm not really using these polls to hear new stuff much at all. It's a nice option and I realise I'm being close-minded in a way but most of the stuff i don't recognise will come from genres i'm not v interested in anyway. presumably we will lose a fair chunk of relatively obscure hip-hop from future lexless polls but i personally feel i could get good recs on that stuff at any time via him or a few other sources inc ilm so no big loss for me.

i also find it unlikely that i will want to tick a song having only just heard it. in most heats there will be enough songs i have a strong feeling for out of history and that will carry more weight than instant novelty thrill. can always go back to the polls and check out stuff when the dust settles anyway.

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

We can always scrap the whole thing.