SPIDER says:
and i think more do that, this is a pretty hot discusion and very important for mx.

I wish i could believe that... but the awards discussion has happened so many times in the past that it's hard to imagine anything new coming from this thread in particular.
Either way, debate is good for the soul.

SPIDER says:
@eie
I have read all post, and try to make a point with my comments.
and i think more do that, this is a pretty hot discusion and very important for mx.

And to get more people to join this site and build tracks and have alot of fun.

facts: You don´t bake a cake for 10 person and you are the only one that eat it, or maybe you do but its useless to bake the cake, If no one want to taste it, but there is a few that bake for fun also.

Sometimes I just feel people are ignoring some facts. But your last fact, I do not understand why that's relevant ^_^

Fact: Unknown authors have a bigger chance to appear in Best of the week with 5 different ratings, than with 10 different awards. And yet, a rating would be a more accurate measurement for most people.

@SkunkY - I did propose a suggestion in the previous thread about this on how a track can have a rating of 5, even after 100 voters. It's simply by just ignoring 50% of the voters. 30% of the most negative and 20% of the most positive, because those ratings are the least serious ones. Even with only 50% of the votes, it would still be accurate, and a more precise rating. This means that if 80% of the voters voted 5, and 20% voted 1, the track rating would still be 5. The only problem with this is that it doesn't work very well on smaller scales.

But it's better to use rating rather than popularity to measure the "best of week". Not because it's the best way, but because of the name. "Best of week" tells you that it's showing you the best (rated) tracks, and popularity are never going to tell you if a track is good or not. Another suggestion would be to rename it to "Most popular of the week", because then everybody would understand what's being referred to.

Space says:
why all of you want to help unknown authors so much? ._.

I don't want to help nobody. I just want to find nice tracks in this huge mess. I mean nice tracks, not tracks wich are in the site since early start, and it will stay there for life while other great tracks just disapear in the mess forever...
The best of the week is far more dynamic IMO than total awards because it takes care on time. But it has the same lacks in a small scale... And the same abuses (And maybe the friendly award takes more numbers here... we are talking about tracks with less awards, in less time....)

Problem is a really working system is complicated (And can't be implemented), and a simple system is inefficent (It will had lacks and it will be abused)... This is because all simple solutions will recive critics... And at the end we will stay with the most siplistic system despite of most people recognise is plenty of lacks XD
And we are talking about something subjective: Rate a track. How to make a eficient working system to exactly rate something subjective? It's impossible!
So all systems we can expose here will be atomatically dimissed... (you know, this topic has been posted and discused before on the other site long time ago...) Anyway, we can continue talking about it as a dialectic experience... In a more relaxed way, as a friends without any life expectancy....
Is really ethical to rate the another person track? Exactly, what is an award in this infinite universe? Does God really take care about unknown authors? And so on... XD

We still have LB ratings (will have, but for sure)... I've discovered nice tracks with this other system.

... says:
Even with only 50% of the votes, it would still be accurate, and a more precise rating. This means that if 80% of the voters voted 5, and 20% voted 1, the track rating would still be 5.

I doubt that 80 vote 5 and 20 vote 1 but maybe iam wrong . hehe
your example is 4.2 is the rating without remove any votes. that is a good rating.
About minus 50 % that seems to much, but maybe 20 % is better (10 procent from highest/lowest.)
80 % 5, and 20 % 1 = 4.5 in rating if you removes 1 of 10 rate. (total 20 rating.)
or why remove the x % from the rating.

here is a real example. ^^
10 % 1
20 % 2
47 % 3
15 % 4
08 % 5
This example gives, rating: 3.81

imho this look nice

Since everybody's talking about the 'botw'... Do people really download tracks just because they're on that list?

Yeah, I do... what's the problem?
People act like the BOTW is some horrible, frauded system that nobody should ever even look at. If a track is there, it means some people like it. If it's an author you usually like, too, then why not give it a download? There's no shame in that

yeah me to but i play online mostly
What is Botw means ?

Tbh, the amount of downloads you get when being on top of that list is really absurd.
If people download tracks just because they're on that list, it's obvious why a lot of tracks will stay 'ignored' forever.
It's not because of the award system. It's because people just have a look at what others like, and try exactly these tracks, too.

So, what about abolishing that 'Best of the Week' list? Would anyone really suffer from that?
This would obviously encourage people more to find out by themselves which authors they like the most. (And thus, we'd have less 'mainstream' authors.)

... says:
So, what about abolishing that 'Best of the Week' list? Would anyone really suffer from that?

Maybe that or limited time, like top 10 for x weeks.
We already have one cool thing the "random track picker" by Forzyy.

maybe a random week list
10 random tracks one week in the spotlight.

SPIDER says:
maybe a random week list
10 random tracks one week in the spotlight.

Then, people would only play those 10 tracks, and others would still be ignored.

That's why I think we should abolish such lists... or maybe the ability to search by awards at all.