smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Scott Pazur" <powerpop@z3d.net> |
| Subject | Re: Results (and 2004 planning) |
| Date | Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:21:11 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (3.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Geez Mike, it was only a joke, and an offer to save you a little trouble. I
certainly have plenty of other things I can do with my little spare time. I
already did the web/database page to accumulate the 2003 releases when you
started this years poll, so you should have known my offer was sincere.
I'll go back to lurking mode, not worth piping up sometimes.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: audities-owner@smoe.org [mailto:audities-owner@smoe.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Bennett
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:06 AM
To: audities@smoe.org
Subject: Re: Results (and 2004 planning)
The idea of a 2004 new release database is a good one. Anything that helps
remind people what came out during the year is a useful tool.
However, this second paragraph of your post, spotlighted below, is troubling
for a few reasons.
First, your comment regarding Outkast is, probably inadvertently, extremely
condescending to those of us who voted for and really enjoyed THE LOVE
BELOW/SPEAKERBOXXX. It can be inferred from your statement that those of us
who voted for the disc (and that's a substantial number of voters) would not
have done so if we had been more aware of what came out in 2004. What were
we thinking.
Second, you explicitly note that the database you propose could be used so
someone could strategically vote to keep a release out of the Top 20.
Putting aside the question of whether enough people would vote in this
manner to achieve such a result, I would say that if this is a major purpose
behind having a database, we're much better off without it. Quite frankly,
anyone who would submit a Top 20 list that is solely to influence the final
results (especially to keep something out) is a damned fool. I presume that
everyone here who submits their list is submitting a list that reflects
their favorite releases of the year, nothing more, nothing less. For
example, I hope nobody did this: 'I can't stand Rooney. Even though I
don't own the New Pornographers record and haven't heard it, I'm going to
vote for them at # 3, so they overtake those accursed teeny popsters!').
Finally, I'm not quite clear on this, but I think you indicate that perhaps
some sort of running vote tally could be kept. I would not be in favor of
this. In fact, this year I tried to scale back on the updated standings.
Ideally, I'd never post the updates. However, I started doing that because
it always seemed to promote voting. So it's a tradition. I've always been
concerned it could influence voters (in the negative way I described
before), but I do believe that generally, no one votes that way.
So those are my thoughts --
Mike Bennett
Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
>From: "Scott Pazur" <powerpop@z3d.net>
>If we get all the releases into the database, I can save Mike a lot of
>hassle by making the poll results dynamic, where changes are possible
>up to the final bell, and you can see the current standings at any time
>during the polling process. (That way I know what CDs to vote for to
>get Outkast out of the list. Not that I would do that, but I still
>can't believe how anyone on this list likes that crap)
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up - fast & reliable Internet access with prime
features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.