The algorithm Frazzon uses for his site makes sure that things like this don't happen. For example a list that ranks the greatest albums of the 1980s will only be decisive for the rankings of albums from the 1980s. That Bob Dylan list will only affect the rankings of the different Dylan songs relative to each other while it has no effect whatsoever on the ranks of songs by Run-D.M.C. or Talking Heads.

At least acclaimedmusic gives us something concrete to consider in our rankings instead of just the DDD editor's opinion of influence or impact. That's why I've started referring to it more to help with the lists.

That's why the lists have suffered.

Look, let's say in the future acclaimedmusic.net starts using these lists on DDD as part of their sources. Well, if you're basing the rankings here in part on acclaimedmusic's own previous rankings, you're essentially just reinforcing the sources they originally used! How idiotic is that?

Come up with solid objective criteria and then base the rankings on that, not on totally subjective rankings done to sell magazines to a small group of likeminded nitwits.

Oh Bruce, begging for work now?

But why don't you address the very real flaws in acclaimedmusic's methods, or don't you care that the entire rankings are based on 100% subjective opinions of a handful of sources that have very clear (and admitted) demographic sales-based goals and thus the entire rankings are invalid as anything but a look at what their readers want to read about? You've become very predictable in that you constantly duck any legitimate argument made against something you believe because you know you can't counter it, so you simply chose not to answer it and then attack the person who made it instead to get them to defend something totally unrelated that they may have said or did. Everybody knows you do this and is growing tired of it. I know you don't care about your reputation here, but you obviously care about the lists you do and how they're received, so just make your points defending it and let those stand on their own. Stop ducking the questions. How is acclaimedmusic.net's rankings anything more than subjective opinions of a narrow viewpoint and thus why do they mean anything at all in your supposedly objective lists?

The algorithm Frazzon uses for his site makes sure that things like this don't happen. For example a list that ranks the greatest albums of the 1980s will only be decisive for the rankings of albums from the 1980s. That Bob Dylan list will only affect the rankings of the different Dylan songs relative to each other while it has no effect whatsoever on the ranks of songs by Run-D.M.C. or Talking Heads.

the entire rankings are invalid as anything but a look at what their readers want to read about?

No, 2019.

But answer the question - Why do you believe that acclaimedmusic.net rankings determined by entirely subjective opinions used to sell magazines to an extremely narrow demographic are legitimate sources to use for YOUR supposedly objective lists?

This will be good.

Ahh, but it's affecting Dylan's placements which are included in the overall lists. There are no lists on acclaimedmusic for JUST one artist, in other words, Like A Rolling Stone ranks where it does only on lists that incluyde ALL other records of that year, so the fact that there are THREE lists (Rolling Stones 70 greatest Dylan songs, Uncut's 40 greatest Dylan Songs, and Mojo's 100 Greatest Dylan songs) means that the lists ARE factoring in against other artists, otherwise they wouldn't be used since the only rankings acclaimedmusic has are for comparing ALL artists. Perhaps you'd like to try and explain how they could possibly be used otherwise when all of acclaimedmusic's rankings are encompassing ALL artists.

Furthermore, the bigger point is that they are using demographically biased sources. The demographics of the readership of their sources are so narrow that they don't include anything outside of that on those lists which are being used. For instance, they have lists by the metal magazine Kerrang. Their 100 Greatest Singles of all-time has nothing by any black artist, or any artist prior to Black Sabbath, or any music at all outside of metal, hard-rock and tangibly related styles. That's what they do, focus on THAT style of music. Yet that list factors into establishing the rankings of ALL songs even though there are clearly millions of songs inelligible for even being considered for their list.

Go one step further - they have lists that were remade by the same publication, such as Rolling Stones 500 Greatest Songs of all time. The first edition came out in 2004 and the second came out in 2010, ostensibly to update it to include releases in the ensuing years. Yet acclaimedmusic uses BOTH of them in their rankings (http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/rstone.html#5050), so even though the lists are almost identical the rankings are being counted TWICE! Yeah, every election where certain people get to cast two votes is legitimate.

There are 19 lists by MOJO magazine, which foucses inordiantly on a small portion of rock (go to Mojo4music.com and look at the history of their covers and over 20 years, 12 issues a year, they have probably just about 20 artists with the majority of the 240 some odd cover stories - you think THEY'RE going to be objective?). They have 25 lists from Mojo's sister publication, Q, which has the same publisher and same target demographic, and oftentimes even the same content in terms of interviews and focuses in the same month. So right there you have 44 lists made up by the same colelction of narrowminded "journalists" using no objective criteria whatsoever, simply trying to appeal to their constituancy with the songs that demographic wants to celebrate. Nothing wrong with that if you're just selling magazines, but when those lists are then being used to RANK every song from every style of music against one another, which do you think will have an unfair advantage? Hmmm. Or the 35 Rolling Stone magazine lists compared to just two from The Source. You can go on and on, the fact is, there's no way to possibly make the rankings objective when they're culling their base numbers from totally UNobjective sources.

Acclaimedmusic was a good idea that is utterly impossible to actually do, no matter how hard they try, as such it is completely worthless and to claim otherwise shows no comprehension of what objective means.

Look, let's say in the future acclaimedmusic.net starts using these lists on DDD as part of their sources. Well, if you're basing the rankings here in part on acclaimedmusic's own previous rankings, you're essentially just reinforcing the sources they originally used! How idiotic is that?

Actually, Clash, you'd have an even better point by simply saying - "acclaimedmusic.net is garbage". As has been repeatedly proven the intent of that site is good but the sources they use are so overwhelmingly representative of one narrow style (dozens of publications put out by the same publisher with the same demographic audience, lists that are focused simply on one artist, for instance, how is Run-D.M.C. or Talking Heads going to rank on a list of the 100 Greatest Bob Dylan songs, something they actually USE in assessing the overall placement of songs by every artist!?!?) that the whole site is utterly worthless. Nobody with any sense takes it seriously. Bruce himself used to be one of the most vociferous opponents of it for that very reason, but he seems to have fallen in love with it, which indicates he's being overmedicated at the asylum or something.

For instance, they have lists by the metal magazine Kerrang. Their 100 Greatest Singles of all-time has nothing by any black artist, or any artist prior to Black Sabbath, or any music at all outside of metal, hard-rock and tangibly related styles. That's what they do, focus on THAT style of music. Yet that list factors into establishing the rankings of ALL songs even though there are clearly millions of songs inelligible for even being considered for their list.

Go one step further - they have lists that were remade by the same publication, such as Rolling Stones 500 Greatest Songs of all time. The first edition came out in 2004 and the second came out in 2010, ostensibly to update it to include releases in the ensuing years. Yet acclaimedmusic uses BOTH of them in their rankings (http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/rstone.html#5050), so even though the lists are almost identical the rankings are being counted TWICE!

There are 19 lists by MOJO magazine, which foucses inordiantly on a small portion of rock (go to Mojo4music.com and look at the history of their covers and over 20 years, 12 issues a year, they have probably just about 20 artists with the majority of the 240 some odd cover stories - you think THEY'RE going to be objective?). They have 25 lists from Mojo's sister publication, Q, which has the same publisher and same target demographic, and oftentimes even the same content in terms of interviews and focuses in the same month. So right there you have 44 lists made up by the same colelction of narrowminded "journalists" using no objective criteria whatsoever, simply trying to appeal to their constituancy with the songs that demographic wants to celebrate. Nothing wrong with that if you're just selling magazines, but when those lists are then being used to RANK every song from every style of music against one another, which do you think will have an unfair advantage? Hmmm. Or the 35 Rolling Stone magazine lists compared to just two from The Source. You can go on and on, the fact is, there's no way to possibly make the rankings objective when they're culling their base numbers from totally UNobjective sources.

Acclaimedmusic was a good idea that is utterly impossible to actually do, no matter how hard they try, as such it is completely worthless and to claim otherwise shows no comprehension of what objective means.

One of the lists contributing to the ranking of James Brown's Sex Machine album is The New Nation's Top 100 Albums by Black Artists. Probably not a lot of Iron Maiden on that list.

In regard to the bold, I actually sent them an email about that and according to the response I received "artist specific" lists only affect the order of the songs of that artist that are already in the 3000. So the second and third place song of that artist might switch places, if the third place song does better on the "artist specific" list. Does that makes sense? Nope. But supposedly it doesn't affect the numerical ranking of other artists' songs.

This I have to say I don't fully believe. It'd be unecessary and superfluous because if the original formula ranking ALL artists worked, then you wouldn't need backup information to determine which of Dylan's songs would get the 345th place and which would get the 463rd place. If the yearly rankings are believed to be accurate based strictly on the more all-inclusive lists (which are anything but, though at least supposedly not confined to Dylan-only sources), then where a certain song of Bob's places would automatically slot it properly in the overall rankings, just like with every other artist. So this explanation is 100% bullshit, which thereby forces me to seriously doubt the rest of the formulas and even the intent of the person doing it. Unless I'm missing something hidden in that explanation, or he didn't explain it sufficiently, because the way it's stated makes absolutely no sense, and you and I are both smart enough to see that. I guess the real problem might be that others can not see it and so they take the site as legitimate and objective when it's anything but.