LogFAQs > #978598615

The write-ups will be formatted as follows:

#Rank 120-1. Name of Song
Artist: Name of Artist or Band
Nomination: Name (Rank/Amount)
Time: Length of Song or Video
Link: Link to Song
Rankings: Various Methods Used for Placement

First listen note - Some songs I jotted down a first impression on. I didn't do this as much when I switched to listening at work, but may have hand-written notes I'll need to double-check. If I've already ranked something and I find old notes I didn't have in the write-up, I'll post the next time I'm able.

On the subject of rankings, here are the ranking types I've done thus far.

Ranking Types

1. Batch Rankings
- These were my initial rankings in order of listen, and aside from one mis-input in order of nomination. There are eight Batches of fifteen songs each, or about every three sets of nominations. This gave an initial impression, some framework of how I'd rank a nominator's songs, kept things close and fresh so I wouldn't be in the weeds for months re-re-relistening to songs nominated later on against songs I'd forgotten early on; fifteen is a solid number for a nice basic feeling out. I also graded the songs in the rankings so I could get a visual of how they'd likely range down the line; some batches had lots of low, some had lots of high, a few had neither high or low at all. Batches were ranked between 12/6 and 12/29.

2. Rubric Ranking
- This was a semi-casual ranking when I was listening at work. It's not perfect as there were interruptions, but I was much less prone to be distracted by video games, television, books, phone, etc. and it kept me sane through the extra helpings of paperwork I've been doing and filing. The rubric was a 4x4 grid where I'd insert a song based on how much I liked it and relative to other songs already placed. I listened to the playlist on random (aside from four that could not be playlisted - Crash Into Me, Cool Cat, Winter Wrap-Up, and Pohjalan), and it ended up moving a lot of things around especially in the middle. I enjoyed it so much that I've done a few more than won't be marked up as only the initial one was done in a single sitting. The lower the number, the higher the rank--
- 1 being the best
- 2-4 being extremely high
- 5-6 are great and assuredly top half
- 7-8 are good and likely top half, but could fall below depending on further listens and competition
- 9-10 are okay and likely bottom half, but are poised to rise depending on further listens and competition
- 11-12 are meh and likely bottom half
- 13-15 are varying levels of bad, dull, and/or annoying
- 16 greatly annoyed me and terrible

The thing is after I first started doing write-ups (before my document got corrupted and I lost all my write-ups for Rubric 16) and gave the bottom five a more thorough and critical listen... I found myself pushing a few of them out of this bottom tier. They're still low, but I definitely needed to try a third method of weeding out the worst.

3. Weighted Rankings
- I ranked the bottom two lines of the batches against each other, then the next two lines, then the next two, and so on. As of this writing, I have not ranked the top three lines knowing that all twenty-four of them are making the top half; there are some batches where 4th place will definitely be in the bottom half. I'll be relying heavily upon these for a while, likely until I get half the rankings done. I've coded them Red->Orange->Yellow->Green->Blue->Purple->Pink from worst to best. So, for example, something was ranked 8/15 in its batch, it'll be grouped as Green and ranked against other 8s & 9s. I anticipate these rankings to deviate very little from my actual rankings.

4. Blockbuster
- These will show up after this first tier is published. There were about forty-to-sixty songs floating that were very slippery to rank. Some of these were initally written off early as bad, but continued to grow in strength and made comparing songs around it difficult because they were actually higher. Some were ranked high among their batches, but that meant little when some batches were worse than others. Most are just waiting to be cut, sometimes reaching a rung or two higher than another song, some just being better or worse than expected on a given day, some just being forgotten instantly even if played five times in a row.

The Blockbuster is my first satisfactory and successful ranking of these songs. The first part was cutting it down to a more manageable size from 50 to 41 by excising 9 songs that I clearly favored far more than the rest over the past few weeks. I put forty of the remaining songs into five grids of eight, shaking them up enough so everything was fairly separated from their usual neighbors. After playing the songs, I gave each song a binary Yes/No if it was better than the other seven songs in its Grid (Grids A-E, #s representing amount of "Yes" i.e. a 7 means it was better than all other songs in its grid, a 0 means none of the other songs). I reduced again, separating out the best four of each grid, then set the remaining twenty in three new grids at complete random also adding a song that initially got a bye because it's a Cheshire Cat that keeps escaping execution!! These are Grids X, Y, & Z and the lowest are ranked against each other and ultimately cut. Each grid had at least one pair of songs I couldn't say was better or worse than the other at the time. They will be judged on their lowest level of their respective grids. Grid X-3.4, for instance, denotes a song that tied and has three yesses and a possible fourth.

@Xtlm
@NBIceman
@UF8
@handsomeboy2012
@ZaziGuado
@FL81
@Steiner
@MaxGalactica
@DanKirby
@Murphiroth