|
Tranceaddict Top 250 - Guess the Top 10 Contest - Discussion (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sensorium |
I carefully analysed the entries from last year from both the TrandeAddict site and the DJMag site. The top thirty entries were considered for further study. Each individual entry was giving a certain amount of points, giving the most to the top of course.
Entries from both sites were given the same points but later on 5 points were deducted from each entry at DJMag because it is well-known they ignore the people's votes and give extra votes to whomever is of their liking. I would have deducted more but I didn't award that many points to the entries to begin with.
After having the 60 DJs ranked I went on to eliminate the double entries collected not forgetting to add the total number of points for each repeated entry. At this point I can't reveal the total number of DJs left in the the table. I'll just let you know that it was above 30 and below 60. You don't need know to more.
A next step was necessary to make the table exacter. I spend hours collecting and assembling the entries that were collected this year at this site (from that one thread where you put the DJs you voted for, I'm not going to link it making another person's job easier). Not all entries were made public by users so an extra ten hours of analysis was needed to be able to predict the winner out of the votes tallied in this site for this year. It was an arduous job considering the fact that only a few people wrote whom they voted for.
One thing to note though: Because of the short-span of the C0R Whores, their entries were eliminated because they could affect the end result negatively. Nothing personal.
Having finished with the arduous analysis I went on to compare both tables. I stopped myself quickly though since I didn't have a table coming from DJMag, which, believe or not, was necessary. But because I was unable to have access to even a portion of the votes tallied there I was forced to once again use my expertise to predict how the DJMag site was going to influence the voting. The process is in the next paragraph.
I took the top 100 DJs collected in theis site, for this year only. More hours of analysing were needed to predict the final ranking for this year at DJMag, which may seem foolish to some of you since they're not the ones offering money.
But what is being done in this analysing process you may be asking yourself. Well, I can't talk about every single step taken but I'll comment on a few. To fully assimilate the DJMag results, cheeseniness by the DJ's tracks were taken under consideration and were being added extra points for it. Another factor was how often each DJ appeared on the magazine itself. That was multiplied by the number of times each DJ kissed the magazine's ass (this is evidence is hard to look for). I won't take of many other steps but just go on to the final one.
The final step, still talking about the DJMag prediction for this year, was to re-enact the choosing of the top 5 DJs at the headquarters of this important magazine. In this re-enactment the final decision was to alter completely the results of ranking because the heads of the magazine considereded it imperative since they knew that the DJ chosen to be on top this year was going to be hot this and next year. A full text transcript of this re-enactment is available upon request via PM.
Anyway, having results from both TA and DJMag for this year, the same process was done with these entries as it was with those of last year. This process was much easier the second time around.
Having the end results for both 2005 and 2006 I went on to once again delete repeated entries but not forgetting to add the total points. The table looked bigger than I had expected but I knew it was accurate.
"And you finished!" some of you would exclaim but "No!" I still had to take into account how much certain DJs sucked this year. Based on their suckiness, a certain number of votes was subtracted from each DJ that contaminated the EDM scene with useless records, ty transitions (Yes, Tiesto did lose a lot of points here), repeated tracks at different venues, commercializing the self, etc. This process didn't have a significant impact on the end result but it sure was hillarious seeing top DJs go down because of stupid crap. If I didn't do it, who would?
For the recond since some of you might ask: the faking of illness such as chest paints was not taking under consideration anywhere in this process and neither was the top tune of the year. The latter was already covered in the cheesiness category.
Damn, Manchester United match already started. Good luck everyone! |
|
|
| chris harrington |
so this is the surprise you were talking about :D
but what happens if two ppl guess the sam and win? |
|
|
| Swamper |
| quote: | Originally posted by chris harrington
but what happens if two ppl guess the sam and win? |
As stated in the rules - the person who posted first wins. |
|
|
| Glenn-Holmes |
| im sure i wont win but i participated anyway:) |
|
|
| chris harrington |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
As stated in the rules - the person who posted first wins. |
oh dang i hope no one posted what i gussed allready |
|
|
| Mortyman |
| quote: | Originally posted by sensorium
I carefully analysed the entries from last year from both the TrandeAddict site and the DJMag site. The top thirty entries were considered for further study. Each individual entry was giving a certain amount of points, giving the most to the top of course.
Entries from both sites were given the same points but later on 5 points were deducted from each entry at DJMag because it is well-known they ignore the people's votes and give extra votes to whomever is of their liking. I would have deducted more but I didn't award that many points to the entries to begin with.
After having the 60 DJs ranked I went on to eliminate the double entries collected not forgetting to add the total number of points for each repeated entry. At this point I can't reveal the total number of DJs left in the the table. I'll just let you know that it was above 30 and below 60. You don't need know to more.
A next step was necessary to make the table exacter. I spend hours collecting and assembling the entries that were collected this year at this site (from that one thread where you put the DJs you voted for, I'm not going to link it making another person's job easier). Not all entries were made public by users so an extra ten hours of analysis was needed to be able to predict the winner out of the votes tallied in this site for this year. It was an arduous job considering the fact that only a few people wrote whom they voted for.
One thing to note though: Because of the short-span of the C0R Whores, their entries were eliminated because they could affect the end result negatively. Nothing personal.
Having finished with the arduous analysis I went on to compare both tables. I stopped myself quickly though since I didn't have a table coming from DJMag, which, believe or not, was necessary. But because I was unable to have access to even a portion of the votes tallied there I was forced to once again use my expertise to predict how the DJMag site was going to influence the voting. The process is in the next paragraph.
I took the top 100 DJs collected in theis site, for this year only. More hours of analysing were needed to predict the final ranking for this year at DJMag, which may seem foolish to some of you since they're not the ones offering money.
But what is being done in this analysing process you may be asking yourself. Well, I can't talk about every single step taken but I'll comment on a few. To fully assimilate the DJMag results, cheeseniness by the DJ's tracks were taken under consideration and were being added extra points for it. Another factor was how often each DJ appeared on the magazine itself. That was multiplied by the number of times each DJ kissed the magazine's ass (this is evidence is hard to look for). I won't take of many other steps but just go on to the final one.
The final step, still talking about the DJMag prediction for this year, was to re-enact the choosing of the top 5 DJs at the headquarters of this important magazine. In this re-enactment the final decision was to alter completely the results of ranking because the heads of the magazine considereded it imperative since they knew that the DJ chosen to be on top this year was going to be hot this and next year. A full text transcript of this re-enactment is available upon request via PM.
Anyway, having results from both TA and DJMag for this year, the same process was done with these entries as it was with those of last year. This process was much easier the second time around.
Having the end results for both 2005 and 2006 I went on to once again delete repeated entries but not forgetting to add the total points. The table looked bigger than I had expected but I knew it was accurate.
"And you finished!" some of you would exclaim but "No!" I still had to take into account how much certain DJs sucked this year. Based on their suckiness, a certain number of votes was subtracted from each DJ that contaminated the EDM scene with useless records, ty transitions (Yes, Tiesto did lose a lot of points here), repeated tracks at different venues, commercializing the self, etc. This process didn't have a significant impact on the end result but it sure was hillarious seeing top DJs go down because of stupid crap. If I didn't do it, who would?
For the recond since some of you might ask: the faking of illness such as chest paints was not taking under consideration anywhere in this process and neither was the top tune of the year. The latter was already covered in the cheesiness category.
Damn, Manchester United match already started. Good luck everyone! |
Sounds like sooommmmeone.... :rolleyes: ... really wants to win!
:happy2: |
|
|
| Unique2701 |
| quote: | Originally posted by sensorium
.. |
tell me you're kidding. |
|
|
| sensorium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Unique2701
tell me you're kidding. |
Yeah, too much time in my hands. |
|
|
| Swamper |
I'll announce the winner tomorrow...
funny enough, 2 ppl who had 6/10 correct were disqualified because they never bothered to participate in the ta poll :haha: |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
I'll announce the winner tomorrow...
funny enough, 2 ppl who had 6/10 correct were disqualified because they never bothered to participate in the ta poll :haha: |
ID the ta's! |
|
|
| chris harrington |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
ID the ta's! |
yes please do :D |
|
|
| Danny Ocean |
| i hope i win! |
|
|
|
|
