# the next phase of the TC's favorite / most highly recommended works project



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hey, all. I hope life's going well for you and yours.

The TC project (the list is here and the main thread is here) has been roaring along. We've recommended nearly 6500 works and sorted them into 129 tiers, from the most strongly recommended on the first tier to the least strongly recommended on the 129th. Within the foreseeable future we'll be up to 132 tiers.

I'm looking ahead to a time when we won't do as many polls. Instead, I think, we'll just allow people to move up works that they want to recommend more strongly. Obviously this has to have limits -- for example, we can't let someone just move up one work over and over again.

Here are the rules I'm thinking of having:

(1) You can add up to three works per day (if they're not already on our list) to the bottom tier.

(2) You can promote one work per day (move it up one tier) from any tier with these limits:

(2a) You can't promote the same work more than once a month. (Of course multiple people can promote a work. No one is limited by what anyone else has promoted.)

(2b) You can't promote the same work in the top 1% (currently the top 13 tiers) more than once a year. You can promote other works in the top 1%, but not the same one repeatedly.

(3) Anyone can promote up to two more works per day from the bottom 25% (currently tiers 122 and down). This means you can promote a total of three works per day, as long as two of them are in the bottom 25%.

(3a) Even in the bottom 25%, no one can promote the same work more than once a week.

(4) We will continue to do the regular voting via polls, only not as frequently. I could foresee us having only three cycles at a time, each beginning on the lowest tier and moving up; and only one poll from those cycles active at a time.

(5) We will also continue to allow people to promote works by making reference threads.

(6) And finally, any time that a tier is _more than_ twice as large as the tier above it, we'll split that tier via a poll.

Can anyone foresee any big problems arising with that system?

Obviously if we run into trouble we would change the system, but prevention is better....

If we decide that this is okay, I will do some polls to try to smooth out the distribution of works (i.e. to make it so that most tiers have an equal or greater number of works than the tier above it) so that people will be able to promote works more freely.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

I'd just like to thank you for managing and assembling this. I think it a true treasure.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

As I understand the algorithm, works can move up in a number of ways either through individual acts or through collective voting, but works can only move down when a tier is split or when voting on a particular tier indicates an unappreciated work. I generally believe that's a good decision. 

My one concern is that you will have to keep track of a potentially large number of individual member actions to determine whether those actions violate the prohibitions on excessive promotions. Maybe you have a simple method to track everyone's "votes", but it seems a bit of a pain especially if several of us take advantage of the various opportunities.

In theory the rules seem quite reasonable.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

I can`t say I have spotted any potential troubles but I`m not enthusiastic for a new phase. I`ve been enjoying the current system very much. The deadlines to the polls motivate me to organise my listening time but with this proposed new phase I don`t think I`ll have the same motivation to delve into the deeper tiers.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Instead of "rate 10 works to unlock the +5 slot" 

it could be, "rate 10 works to assign all 30 points as you please." "Rate 8 works, 20 points to assign."

People can then just stick to the same system they use now.



Dumb unmaths guy:

+5
Voldemort's 5th
Neitzche's Delerium in B

+4
Biden's Jungle for Tiny Fiddle
Heisenberg's Prize Turd

+3
Anonymous: Ouch
...

+2
...
...

+1
...
...




Smart, hot math professor:

+9
Biden's Jungle for Tiny Fiddle

+6
Heisenberg's Prize Turd
Anonymous: Ouch

+3
Neitzche's Delerium in B

+2
Voldemort's 5th
...

+1
...
...

+0
...
...


----------



## Scrabbler (Jul 23, 2017)

Thank you again for organising the list!

It might be the easiest for voters, but I am not sure that nominating works to move up without having to compare them directly with other works is the best system for users of the list, of which I am one. Over time I think this could lead to inflating the favourite works of a small number of voters. What I like about the current system is that it forces voters to engage with a wide range of works, many outside their comfort zone, and compare them directly.

I thought again about the suggestion I previously posted where essentially there are 3000 binary polls running simultaneously, each with the same 1-2 month deadline (Some thoughts on the Talk Classical Highly Recommended List). If you disregard the bit about having to vote in random order there are actually some similarities with what you are proposing. Each voter can still vote for their favourite works every month, but the difference is that they also have to listen to and compare each of them with another work. Clearly it would require a dedicated website that allows multiple polls per page, but it could also be done more simply with an online spreadsheet where the votes for each work in a pair could be calculated automatically at the end of the period. The system you are proposing seems quite administratively complicated.

Anyway, it is great that you are thinking this through thoroughly. The TC List is a fantastic resource that deserves to be more widely known and deserves the best possible methodology.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Binary polling is a really really really really bad idea.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> Instead of "rate 10 works to unlock the +5 slot"
> 
> it could be, "rate 10 works to assign all 30 points as you please." "Rate 8 works, 20 points to assign."


Interesting idea. I'd probably cap the number of points someone could give to a work so that we don't get:

+20 
Romantic Composer: Orchestral Work #3

+0
All the other works on the list

But with that adjustment, it's worth trying at least.

I'll experiment with it at some point.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

science said:


> Interesting idea. I'd probably cap the number of points someone could give to a work so that we don't get: ...


My main concern with that procedure is that it adds complexity to an already difficult, time consuming task. I suppose people could simply choose not to consider spending time on determining the exact points to give each work, but I would not wish to lose participants because they perceive the task as too demanding.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> My main concern with that procedure is that it adds complexity to an already difficult, time consuming task. I suppose people could simply choose not to consider spending time on determining the exact points to give each work, but I would not wish to lose participants because they perceive the task as too demanding.


That's a good point. It's probably best to reserve this for small tiers with familiar works.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Welp, since we're speaking of procedures, it's like that episode of Dr. House where all the doctors compete to brainstorm the one perfect diagnosis to explain symptoms, but House is the one to realize that several diagnoses is the likely candidate. Other words, you may have to play the multiple games game after all, like the OP.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> Voldemort's 5th


I've never heard of it. How does it compare to Potter's?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

With other projects where members list 50+ favorite works, the concept works because it entails some experience and effort on their behalf. With my suggestion, the same concept applies because members must listen to (or rate) all the works they're scoring. Let's just hope the OP idea isn't too simplistic in the end, as not enough tier jumping allowed and it becomes useless, while too much jumping allowed and it faces the problem I mentioned. I would toss the idea but that's just me. I'm not the Warden with a capital W.



hammeredklavier said:


> I've never heard of it. How does it compare to Potter's?


Don't know! Are there any good recordings of Cipriani Potter's 5th?


----------

