Eligible sources...

[Henrik]

I started to look at the new EOY lists posted by Arnaud to decide whether they should be included or not at AM. Using the Alexa stats they are probably all OK, and they are probably all written by a group of "staff" as well. But some of them are more about music news than music criticism and a therefore a new possible eligibility criterion for EOY lists came up in my head - that the source should have provided music reviews or ratings through the past year.

Before making such a decision we need to go back and see if it makes sense for the already included lists. Which ones fulfil the review/rating criterion?

I am at work so I don't really have much time for this now. Would anyone be interested in looking deeper into this?

[Henrik]

I did some checking myself and it doesn't look like many of the existing AM sources need to be removed with the review criterion. I'm not sure about all the Spanish sources though, I need some help there. At least Scanner FM seem to be hanging loose. However, another broadcasting source without review is the Swedish radio P3, but I feel wrong about excluding that one. Do you think it would be a fair rule to include lists from public broadcasting staff but not from commercial broadcasting?

Some others hanging loose (please let me know if you have information about their amount of reviews and/or your opinion whether these should be excluded):
MTV
Rhapsody (they at least have features like album of the day so might be OK)
iTunes
Spinner
The Boot
The Boom Box
Noise Creep
VH1

[Otisredding]

the source should have provided music reviews or ratings through the past year.

Jenasaispop: Yes, in web
Playground: Yes, in web
Muzikalia: Yes, in web
Scanner FM: Yes, in web
MondoSonoro: Yes, in web and paper
Rock De Lux: Yes, in paper
Tentaciones: Yes, in web
Go Mag: Yes, in web and paper

[Nick]

What exactly does MTV have to do with music these days anyway?

[slick]

What exactly does MTV have to do with music these days anyway?

Absolutely Nothing!!!! They lost ALL credibility at least 10 years ago...

[Henrik]

the source should have provided music reviews or ratings through the past year.

Jenasaispop: Yes, in web
Playground: Yes, in web
Muzikalia: Yes, in web
Scanner FM: Yes, in web
MondoSonoro: Yes, in web and paper
Rock De Lux: Yes, in paper
Tentaciones: Yes, in web
Go Mag: Yes, in web and paper

Otis, could you please point me to an album review on the Scanner FM website. Thanks!

[Otisredding]

Otis, could you please point me to an album review on the Scanner FM website. Thanks!

This is the link to the reviews. The truth is that it is not easy to find.

http://www.scannerfm.com/category/top/

[Henrik]

Otis, could you please point me to an album review on the Scanner FM website. Thanks!

This is the link to the reviews. The truth is that it is not easy to find.

http://www.scannerfm.com/category/top/

Thanks for the quick response. Weird that they don't have a link to their reviews in the top row.

[Greg Rumpff]

Do you think it would be a fair rule to include lists from public broadcasting staff but not from commercial broadcasting?

My opinion, and everyone has one, is that this is a bit elitist. It presumes that somehow a disc jockey who happens to work at a public radio station somehow possesses "better" taste than someone working commercially. If the criterion is that it can't be a "most popular" or "most played" list from a commercial radio site then I get that...after all, the focus of the site is "acclaimed" music and that has little to do with vast public approval. (Although I would expect that to apply equally to the public station...it can't be merely a list of "fan favorites".)

But if there are two lists from staffers at radio station A (commercial) and radio station B (non-commercial) stating their "favorite" music or in their opinion the "best" music of a particular year, I should think both would be on equal footing. After all, both sets of DJs consume a great deal of music any given year.

[Blanco]

I do not know if it is posted elsewhere, (at least I have not found it.) but Henrik, could you please tell me what are the requirements for a list to be added to AM? Is there exact requirements? I would greatly appreciate it. I wanted to upload some lists, but do not know if I should just upload them all or better just upload the ones I know already have the necessary requirements. I just do not know exactly what makes a list eligible. Ok, I know about Alexa Stats (Is there a minimum traffic?) and the need of staff behind the lists. Also, In the section of Q & A's says:

Which Have Been lists included for the compilation of the Acclaimed Music lists?

Almost all critics lists I have got my hand on, treats including best-of-year lists, best-of-all-times lists etc., From critics, artists and music industry people all over the world. Lists by people who work with music. However, end of year lists from single critics are not included as it would take way too much time to add them and genre-specific lists are only included if They are from a magazine Specialised In this genre. Readers lists of all kind are excluded..

But what happens with non EOY lists from a single critic? For example, the list chosen by Elvis Costello. For some reason this list was accepted at AM, and I suspect that those same characteristics can be on other lists that are not (or are not yet) part of AM, as the list made by Kurt Cobain. It depends on the situation?
And what happens with lists that have other forms of publication? Somewhere in the forum (That I can not find now) I read that paper publications must have a minimum number of circulation or readership or something, and the same for the websites, which are measured (Or calculated? I'm still not so good in English, sorry) by Alexa. If I was not wrong with these requirements, I think the one that refers to paper publications could only be applied for magazines, ie not books. Because the difficulty that the publication of a book entails, it already could be considered a kind of quality filter, so they tend to be accepted more easily. Although ok, I know this can not be taken as fact. And this bring me to the radio topic: Should not be the requirements of the radio stations lists (created by staff, of course) be different? I guess that a radio station list could only be accepted in AM if this list is "verifiable", for example, on the website of the station. But if the new requirement of having a certain number of reviews per year also applies to radio stations, what happens if they have not published reviews written and have only been transmitted? It is not possible for us to check this so this would mean that it is necessary for the radio station also publish written information. I know there are many radio stations (especially in USA and some parts of Europe) that have a website with columnists and publications etc. But this is a plus, it is not necessary for a radio station. To cite an example, among the most popular radio stations here in Mexico, there is one called Reactor. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHOF-FM ). They are public broadcasting, and they have a website, yes: http://reactor.imer.gob.mx/ and there you will find a blog section. But there you will find only a list of the songs they use in their daily schedule. Nothing more. However, if we do an exhaustive search, we find that they used to have a blog without their own Internet domain, and there we will find many international music lists. Quality stuff, I say. But no reviews. Although they make reviews. Only they do not appear on their website, so there is no way to check if this is true. And here's my suggestion: What if we do not use the requirement of having a certain number of reviews a year for radio stations, and instead let this requirements:
It is necessary that the lists are not created by the audience, and
it must receive heavy traffic on their websites according to Alexa,
and… I don’t know, maybe more requirements?

Sorry if I've written a lot, perhaps it's because I have trouble writing in English. I hope not to be a nuisance.

[Henrik]

Blanco, I'll try to answer the best I can, but there's always a grey zone...

But what happens with non EOY lists from a single critic? For example, the list chosen by Elvis Costello. For some reason this list was accepted at AM, and I suspect that those same characteristics can be on other lists that are not (or are not yet) part of AM, as the list made by Kurt Cobain. It depends on the situation? Yes, the list from Costello is from a huge article (several pages) in Vanity Fair. Something like that from other artists would be included too.
And what happens with lists that have other forms of publication? Somewhere in the forum (That I can not find now) I read that paper publications must have a minimum number of circulation or readership or something, and the same for the websites, which are measured (Or calculated? I'm still not so good in English, sorry) by Alexa. I don't remember saying anything about paper magazines, they are almost always included. EOY lists from websites are included if the Alexa ranking is better than 1,000,000-ish and the number of sites linking in is higher than 100-ish. As you mention below, I also included the requirement of 120 reviews per year in the last update. For non-EOY lists the requirements are less strict.If I was not wrong with these requirements, I think the one that refers to paper publications could only be applied for magazines, ie not books. Because the difficulty that the publication of a book entails, it already could be considered a kind of quality filter, so they tend to be accepted more easily. Yes Although ok, I know this can not be taken as fact. And this bring me to the radio topic: Should not be the requirements of the radio stations lists (created by staff, of course) be different? I guess that a radio station list could only be accepted in AM if this list is "verifiable", for example, on the website of the station. But if the new requirement of having a certain number of reviews per year also applies to radio stations, what happens if they have not published reviews written and have only been transmitted? It is not possible for us to check this so this would mean that it is necessary for the radio station also publish written information. I know there are many radio stations (especially in USA and some parts of Europe) that have a website with columnists and publications etc. But this is a plus, it is not necessary for a radio station. To cite an example, among the most popular radio stations here in Mexico, there is one called Reactor. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHOF-FM ). They are public broadcasting, and they have a website, yes: http://reactor.imer.gob.mx/ and there you will find a blog section. But there you will find only a list of the songs they use in their daily schedule. Nothing more. However, if we do an exhaustive search, we find that they used to have a blog without their own Internet domain, and there we will find many international music lists. Quality stuff, I say. But no reviews. Although they make reviews. Only they do not appear on their website, so there is no way to check if this is true. And here's my suggestion: What if we do not use the requirement of having a certain number of reviews a year for radio stations, and instead let this requirements:
It is necessary that the lists are not created by the audience, and
it must receive heavy traffic on their websites according to Alexa,
and… I don’t know, maybe more requirements?Radio is a special media, and might be treated differently than magazines. Anyway, if the lists are compiled by several staff members these requirements are usually enough for non-EOY lists, and might be ok for EOY lists too. It also means something that you as a forum member know the radio channel and can verify its merits.

Sorry if I've written a lot, perhaps it's because I have trouble writing in English. I hope not to be a nuisance.You certainly aren't.

[Blanco]

Thanks for replying, you've been very kind. As soon as I can, I'll upload lists, then! Thank you.

[Henrik]

Blanco, before you do a lot of work, what kind of lists are they? If it's genre lists or lists like "best love songs" I won't include them.

[Blanco]

Well, the only ones I have in mind now are those cited above, made ​​by Reactor, compiled in: http://conteoreactor.blogspot.mx
I think they are: 6 EOY lists from 2005 to 2010 and a list of "The 106 Best Songs Of Mexican Rock From The Last 20 Years."
Although this radio station focuses on rock music and hip-hop, I think that their EOY lists do not follow this trend, they have many other genres, as you can see.
Unlike the list of the best songs from the past 20 years, which itself focuses only on rock music.
Do you think any are eligible? And if so, it would be better to upload spreadsheets with the lists, or simply just post the transcript, or just the links?

[Blanco]

If it's genre lists or lists like "best love songs" I won't include them.

What you say about the genres is for those lists created by general media, but not for the specialized magazines in that genre, right? These are accepted? I'm sorry, I'm a little confused.

Well, I was going to write here exactly what lists I think could be accepted, but instead I decided to put the names of the lists and their features in a spreadsheet, because I had some doubts, but I feel that I have asked a lot already. I you have free time, could you see it and tell me if you think any of these works, please?

Oh, and as for the lists dedicated to Rock (in blue in the spreadsheet), if you look closely, you will see that in these lists there are really a variety of other genres, both derived from rock, as well as others who have nothing to do with him.

If you have questions, or something is not clear in the spreadsheet, please tell me.
And thank you, seriously. Sorry for any inconvenience.