Acclaimed Music Forums

I have made some progress with the next update. All the all-time (etc.) albums and songs lists that I have deemed eligible will be added, as well as the 2015 eoy lists.

The hardest bit is to include albums and songs from earlier years that have appeared in new all-time lists. I have a very good overview of the songs, but it is still a heavy task to get all data in place for them so I haven't decided yet if I will add any older songs in the next update.

For albums it's quite a mess though.
1. I have pre-2007 eoy lists posted in the "EOY archive" forum, but not summarized in any spreadsheets.
2. During 2015 and 2016, I have just made a quick and dirty job and only registered placements for albums already on AM in my spreadsheets.

So at the moment I don't have an overview of older albums that should be added to AM. But if I could get help with these two things, we could make a great albums update in 2017. Maybe expanding the all-time list from 3000 to 4000 or 5000!

EOY spreadsheets:
I got help with eoy spreadsheets for 1974 and 1975 by Andre back in 2009. I had actually totally forgotten about them (sorry Andre!). I have attached them here for everyone to have a look at and I will add them to the main website too. I don't think spreadsheets have been made for 1976-2006, so any help here would be greatly appreciated! If you make your pick fast, you can take your favorite year! The attached spreadsheets can be used as a template.

All-time lists etc., that were added last year or are in JR's, Pierre's or pauldrach's summary threads (the sticky threads in the "Critics lists" forum):
It would also help me immensely if you could help me get these lists into one spreadsheet. I will create a template for this. Hopefully I can get some volunteers in the meantime.

Henrik wrote: EOY spreadsheets:
I got help with eoy spreadsheets for 1974 and 1975 by Andre back in 2009. I had actually totally forgotten about them (sorry Andre!). I have attached them here for everyone to have a look at and I will add them to the main website too. I don't think spreadsheets have been made for 1976-2006, so any help here would be greatly appreciated! If you make your pick fast, you can take your favorite year! The attached spreadsheets can be used as a template.

Wow, that seems ages ago, but very nice that you kept those spreadsheets. And no need to say sorry, don't worry, Henrik.

Great that you want to revive the EOY spreadsheets collection. Even it will go in quite a slow pace, I gladly help you again and continue with 1976 and so forth.

I would love to help with adding the all-time lists. I can't really wrap my head around this right now, but please count me in.

A question, Henrik - you mention your hope of doing a great, extensive album update for 2017. Does this mean you're not doing an update this year, or that the 2016 update will mostly be an EOY-focused one with the major expansions coming next year? I'm assuming the latter, but just wanted to clarify.

Yes, the latter.

Thanks Andre and Harold!

Hey Henrik,

yesterday I filled in the 1976 spreadsheet. This took some more time than just copy-pasting, because checking the albums in RYM, finding the albums in Spotify and listening to parts of them was also part of the job and makes it is much more fun to do. But I also realize, that with this method it is going to take ages to finish EOY lists. Especially for the more recent years, we will have to focus on the copy-pasting part of the work ...

Two comments on the EOY lists currently on the AM website:
- trying to open the 2014 spreadsheet results in a warning and ignoring that gives only an empty spreadsheet.
- 2007 and later are available on the website. I was wondering if it makes more sense for me to continue going backwards and proceed with 2006, 2005, etc.

And finally, I also digged up our e-mail conversations from August 2009, where we exchanged some ideas about the spreadsheet template. Since I do have some further technical questions, I would prefer to address these to you via e-mail. Do you still have the same gmail account and if so, can I use that address? Thanks!

I still have the same email address, so you can go ahead and send your questions. However, you aren't planning to do all years by yourself, are you? Others who want to do a year or two might also be interested in our dialogue.

Anyway, please continue with the oldest years. I don't think the last years are really complete and I would prefer to wait with those issues.

Thanks!

No, was not planning to do all years by myself. Even if I wished to do that, it will take too long.

And yes you are right, it is easier to share my questions here instead of using the e-mail option.
They are actually not too technical and not so many either:

Question 1 is regarding the 1974 file: Cell BB3 has value 7.6, would like to know which formula is behind that.
I assume that this value depends on the number of albums in a non-ranked list, the more in the list the lower the value?

Question 2 is regarding the 1976 EOY lists: Besides a ranked list of albums, the 1976 list from NME also contains a number of "recommendations". Is there a way to also include these recommendations in the scoring?

Question 3: Would it add any value to add Spotify links to the list entries? Or genres (source RYM)?

I'd be happy to do the end of 90s (don't know how long it takes so hard to say how many years I can take) but I'd need a complete training I think.

Please find attached the EOY albums spreadsheet for 1976.
Some comments to this spreadsheet:
1) If multiple albums share a position in a ranked list, I took the average position as value (examples: two albums ending on spot 24 get value 24.5, three albums ending on spot 42 all get value 43, etc.)
2) The NME list has 24 ranked albums and 10 receommendations. I just added the 10 sharing position 25 to 34, which give them all the value 29.5
3) The EOY archive lists 51 albums from the OOR list, but muzieklijstjes lists 185 albums. I only included the 51 albums here ...
4) I did not add any Spotify links or genres here. I suggested that in my previous post, but for later years that will get too time consuming.

Henrik, please have a look at the file and my comments and tell me if I can continue like this.

Henrik wrote:All-time lists etc., that were added last year or are in JR's, Pierre's or pauldrach's summary threads (the sticky threads in the "Critics lists" forum):
It would also help me immensely if you could help me get these lists into one spreadsheet. I will create a template for this. Hopefully I can get some volunteers in the meantime.

The German thread does not include the lists that you added last year anymore. However, I think all the non-EOY lists that were added last year are listed here under "other albums lists" for the 2015 update. Those that have Germany in parentheses are the ones that were in my thread.

pauldrach wrote:

Henrik wrote:All-time lists etc., that were added last year or are in JR's, Pierre's or pauldrach's summary threads (the sticky threads in the "Critics lists" forum):
It would also help me immensely if you could help me get these lists into one spreadsheet. I will create a template for this. Hopefully I can get some volunteers in the meantime.

The German thread does not include the lists that you added last year anymore. However, I think all the non-EOY lists that were added last year are listed here under "other albums lists" for the 2015 update. Those that have Germany in parentheses are the ones that were in my thread.

Yes, that's what I meant. But Harold, as I said I will make a template. Far from all lists need to be added.

And Andre, I will answer your questions, but I don't have any time to look into it right now.

Andre wrote:Please find attached the EOY albums spreadsheet for 1976.

albums1976.xls

Some comments to this spreadsheet:
1) If multiple albums share a position in a ranked list, I took the average position as value (examples: two albums ending on spot 24 get value 24.5, three albums ending on spot 42 all get value 43, etc.)
2) The NME list has 24 ranked albums and 10 receommendations. I just added the 10 sharing position 25 to 34, which give them all the value 29.5
3) The EOY archive lists 51 albums from the OOR list, but muzieklijstjes lists 185 albums. I only included the 51 albums here ...
4) I did not add any Spotify links or genres here. I suggested that in my previous post, but for later years that will get too time consuming.

Henrik, please have a look at the file and my comments and tell me if I can continue like this.

Andre, during the last years Harold has used the following criteria for row 3.
"Albums outside a critics' list will be assigned the value in this row. Enter "no. of albums + 30" for lists w/ 30 or fewer and "no. of albums X 2" for lists with more than 30, or the value "7" for non-ranked lists."
It would be great if you update cell DQ3 in your spreadsheets and use these criteria.

Mid-positions like 29.5 above is fine.
I have always used the top 50 from OOR (could be slightly more and maybe even less(?) if there are ties).
Links to Spotify and RYM are certainly not needed here.
I will have a look at the 2014 spreadsheet...

Thanks!!

EOY lists that are summarized for many years on one page, and I'm too lazy to put the info in each of the EOY archive threads:

fRoots 1986-2015: http://www.frootsmag.com/pollwinners/
Downbeat 1965-2012: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1484

Harold, here is a spreadsheet with all the lists where I need help. I have included all AM entries, hoping that this would make things a bit easier for you. For ranked lists you can see what numbers are missing.

Let me know if you have any questions and let me/us know if you want others to take some of the lists.

This spreadsheet also gives a hint of which 2015 albums that will be included in the next update!

Thanks in advance!!

Henrik wrote:Harold, here is a spreadsheet with all the lists where I need help. I have included all AM entries, hoping that this would make things a bit easier for you. For ranked lists you can see what numbers are missing.

Let me know if you have any questions and let me/us know if you want others to take some of the lists.

This spreadsheet also gives a hint of which 2015 albums that will be included in the next update!

Thanks in advance!!

I don't think I could possibly be more excited to help out with this, and I mean that. I will let the forum know if I do need any help, but I think I'll be able to manage this.

Henrik wrote:Harold, here is a spreadsheet with all the lists where I need help. I have included all AM entries, hoping that this would make things a bit easier for you. For ranked lists you can see what numbers are missing.

Let me know if you have any questions and let me/us know if you want others to take some of the lists.

This spreadsheet also gives a hint of which 2015 albums that will be included in the next update!

Thanks in advance!!

The Harder They Come is in the spreadsheet... Is that an error, or is it being re-added?

It's an error.

Thanks Harold!

This will be a great update, with all these "new" lists to add.

Doing prep work for the spreadsheet by compiling all of the lists; I'll post questions as they arise.

The Christophe Brault (FR) "Top 20 Albums by Year 1964-2004" lists are not posted anywhere online - Henrik, I think someone sent you a spreadsheet containing those rankings. Can you send that to me if you have it?

Henrik, please send me the 2015 Fast N' Bulbous top 1000 from which the rankings on the spreadsheet are derived - there's apparently an updated 2016 list on the site, and the rankings are different. (Unless you want the rankings already on the spreadsheet to be updated...) Thanks in advance!

Henrik,

I don't know where I can ask this, but you can expand the genres list in the next update? Currently they are limited to show 100 albums.

Harold wrote:Doing prep work for the spreadsheet by compiling all of the lists; I'll post questions as they arise.

The Christophe Brault (FR) "Top 20 Albums by Year 1964-2004" lists are not posted anywhere online - Henrik, I think someone sent you a spreadsheet containing those rankings. Can you send that to me if you have it?

Yes, Iagire sent the list to me. It is attached here and I have also posted it in a new thread.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3726

Harold wrote:Henrik, please send me the 2015 Fast N' Bulbous top 1000 from which the rankings on the spreadsheet are derived - there's apparently an updated 2016 list on the site, and the rankings are different. (Unless you want the rankings already on the spreadsheet to be updated...) Thanks in advance!

The latter alternative is my favorite. Thank you in advance!

Bruno wrote:Henrik,

I don't know where I can ask this, but you can expand the genres list in the next update? Currently they are limited to show 100 albums.

Sure, I'll try to remember that.

Henrik wrote:

Harold wrote:Doing prep work for the spreadsheet by compiling all of the lists; I'll post questions as they arise.

The Christophe Brault (FR) "Top 20 Albums by Year 1964-2004" lists are not posted anywhere online - Henrik, I think someone sent you a spreadsheet containing those rankings. Can you send that to me if you have it?

Yes, Iagire sent the list to me. It is attached here and I have also posted it in a new thread.

Thanks, Henrik!

Henrik wrote:

Harold wrote:Henrik, please send me the 2015 Fast N' Bulbous top 1000 from which the rankings on the spreadsheet are derived - there's apparently an updated 2016 list on the site, and the rankings are different. (Unless you want the rankings already on the spreadsheet to be updated...) Thanks in advance!

The latter alternative is my favorite. Thank you in advance!

Well, I opened myself up to that one, didn't I? It's all good.

I will probably start working on the spreadsheet over the weekend. I will very likely ask for help entering some of the lists, possibly the French ones. And I will certainly need help with release years for many of the albums on these lists. I'll concentrate on entering the albums themselves and ask for help as questions arise.

Release years aren't really necessary here.

Henrik wrote:

Bruno wrote:Henrik,

I don't know where I can ask this, but you can expand the genres list in the next update? Currently they are limited to show 100 albums.

Sure, I'll try to remember that.

Thanks!

Henrik,

regarding the EOY albums Excel lists, I have now finished the years 1974 through to 1979.
They are uploaded in the EOY archive forum, thought that would make most sense and hope you agree.

Andre

Henrik wrote:Andre, during the last years Harold has used the following criteria for row 3.
"Albums outside a critics' list will be assigned the value in this row. Enter "no. of albums + 30" for lists w/ 30 or fewer and "no. of albums X 2" for lists with more than 30, or the value "7" for non-ranked lists."
It would be great if you update cell DQ3 in your spreadsheets and use these criteria.

Henrik, I don't feel very comfortable with the value "7" for non-ranked lists.
In my humble opinion, I don't see a need to distinguish between ranked and non-ranked lists and we should apply the "+30" or "X2" rule to both.

For example, if we would have a list of 9 albums:
- in a ranked list the albums would get values 1 up to 9 and all albums not on the list will get values 39.
- in a non-ranked list each albums on the list will get value (1+9)/2=5 and all albums not on the list will get values 39.

In this way, the difference between albums on and not on a non-ranked list will become larger when the number of albums on the non-ranked list increases.

What do you think?

Andre wrote:Henrik,

regarding the EOY albums Excel lists, I have now finished the years 1974 through to 1979.
They are uploaded in the EOY archive forum, thought that would make most sense and hope you agree.

Andre

That's awesome, Andre. Thank you!

For 1980 and onwards, whoever does the job, I would prefer to have the artist names written as "firstname surname" and "The Band".

Andre wrote:

Henrik wrote:Andre, during the last years Harold has used the following criteria for row 3.
"Albums outside a critics' list will be assigned the value in this row. Enter "no. of albums + 30" for lists w/ 30 or fewer and "no. of albums X 2" for lists with more than 30, or the value "7" for non-ranked lists."
It would be great if you update cell DQ3 in your spreadsheets and use these criteria.

Henrik, I don't feel very comfortable with the value "7" for non-ranked lists.
In my humble opinion, I don't see a need to distinguish between ranked and non-ranked lists and we should apply the "+30" or "X2" rule to both.

For example, if we would have a list of 9 albums:
- in a ranked list the albums would get values 1 up to 9 and all albums not on the list will get values 39.
- in a non-ranked list each albums on the list will get value (1+9)/2=5 and all albums not on the list will get values 39.

In this way, the difference between albums on and not on a non-ranked list will become larger when the number of albums on the non-ranked list increases.

What do you think?

Well, I agree. But I think the problem is that "+30" is too much for very short lists.

How about
number of albums * 2 + 5
for all ranked lists?

Or perhaps something a little higher than +5 and something a little higher than 7 for unranked lists (ranked: albums*2+6; unranked: 8, ranked: albums*2+7; unranked: 9, etc.)

Henrik wrote:For 1980 and onwards, whoever does the job, I would prefer to have the artist names written as "firstname surname" and "The Band".

I usually write it that way and it was some effort to change it to "surname, first name" and "Band, The". Good to know that this is not needed anymore!

Regarding ranked and unranked lists: The point I'm trying to make is that, in my opinion, we should not distinguish between ranked and unranked lists, but use the same formula(s) for both...

Andre wrote:

Henrik wrote:For 1980 and onwards, whoever does the job, I would prefer to have the artist names written as "firstname surname" and "The Band".

I usually write it that way and it was some effort to change it to "surname, first name" and "Band, The". Good to know that this is not needed anymore!

Sorry for the inconvenience...!

Andre wrote:Regarding ranked and unranked lists: The point I'm trying to make is that, in my opinion, we should not distinguish between ranked and unranked lists, but use the same formula(s) for both...

This doesn't make any sense to me. That would treat every unranked album as "the album of the year" and not "one of the albums of the year".

Henrik wrote:

Andre wrote:

Henrik wrote:For 1980 and onwards, whoever does the job, I would prefer to have the artist names written as "firstname surname" and "The Band".

I usually write it that way and it was some effort to change it to "surname, first name" and "Band, The". Good to know that this is not needed anymore!

Sorry for the inconvenience...!

No problem, I have corrected 1974 to 1979 and uploaded again. It looks much more readable now ...

Henrik wrote:

Andre wrote:Regarding ranked and unranked lists: The point I'm trying to make is that, in my opinion, we should not distinguish between ranked and unranked lists, but use the same formula(s) for both...

This doesn't make any sense to me. That would treat every unranked album as "the album of the year" and not "one of the albums of the year".

That would be true, if we would always give each unranked album the value 1. But that's not what I suggested. Please have a look again at my example from my earlier post:

Andre wrote: For example, if we would have a list of 9 albums:
- in a ranked list the albums would get values 1 up to 9 and all albums not on the list will get values 39.
- in a non-ranked list each albums on the list will get value (1+9)/2=5 and all albums not on the list will get values 39.

In this way, the difference between albums on and not on a non-ranked list will become larger when the number of albums on the non-ranked list increases.

BTW, I like your idea of having the formula 2*albums+5 (or 6 or 7)

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm on a roll now and definitely want to convince you ...

In a ranked list, if two or more albums share the same spot, they will get the same value: For instance if two albums are together on spot 23, they get the value 23.5; if three albums are together on spot 35 they get the value (35+37)/2=36, etcetera

Now imagine having 9 albums all together sharing spot 1: They would all get value (1+9)/2 = 5, right?

With this method, there is no real difference between ranked and unranked lists. Don't know about you, but I like it a lot

And in the Excel file, we can easily automate the calculation of values for albums outside the list.

Andre wrote:Sorry to bother you again, but I'm on a roll now and definitely want to convince you ...

In a ranked list, if two or more albums share the same spot, they will get the same value: For instance if two albums are together on spot 23, they get the value 23.5; if three albums are together on spot 35 they get the value (35+37)/2=36, etcetera

Now imagine having 9 albums all together sharing spot 1: They would all get value (1+9)/2 = 5, right?

With this method, there is no real difference between ranked and unranked lists. Don't know about you, but I like it a lot

And in the Excel file, we can easily automate the calculation of values for albums outside the list.

This is fine with me. The only drawback is that a "5.5" or whatever doesn't look as neat as a "1".

Uploaded 1980 and reuploaded 1974-1979: Now all lists use the formula "2 * no. of albums + 5".

Henrik, I might be willing to help with the EOY lists thing, but I will admit that I'm somewhat drowning. For instance, I've started working on a spreadsheet for year 2006 (taking the opposite approach from Andre) but I'm having trouble. If you answer me, please assume I have the level of understanding of a fourteen-year-old

- Reaching my third USA list to include, I've moved all columns to reach column N so as to continue from column M, but the albums I'm including are getting negative points in their overall score. Why is it so?
- How do I include lists like Muzikalia, which is split between national and international albums? I understand that I must create two columns for each one, but is there any adjustment needed in terms of rank or formula (if the latter, I'm out because I'm totally incompetent )?
- To include unranked lists, I must give each album the rank 1+number of albums/2, if I understood correctly your discussion with Andre. For instance, if a list has ten albums, they will all get a rank of 5.5. Correct?
- But then, how about lists that are ranked up to a certain point, and then unranked? For instance, the Sentire Ascoltare list has a rank for the first twenty albums, but the twenty-nine following ones don't. Must I give all these following albums a rank of 25? It feels weird, because if the first thirty albums had been ranked, for instance, then the last nineteen would have a rank of 25, effectively putting them higher than the albums ranked 26-30, which doesn't make sense.

Pierre, great that you are starting from 2006. Due to vacations here and there, I am still at 1981.
Let me try to answer some of your questions.

Pierre wrote: - To include unranked lists, I must give each album the rank 1+number of albums/2, if I understood correctly your discussion with Andre. For instance, if a list has ten albums, they will all get a rank of 5.5. Correct?
- But then, how about lists that are ranked up to a certain point, and then unranked? For instance, the Sentire Ascoltare list has a rank for the first twenty albums, but the twenty-nine following ones don't. Must I give all these following albums a rank of 25? It feels weird, because if the first thirty albums had been ranked, for instance, then the last nineteen would have a rank of 25, effectively putting them higher than the albums ranked 26-30, which doesn't make sense.

Let's say the (partial) unranked list starts at position x and ends at position y. All albums on this (partial) unranked list will get rank
(x+y)/2.

In your example of a complete unranked list of 10 albums, this would be: (1+10)/2 = 5.5 (so your first conclusion is correct!).

In your example of twenty ranked albums followed by 29 unranked albums, this would mean that each of these 29 albums will get rank (21+49)/2 = 35.

Hope this helps!

Andre wrote:Pierre, great that you are starting from 2006. Due to vacations here and there, I am still at 1981.
Let me try to answer some of your questions.

Pierre wrote: - To include unranked lists, I must give each album the rank 1+number of albums/2, if I understood correctly your discussion with Andre. For instance, if a list has ten albums, they will all get a rank of 5.5. Correct?
- But then, how about lists that are ranked up to a certain point, and then unranked? For instance, the Sentire Ascoltare list has a rank for the first twenty albums, but the twenty-nine following ones don't. Must I give all these following albums a rank of 25? It feels weird, because if the first thirty albums had been ranked, for instance, then the last nineteen would have a rank of 25, effectively putting them higher than the albums ranked 26-30, which doesn't make sense.

Let's say the (partial) unranked list starts at position x and ends at position y. All albums on this (partial) unranked list will get rank
(x+y)/2.

In your example of a complete unranked list of 10 albums, this would be: (1+10)/2 = 5.5 (so your first conclusion is correct!).

In your example of twenty ranked albums followed by 29 unranked albums, this would mean that each of these 29 albums will get rank (21+49)/2 = 35.

Hope this helps!

Thanks Andre! This will definitely helps. However, I will only resume working on this when Henrik will have answered my other questions anyway I'm too afraid of making a mistake that would invalidate all my work.

Henrik wrote:Harold, here is a spreadsheet with all the lists where I need help.

Just wanted to provide an update on my work on the album list spreadsheet - I have zeroed out 57 of the 69 lists. I plan to do a few more next week and then will likely post the updated spreadsheet and ask others to take up what's left.

Pierre wrote:Henrik, I might be willing to help with the EOY lists thing, but I will admit that I'm somewhat drowning. For instance, I've started working on a spreadsheet for year 2006 (taking the opposite approach from Andre) but I'm having trouble. If you answer me, please assume I have the level of understanding of a fourteen-year-old

- Reaching my third USA list to include, I've moved all columns to reach column N so as to continue from column M, but the albums I'm including are getting negative points in their overall score. Why is it so?
- How do I include lists like Muzikalia, which is split between national and international albums? I understand that I must create two columns for each one, but is there any adjustment needed in terms of rank or formula (if the latter, I'm out because I'm totally incompetent )?
- To include unranked lists, I must give each album the rank 1+number of albums/2, if I understood correctly your discussion with Andre. For instance, if a list has ten albums, they will all get a rank of 5.5. Correct?
- But then, how about lists that are ranked up to a certain point, and then unranked? For instance, the Sentire Ascoltare list has a rank for the first twenty albums, but the twenty-nine following ones don't. Must I give all these following albums a rank of 25? It feels weird, because if the first thirty albums had been ranked, for instance, then the last nineteen would have a rank of 25, effectively putting them higher than the albums ranked 26-30, which doesn't make sense.

Pierre, it's great that you want to help! And I'm sorry for the late reply.

Instead of moving columns you need to show the hidden columns O-AZ (or slightly different columns depending on what template you are using). Mark columns N and BA, right-click the mouse and choose "Show". You can then hide as many columns as you like by marking them and choosing "Hide".

For national lists, if it's ok with you I'd say don't do anything special to them for now. Those albums will then be given lots of points, but it's not going to make much a difference to the top of the lists anyway. I can do adjustments afterwards if necessary.

I believe Andre already answered the other questions.

Beware that some of the 2000s years are not complete. That's something I need to work on. Until then it's better if I can get help with other years. Thanks again!

Harold wrote:

Henrik wrote:Harold, here is a spreadsheet with all the lists where I need help.

Just wanted to provide an update on my work on the album list spreadsheet - I have zeroed out 57 of the 69 lists. I plan to do a few more next week and then will likely post the updated spreadsheet and ask others to take up what's left.

That sounds awesome , Harold!

Henrik wrote:

Pierre wrote:Henrik, I might be willing to help with the EOY lists thing, but I will admit that I'm somewhat drowning. For instance, I've started working on a spreadsheet for year 2006 (taking the opposite approach from Andre) but I'm having trouble. If you answer me, please assume I have the level of understanding of a fourteen-year-old

- Reaching my third USA list to include, I've moved all columns to reach column N so as to continue from column M, but the albums I'm including are getting negative points in their overall score. Why is it so?
- How do I include lists like Muzikalia, which is split between national and international albums? I understand that I must create two columns for each one, but is there any adjustment needed in terms of rank or formula (if the latter, I'm out because I'm totally incompetent )?
- To include unranked lists, I must give each album the rank 1+number of albums/2, if I understood correctly your discussion with Andre. For instance, if a list has ten albums, they will all get a rank of 5.5. Correct?
- But then, how about lists that are ranked up to a certain point, and then unranked? For instance, the Sentire Ascoltare list has a rank for the first twenty albums, but the twenty-nine following ones don't. Must I give all these following albums a rank of 25? It feels weird, because if the first thirty albums had been ranked, for instance, then the last nineteen would have a rank of 25, effectively putting them higher than the albums ranked 26-30, which doesn't make sense.

Pierre, it's great that you want to help! And I'm sorry for the late reply.

Instead of moving columns you need to show the hidden columns O-AZ (or slightly different columns depending on what template you are using). Mark columns N and BA, right-click the mouse and choose "Show". You can then hide as many columns as you like by marking them and choosing "Hide".

For national lists, if it's ok with you I'd say don't do anything special to them for now. Those albums will then be given lots of points, but it's not going to make much a difference to the top of the lists anyway. I can do adjustments afterwards if necessary.

I believe Andre already answered the other questions.

Beware that some of the 2000s years are not complete. That's something I need to work on. Until then it's better if I can get help with other years. Thanks again!

Thanks for the info Henrik! If there's issues with the years 2000s, then I'll restart at 1999. This will be more simple, and it's the title of one of my favourite albums, too

One more quick question: if there are more than 200 albums, I presume you'll fix it yourself (since the ranking formulas aren't going that far)? Or is this something I can do myself (baby steps please)?