Reposting from General discussion...

[JimmyJazz]

I am reposting this from General Discussion in hopes that more people will see it...

"So, I am working on a classical music list, an artworks and architecture list, and possibly even a jazz list now that I have this idea as well. Letmeintomyzone is working on a TV show, video games, and graphic novels lists, which I am helping him create by sending him the lists themselves (he's working on making the sites).

My main question here what is a good point system with making these various lists. Seanywack suggested his method in that TV shows thread on the film board, but also was asking for feedback on that system. I personally quite like his methodology, but I do have a few questions about it. What happens if a list has more than 100 on it, and what happens if a list is unranked?

In regards to the games lists, of which I recently have been discovering there are way too many of, how should each be weighted? All-time lists should be given highest value, obviously, but after that, I am conflicted. I personally think it should be decade/console generation lists, then PC game and company specific lists (Nintendo games, Rockstar games, ect.), them finally console and genre specific lists.

What do other people think? As for point systems, please remember that neither me nor the other guy are, from what he has told me, the most skilled at complicated statistical excel based formulas. Looking for something simple but comprehensive and accurate at the same time."

[Jirin]

The best solution I think would be to do what Henrik does and make it so lists only affect relative placement of games that are eligible for the list. For example, a list of 'Top 20 first person shooters' made in 2005 would only affect the relative placement of first person shooters released before 2005.

Barring that kind of system, I might normalize point distribution in a way like "60% of the score is based on all time points, 30% based on console lists, and 10% based on genre lists", with higher weight given to lists that came later after a game was released.

Also might be interesting to separate US from Japanese publications.

[JimmyJazz]

The best solution I think would be to do what Henrik does and make it so lists only affect relative placement of games that are eligible for the list. For example, a list of 'Top 20 first person shooters' made in 2005 would only affect the relative placement of first person shooters released before 2005.

Barring that kind of system, I might normalize point distribution in a way like "60% of the score is based on all time points, 30% based on console lists, and 10% based on genre lists", with higher weight given to lists that came later after a game was released.

Also might be interesting to separate US from Japanese publications.

That's an interesting point actually. Consider whether that list is placing a game from that very year, in order to avoid the hype tendency and potential datedness of a "hot" game of that moment, which in the game world is a particularly bad tendency.

Unfortunately, I haven't found any critical Japanese games lists, which is really weird. Almost all Japanese lists I find are literally voted on by gamers and not critics and developers. If somebody could alert me to them, that would be great though. All of the lists I have found are from the Anglo world, continental Europe, or Latin America.