In reply to:

---

Wrong. If you read the first few lines, it says merely that it has been suggested that the ‘weeks on chart’ figure represents the fairest, most accurate method of ranking acts

Suggested, and I don't care how good these guys are at compiling stats, if they think this is the most accurate method, they're none too bright.

---

I know the word SUGGESTED was used because that was MY WORD to qualify one people's set of data/opinion.

In reply to:

---

Really, Adam, I hope you're a little more logical and a little more questioning in your thinking

---

Once again, it's not MY thinking. Sure you can pick holes in their theories and that's partly because you're not viewing their evidence or argument on how they reached such a conclusion.

In reply to:

---

Anyone with half a brain could blow a number of holes in this crazy "suggestion".

---

LOL! Good for you. Of course there are MANY ways to determine chart success.

In reply to:

---

Equating a week on the charts back in 1955 when albums sold much less with a week on the charts in 1995 when the market for albums was so much bigger is dumb.

AND

Albums sales are seasonal. A week on the charts in the holiday season is worth a lot more than a week on the charts in February.

---

That depends on what's being calculated or conjectured. 'Chart history' is not the same as a pure sales aggregate. Album markets have increased every year since the advent of rock n roll. Music markets took a giant leap in the 80s post Thriller. On a determination of album charting, everything is relative for it's time. The fact that the #100 album this week might sell more than the #1 in 1956 is irrelevant to the chart history. Even the headline of this thread qualifies this as 'chart history' rather than some kind of sales aggregate which you seem to be fixated with in your attempts to disqualify people that even you admit are 'not so bright'.


BOWIE DOWNUNDER