5 minutes ago, supertiffany said:

the fan blog will have her at 500M units and beat Madonna next

Chartmasters if anything has been biased Taylor against for a long time...

Edited March 15, 20233 yr by Axelios

9 minutes ago, supertiffany said:

no wonder they have obvious favorites especially to the chart obsessed fanbase that regularly visit their website and they do this for clicks

The way he mentions/references T*yl*r throughout the update. He definitely knows his audience 

6 minutes ago, RihFenty20 said:

The way he mentions/references T*yl*r throughout the update. He definitely knows his audience 

There's literally old receipts of him being an OTH  He stans Michael Jackson and Beyoncé.

 

Of course Taylor is referenced often in a chart website considering she's the most successful artist of the 21st century on charts  Mind you, Taylor's page is full of comparisons with Rihanna by the way! 

Edited March 15, 20233 yr by The Music Industry

13 minutes ago, supertiffany said:

the fan blog will have her at 500M units and beat Madonna next

And you will be one of the first to fume about it

 

 

13 minutes ago, WeFoundTrouble said:

In the all time list, right? I’m about to check it out now

Ye. He mentioned it in the blog, but I don't know what her previous numbers and position were

4 minutes ago, Juanny said:

Does any source have complete streaming data including from Apple Music and other platforms aside from Spotify? I'm confused as to why some users in here are attacking them for trying to make educated extrapolations from data that isn't and may never be available.

 

What they are measuring cannot be exact but the predictions are justifiable if the assumptions seem reasonable. There will always be guesswork involved in the process of trying to estimate worldwide, lifetime numbers, which is a difficult and involved task. Obviously these data can never be treated as ground truth but if someone is doing the work, why not reference it?

Right… very much this. And I say this as someone who used to say the same thing about how it’s fraud some years back. Mostly because his formulas were really sketchy back then, but the owner of the site has made massive strides towards actually trying to get the most accurate data he can. The formula/s have been improved massively over the past couple years. It’s about as reliable as we can get for consistent updates. 

So from double counting to triple counting

8 minutes ago, Brando said:

And you will be one of the first to fume about it

 

 

Ye. He mentioned it in the blog, but I don't know what her previous numbers and position were

 

nah, it's as laughable as those cheap China sales you've been bragging

8 minutes ago, Juanny said:

Does any source have complete streaming data including from Apple Music and other platforms aside from Spotify? I'm confused as to why some users in here are attacking them for trying to make educated extrapolations from data that isn't and may never be available.

 

What they are measuring cannot be exact but the predictions are justifiable if the assumptions seem reasonable. There will always be guesswork involved in the process of trying to estimate worldwide, lifetime numbers, which is a difficult and involved task. Obviously these data can never be treated as ground truth but if someone is doing the work, why not reference it?

Labels and Official Institutions do. Inflated or not, they’re the ones with access to the counters of various streaming platforms for their artists. 
 

Bolded: That’s not how the world works. By your logic, I can bisect a couple animals to get a gauge on their anatomy, and then call myself a veterinary surgeon because I “did the work” despite me having no credentials.  Would you trust me (and my alleged work) to do surgery on your pet in this case? 

CM being a swiftie now when we were the first fanbase to clash with him

 

Your faves are flops, deal with it

 

6 minutes ago, Brando said:

And you will be one of the first to fume about it

 

 

Ye. He mentioned it in the blog, but I don't know what her previous numbers and position were

I’m not sure if she jumped several spots. I don’t remember her being close to 142M but she may have just moved that many units ever since I last checked.
 

She should comfortably enter their top 25 by year’s end though, maybe top 20 if she over-performs and gets some type of boost from this overhaul. I- 

 

The way Taylor gets a sizable boost and benefits every single time their formula improves, expands for more global

platforms, and becomes more accurate 

6 minutes ago, RihFenty20 said:

Labels and Official Institutions do. Inflated or not, they’re the ones with access to the counters of various streaming platforms for their artists. 
 

Bolded: That’s not how the world works. By your logic, I can bisect a couple animals to get a gauge on their anatomy, and then call myself a veterinary surgeon because I “did the work” despite me having no credentials.  Would you trust me (and my alleged work) to do surgery on your pet in this case? 

you are missing the point entirely

 

stans on here constantly argue about their faves' popularity using nothing but Spotify, YouTube and some outdated and incomplete certifications. chartmasters obviously a way more accurate picture of an artist's success and popularity than whatever people here online use to argue

4 minutes ago, By the Water said:

CM being a swiftie now when we were the first fanbase to clash with him

 

Your faves are flops, deal with it

 

And CM themselves list their BTS, Lady Gaga and Madonna analyses as their most popular content.

So I'm confused how Swifties are suddenly their main audience…

 

3 minutes ago, By the Water said:

CM being a swiftie now when we were the first fanbase to clash with him

 

Your faves are flops, deal with it

 

Like, he literally called Taylor a B-lister outside the US some years back when anyone with sense knows that’s extremely delusional. It’s not her fault that the more his formula improves, accounts for global platforms, etc the better she performs and the more the “local” claim gets shattered. Almost like it was never true to begin with…

 

Also these changes will benefit other people’s faves too [even if to a lesser extent] so why the outrage? 

1 minute ago, favorite crime said:

you are missing the point entirely

 

stans on here constantly argue about their faves' popularity using nothing but Spotify, YouTube and some outdated and incomplete certifications. chartmasters obviously a way more accurate picture of an artist's success and popularity than whatever people here online use to argue

More accurate according to whom? User favorite crime? Because as I have said in the past, nobody in the industry references CM. Guesstimating is not accurate. In fact, the word is the anti-thesis to accuracy when conducting quantitative research. 

1 hour ago, RihFenty20 said:

Please free this forum from the shackles of this blog 

 

EDIT: I just read the entire update and LOL. They themselves are admitting they have incomplete data and use guesstimations to make up for it. These changes are just elaborate ways to guesstimate better. He’s shaming “inflated” label numbers yet is playing with incomplete data while touting about accuracy. What a joke 

Exactly. And the gays will drag credible sources like IFPI when their faves are not charting high on it

 

so who is more credible

 

him who just GUESS

 

or those labels/institutions that has direct access to data but are called inflated??
 

the people here are stupid, they'll rather have a Youtube doctor do a neurosurgery on their brains than a board certified Medical Doctor

14 minutes ago, RihFenty20 said:

More accurate according to whom? User favorite crime? Because as I have said in the past, nobody in the industry references CM. Guesstimating is not accurate. In fact, the word is the anti-thesis to accuracy when conducting quantitative research. 

what are you even arguing???? literally no one is claiming he is an industry source. he is just the best source we have and there's nothing wrong with users referencing him.

42 minutes ago, RihFenty20 said:

Labels and Official Institutions do. Inflated

oh..

That Rihanna Stan melting down over Taylor swift yet again 

 

The sales portion of this is a little weird, but since there’s only a handful of artists who still sell it will not affect those whose trends are going nowhere over several years

6 minutes ago, favorite crime said:

what are you even arguing???? literally no one is claiming he is an industry source. he is just the best source we have and there's nothing wrong with users referencing him.

Dude, my point is he isn’t a source. No amount of elaborate guesstimations and made up metrics will make him one. So yes,  There’s definitely an issue with using him as a metric/source for a song or album’s success. Especially in the case of performing quantitative comparisons. What’s not clicking? 

 

1 minute ago, Brando said:

oh..

Why do you think this is a gotcha moment? Semi-Inflated numbers will always be better than guesstimations. Please don’t quote me unless you’re adding something constructive to the dialog. Thanks. 

2 hours ago, RihFenty20 said:

Please free this forum from the shackles of this blog 

 

EDIT: I just read the entire update and LOL. They themselves are admitting they have incomplete data and use guesstimations to make up for it. These changes are just elaborate ways to guesstimate better. He’s shaming “inflated” label numbers yet is playing with incomplete data while touting about accuracy. What a joke 

 

I'll never get the hatred for Chartmasters. They aren't perfect, but they're the closest to a complete source we have. And, unlike a lot of other sources, they differentiate between albums, physical singles, digital singles, etc.

 

At least we're past the days of using Mediatraffic.

1 hour ago, Artistofthedecade said:

The meltdowns over Chartmaster every single time like it is not the best we have

kinda agree. its cool to see all of their data. The beatles slayage has been laid out for all the haters to see as they should

 

 

that being said using it as a true concrete receipt is a choice

 

20 minutes ago, Ms. Togekiss said:

That Rihanna Stan melting down over Taylor swift yet again 

 

The sales portion of this is a little weird, but since there’s only a handful of artists who still sell it will not affect those whose trends are going nowhere over several years

It’s fully pathological at this point, adding to the beyond cringe censoring of her name every time like users on stan Twitter 

 

11 minutes ago, Virgos Groove said:

I'll never get the hatred for Chartmasters. They aren't perfect, but they're the closest to a complete source we have. And, unlike a lot of other sources, they differentiate between albums, physical singles, digital singles, etc.

 

At least we're past the days of using Mediatraffic.

I don't get it either. People honestly just seem mad because updated methodology favors artists they hate. Like, the site's literal tagline right now is "one step closer to being accurate" - they know they're not perfect. We may never have a foolproof comprehensive source for consumption data for all major artists - sites like this are doing literally the best that's currently possible for anyone who isn't a major label data analyst (if such a job even exists, and even then it's probably limited to just one label unless it's a consulting firm with a large range of contracts).