Not sure if this can be considered as an abuse but...

Is it fare that someone upload a song on semptember of 2005 and enter a battle on april 2006?

yeah why not..... whats that abusing? nothing .....

Whats the difference if it was uploaded two years ago or yesterday?

Well, what happenes, is someone posts a song yesterday, it has 0 votes, someone posts a song 2 years ago, it has 49 votes...  it has had 2 years to gather vote after vote, then it is added to the battle, with 49 votes,  it has a pretty good chance of winning the battle... vs the song entered yesterday, with 0 and now only has 30 days to catch up, while the othe song continues to get votes as well...   I undestand, this has been discussed before, but never really brought to the attention of Mud....  So that is what the difference is.....

                      Jim "Da Noodle King" K

Funny, I thought about the same thing last month when my song failed to get more than 18 votes - some of the songs it was up against were on the site in November, and already had 15 or more votes. 

OK, it's not the end of the world, but had I waited another couple of months I would have at least got a rating.

So what's the answer - I don't know.  Perhaps there should be a cut-off period, say a maximum of two months on the site if it's going into a battle.

Whatever, it's not really abuse - it's more "working the system"

C'est la vie

My deepest fears have become truth...

The april's ranking is ready: the 9th place got 28 votes and 55% average. I got 20 votes and 75%.. and I'm not even in the list.

Wich was the criteria?

Our mighty lord Mud said "We're going to start filtering out songs which have below a 70% rating and less than 20 votes from the HOF."

Don't understand...

well, this is just an idea. Might be way complicated... Why not have a deadline for battle-intended songs to be uploaded. Like, if the song is uploaded before the first day of the battle, it won't be allowed in. I don't see any problem with that. It sort of makes it more fair. But maybe I'm wrong...

Anyway, I agree that something needs to change. There's a song that belongs to one Amper that has a rating of 39% and 41 votes. If that song were to be entered in a Battle, what's to stop it from winning? by the way, the song I'm referring to is about 15 seconds long, sounds like a noodle, and was recorded on a cell phone..

Also don't understand...

ok.. I'm actually reading the other posts now... Jiminuk already mentioned a deadline sort of thing. so, I'll second that.

Thirded ! I am sick of seeing 2005 songs in 2006 battles

But guys...isn't the ranking based on RATING, not number of votes? And if it isn't what horribley distorted sense does that make?

right oldies, the ranking is based on rating, not the number of votes.

so I don't mind seeing a song, uploaded in 2003, with 50+ votes in this month battle at all... I don't think voting behaviour has changed.... I don't think the quality of the material on this site has changed much... One could maybe say that votes made outside a battle shouldn't count for the battle, maybe that would be okay... Not sure about this.

Seriously, from my part, I have no problems with the current system at all.

So, Puppet. Can you explain then why is a 55% rating song on 9th place, with at least other two songs on the battle with 20 votes that I can assure have a higher rating?

I looked on the FAQs section:

"Your average is simply calculated by the recieved ratings. Your average represents all your ratings added up and divided by as many ratings as you have recieved"

So it IS important how many votes do you get, right?

I think I know what went wrong...

The idea is that songs with 20 votes or more will receive a ranking in the battle, based on their average percentage.

but... the way it works now... and we need to call tech support for that... is that songs with 21 votes or more have achieved a ranking, the songs with only 20 votes were accidentally left out for, in the programming code, the thresh of getting/not getting a ranking is set at 20, so the script understands that all songs with 1 to 20 votes are not getting a ranking. So, mud must change that thresh and set it to 19. Then your problem will be solved!

Well, that makes sense... I just hope that Mud gets to see this..

... it's not that important though, I'm not here to win battles (not that I could  ) but for the great feedback I get.

Just a thought, but when an old song is entered into a battle, could the average and votes not be re-set to zero upon entry?

At least that way, people would all be starting from the same starting line, and then it may not seem like such a crime to enter an old song...

This is what the FAQ page says about it...

Voting & rating songs

1. Only members that are currently logged in may "vote" or "rate" a song.
   

1. To rate a song, browse to it using the Audio Review forum and use the drop-down box to choose the rating you wish to give, and then push the "Rate!" button.
   

1. You may change your rating at any time, but you may not withdraw your rating altogether.
   

1. When using the Browse section of the forum or when viewing a member’s profile, you may see songs that have a star next to them. This is a signal that you have already submitted a rating for that song.
   

1. Your average is based on the ratings that people give the song, and so it can easily change from day to day, so check back often to see where you rank on the percent scale.
   

1. Your average is simply calculated by the recieved ratings. Your average represents all your ratings added up and divided by as many ratings as you have recieved.
   

1. Members can only see their own averages.
   

1. Battles last the entire month and can recieve ratings at any time, unless the song has already completed a battle.