Https://metalstorm.net/users/album_votes.php?user_id=122192

Written by Languedocian on 14.12.2024 at 12:59

Https://metalstorm.net/users/album_votes.php?user_id=122192

Thanks for reporting this, votes have been deleted.

Sorry if this idea has been discussed already and/or if it's impossible to apply.

First it would require to show rates percentage of total votes, at least on our own 'Album votes' page. For example :
(total : 790 votes)
10 ...26 votes : 3% of total votes
9 ...73 votes : 9%
etc.

Each time any user puts in 50 votes (so when he reaches 50, 100, 150 votes etc.) his higher and lower rates are automatically checked and compared to a (large and generous) grid of maximum percentage of total votes, for example :
10 ...must be <10% of total votes
9 ...<50%
...
3 ...<30%
2 ...<10%
1 ...<5%

If all rates percentage are inferior to their maximum, then nothing happens.

But if one or more rate percentage exceeds his max, for example if when the user reaches his first 50 votes it checks :
10 ...10 votes (20% of total votes instead of 10%)
and
1 ...5 votes (10% of total votes instead of 5%)

The user (and a mod ?) receives an automatic report warning for rating abuse, giving him a (again generous) amount of time to change his rates according to MS user rules, helped by the rating statistics that are shown on his 'Album votes' page. Another automatic check is made when given delay is over before any sanction is given.

As I stated, the same checking happens automatically again when any user reaches 100 votes, then 150, 200 ... 1550 etc.

Such system could help control rating abuse and also make the task easier for mods.

Https://metalstorm.net/users/album_votes.php?user_id=110384

Written by Languedocian on 26.12.2024 at 01:39

Https://metalstorm.net/users/album_votes.php?user_id=110384

It's time to purge his votes.

Written by Languedocian on 26.12.2024 at 01:39

Https://metalstorm.net/users/album_votes.php?user_id=110384

Dealt with, a warning has been sent. Thank you.

Something very strange is going on with the 2024 top albums this week. It has been interesting to keep an eye on this as I have noticed that as soon as Kinship makes it to the top, it appears to be downvoted so that Absolute Elsewhere remains there.

E.g.
https://metalstorm.net/users/album_votes.php?user_id=225547&r_order=rating

That 3 rating was not there until Kinship had climbed to 1st once again.

For transparency; I gave Absolute Elsewhere a 6.5(6) and Kinship an 8.5+(9), so my bias is obvious here - though, for me, AOTY is a toss up between Kanonenfieber and Ulcerate. Nonetheless, as a fairly new user it does affect faith in the ratings and makes me wonder if this kind of gamesmanship is a regular occurrence?

Written by Languedocian on 31.12.2024 at 13:04

Something very strange is going on with the 2024 top albums this week.

Thanks for keeping an eye on this, we will look into it.

Written by Redel on 31.12.2024 at 18:07

Thanks for keeping an eye on this, we will look into it.

Thanks, Redel, that's much appreciated.

I suppose the question I have been wrestling with when hunting for rating abuse (which, sadly, I enjoy) is "does a release ever deserve less than a 5 (Not Good)?"

I would argue yes, but I would also be sceptical of people sitting through a 70-minute album just to rate it less than 5. Would you torture yourself like that? Especially when you have given its nearest list contender 10. And from the FAQ:
Listen to the entire album before settling on a rating: skimming samples or checking out the singles does not constitute adequate engagement with the work. Give it a fair shot or just don't rate it.

So it could probably be argued that EPs and Singles would maybe have lower ratings, whilst albums would be more prone to ratings abuse.

Something I would also be really intrigued to see is customisable tops - e.g. filtering out legacy votes from dormant accounts, top EPs, etc.

Anyway, thanks guys.

Can we please get rid the accounts that manipulate votes every release day?

Death Metallus
JimmyMagnetar
AJ the Great
Umideath
Atrox

All of these rated about 1500+ albums just this year with some as many as 2400 albums. It wouldn’t be so blatant if they didn’t rate about 20 albums each every Friday and tank ratings on several albums on release day, sometimes even rating albums that haven’t released yet like the Coma Cluster Void album that still doesn’t even have a full tracklist announced. They don’t seem to interact with the site much outside of the rating spam. Maybe they don’t need a hard ban, but can we at least remove the ratings from these accounts?

Written by Languedocian on 31.12.2024 at 19:44

I suppose the question I have been wrestling with when hunting for rating abuse (which, sadly, I enjoy) is "does a release ever deserve less than a 5 (Not Good)?"

I would argue yes, but I would also be sceptical of people sitting through a 70-minute album just to rate it less than 5. Would you torture yourself like that? Especially when you have given its nearest list contender 10. And from the FAQ:
Listen to the entire album before settling on a rating: skimming samples or checking out the singles does not constitute adequate engagement with the work. Give it a fair shot or just don't rate it.

I can see where you're coming from and I appreciate your thoughts and your feedback on this matter, but I believe there are actually many reasons why someone might consider an album "not good" or worse, even after repeated listening.

The first reason involves albums outside one's usual listening habits that contain one or two standout hits almost every metal fan would appreciate.
For example, I can easily imagine metal fans who generally despise thrash metal but rate albums like Arise or Seasons In The Abyss a 4, solely because of their phenomenal title tracks. The less popular certain genres are within the metal scene, the more likely it is that low ratings will persist even after repeated listens. Like, I know plenty of metalheads who avoid nu-metal but even more who think "Killing In The Name" is an absolute banger and a groundbreaking song. In such cases, giving a low rating to the entire Rage Against The Machine album seems reasonable, and repeated listening wouldn’t feel like torture (because at least there’s one song to look forward to), but it wouldn’t change the overall low score.
If these are bad examples, there are plenty of so-called one-hit wonders. Personally, I find Disturbed almost unlistenable, but I have to admit their Simon & Garfunkel cover has a certain quality - at least compared to the rest of the garbage that dominated the radio in 2015. I still think the album as a whole is terrible, and I know that because I’ve been forced to listen to it multiple times on various occasions.

Which brings me to the second reason: social circumstances. It’s not just personal preferences but also those of one’s social circle that can lead someone to listen to music they don’t actually want to hear. For instance, I could, with a clear conscience, rate Pantera’s entire discography after Cowboys From Hell very low because my ex-partner was a huge fan of the band. That was truly torture for me. In many ways.

The third reason is viewing music from a professional standpoint.
A small example: one of my closest friends is a bassist in a death metal band, and that’s pretty much the only genre he enjoys. However, he’s listened to all the old Manowar albums hundreds of times because he finds Joey DeMaio’s use of the piccolo bass as a guitar technically interesting. Yet, he still thinks most of their music is crap.

The fourth reason is more personal: I only rate albums that are in my own collection.
Of course, it would be ideal if my collection only contained milestones of music history, but that’s not the case. My collection spans over 35 years, and over time, it has accumulated music with which I have little connection. This includes early '90s mispurchases from a time when there was no internet and buying a CD was a potential gamble, as well as gifts, random finds, and freebies from mail-orders like EMP or Nuclear Blast. In short: I own many CDs I don’t like. Nevertheless, I’ve listened to these albums multiple times, as I’ve always hoped to find something positive in the music.
This can easily be applied to the present day as well. Anyone who follows many bands on Bandcamp or subscribes to newsletters from labels almost automatically receives download codes. It's nearly unavoidable that some of these will include a lot of garbage. Nevertheless, I've made it a point to listen to all these albums sooner or later and give them a fair rating, if only for myself - to have a record of whether revisiting an album would be worth it or not. The fact that this inevitably results in a lot of low ratings, which in turn affects the average ratings on Metal Storm, is honestly completely irrelevant to me.

And as the final reason why low album ratings can occur (and why they can absolutely be justified) I’d like to mention the aspect of overexposure.
Here’s a brief example that hopefully speaks for itself: I know many people who initially thought Metallica's self-titled album was at least decent but fundamentally changed their opinion over time. They simply can’t stand "Enter Sandman" or the ballads anymore, which have been played endlessly on the radio, at wrestling events, and at every other birthday party for decades. Tastes change - and so do ratings. That’s a completely natural process, and I can’t blame anyone who now, in the future, or 30 years ago, thought Metallica's black album was terrible.

Of course, one could argue that these are just exceptions and that none of it applies to this particular case. Iotunn are not Metallica, their album isn't many years old, and it’s unlikely that someone would already be tired of it after just two months. But that’s not the point. The point is that there can always be reasons why someone might not like a specific album at all, and it’s not always malicious intent - sometimes it’s simply a matter of personal taste.
I've given many albums multiple tries, simply because I wanted to understand why I seem to be the only one in my circle of friends who can't connect with them. This includes many old classics as well as highly praised highlights of the current year. Repeated listening rarely helped; usually, it only reinforced my conviction that I'll probably never become a fan of the respective band. The fact that an album appears in our Top 20 can just as well be a reason for someone to engage with a band that they otherwise wouldn't have had on their radar.

You know, the rating scale has 10 levels for a reason, and we encourage our users to use them. How else should one rate Lulu if every rating below 5/10 required explicit justification? Many albums, considering individual musical tastes, and that’s what it ultimately boils down to, are simply bad. I’d even go as far as to say that the majority of weekly music releases are of below-average quality.


Sure, I understand your perspective, but putting all low ratings under the general suspicion of rating abuse seems unwarranted to me.
I know you didn’t mean to imply this, but to address rating abuse, we need more evidence than just isolated low ratings. Without a very clear, systematic pattern, we have no basis to act, and a single 3/10 that has no mathematically significant impact on an average of over 300 votes is not enough.

Written by Starvynth on 02.01.2025 at 16:17

.

Hey Starvynth, thanks for your thoughts. Really interesting and I would broadly agree with most things that you say. Ratings are a highly personal thing at the end of the day, and we all have our ways and reasons for grading the way we do, and it is even - shock - possible to listen to something without a judgment in mind or without taking it seriously, which are things I probably needed reminding of in all honesty.

In terms of a numerical rating, it is the age-old discussion of objectivity within art - is it possible or attainable? For me, of course it isn't. Which is why it amazes me so much that people would think to rate these things in bad faith just to see theirs top - although, admittedly, it is difficult to establish intent. Below 5 would not automatically be a bad faith rating - they are sure to exist across the scale - but I think there would be a few factors that could lend weight to the idea that a rating might be in bad faith, e.g. amount of votes, average rating, time between account established/last log in, other ratings in that year's tops. It would never be conclusive, of course, but if the overall aim of a list is to be objective then it will always be open to this kind of abuse that would need seeking out. As I say, I don't think objectivity is desirable or even possible - and I would love to see customisable tops that allow us to manipulate the data, rather than a single list that aims to be authoritative.

EDIT:
I just discovered that it is possible to filter by genre WITH year, but when I attempt to do this the list defaults to year only. I think this would probably stop my bellyaching!

Written by Starvynth on 02.01.2025 at 16:17

The fact that an album appears in our Top 20 can just as well be a reason for someone to engage with a band that they otherwise wouldn't have had on their radar.

I agree, and joining this website has been one of the best things I've done for my music-listening in recent years - I've been checking out an absolute ton of the top lists and enjoying some utter bangers. For me, this would be a reason to keep vigilant as people try to push albums up or down in order to gain exposure as a result of lists' implied objectivity. I'm sure I'm saying nothing new here, though.

Written by Starvynth on 02.01.2025 at 16:17

You know, the rating scale has 10 levels for a reason, and we encourage our users to use them. How else should one rate Lulu if every rating below 5/10 required explicit justification? Many albums, considering individual musical tastes, and that’s what it ultimately boils down to, are simply bad. I’d even go as far as to say that the majority of weekly music releases are of below-average quality.

Ha, indeed. I actually had Lulu in mind when I was thinking about this. I suppose I'd better go and listen to it again, just so I can make better use of the lower end of the scale.

If I can just chip in the discussion, there are three points I would like to make:
a) It is impossible to catch all rating abuse, no matter how hard we try and how many mods we have. The collective experience of a bunch of people who have put great effort over the years proves that.
b) Ratings are not objective, because taste is subjective. Unlike most people, I cannot stand Opeth, and if I rated their albums, they would all get between 4 and 6, except for the latest one, which would get a 7 or 8. Yeah, I know, shoot me.
c) Our Top-20 consistently has good albums. Maybe not all of them are the best of the year, but all of them are good. The most effective way to discover new music that you will like is to read the comments and check the lists of the users that you have found to have similar taste to yours.

Written by Languedocian on 02.01.2025 at 22:44

Ha, indeed. I actually had Lulu in mind when I was thinking about this. I suppose I'd better go and listen to it again, just so I can make better use of the lower end of the scale.

If your key takeaway from my last post is that you absolutely must listen to Lulu, then I’ve fundamentally failed in making my point.
My apologies for that.


Seriously though, you’re absolutely right that a 3/10 for Kinship is, under the circumstances you observed, unusual and might seem suspicious. It could indeed be a deliberate attempt to manipulate the Top 20, but in my opinion, mere suspicion does not justify intervention by our mods.
Still, I think it’s important to discuss such matters because there are many users who regularly use Metal Storm to rate albums but don’t otherwise participate. My hope is that some of them might stumble across this thread some day and reconsider their rating habits.

You know, for me, it always comes down to one question, which, as someone who enjoys working with numbers and statistics but also has a deep emotional connection to music, I simply cannot answer:

What personal benefit do people derive from manipulating the Top 20?

I think this is one of the greatest mysteries of rating abuse, as I cannot fathom what kind of satisfaction anyone could get from manipulating a top list just to give their favorite band a few extra (but ultimately meaningless) decimal points. If someone truly cares about the Top 20, wouldn’t they want it to be as accurate as possible and a realistic snapshot of our community’s average musical taste? The fact that there are people who don’t see it this way doesn’t align with my logical understanding that a statistic - and the Top 20 is ultimately just that - becomes completely worthless as soon as it’s distorted.

Written by Languedocian on 02.01.2025 at 22:44

In my opinion if no albums are rated lower than a 5 then a 5 just becomes the new 1 and the ratings would become meaningless pretty quickly. If there’s no 1s then what does a 10 actually mean? And if you need approval to rate a 1, shouldn’t you also need approval for a 10? I mean, if there’s so few albums that are bad enough to deserve a 1, then the opposite must be true as well and the users who have a hundred 10s would also be abusing the ratings. If you look at the MS scale, a 6 is an average album, and many albums are far below average so it’s not unreasonable to rate albums you don’t like at all a 3 or 4. I think the reason not many people use the low ratings already is because most users are rating albums in the top 20 and those albums are all going to be pretty good, so it is a bit shocking if someone hates the new Blood Incantation album for example but not unreasonable. Also since this is a music site after all, there’s a lot of people here who listen to new releases in full whether it’s good or bad, including myself, so it’s easy to come across more bad releases that way when you’re trying to find good ones. Rating an album a 3 if it’s bad is totally valid, and if everyone had to get mod approval it would only make loads more work for them with little to no benefit. Best way to fix rating abuse is just report it when you see it. Didn’t mean for that to be so long, but that’s my 2¢

Written by Vellichor on 01.01.2025 at 00:26

Can we please get rid the accounts that manipulate votes every release day?

Death Metallus
JimmyMagnetar
AJ the Great
Umideath
Atrox

All of these rated about 1500+ albums just this year with some as many as 2400 albums. It wouldn’t be so blatant if they didn’t rate about 20 albums each every Friday and tank ratings on several albums on release day, sometimes even rating albums that haven’t released yet like the Coma Cluster Void album that still doesn’t even have a full tracklist announced. They don’t seem to interact with the site much outside of the rating spam. Maybe they don’t need a hard ban, but can we at least remove the ratings from these accounts?

Thanks for reporting that.
We have looked into the rating distributions of the mentioned users. In case of the Coma Cluster Void album we have identified a clear violation of our rules of album ratings in two cases, where ratings were placed though the album has not even been released yet. The respective rule that gets violated here says "Listen to the entire album before settling on a rating: skimming samples or checking out the singles does not constitute adequate engagement with the work".

If you are aware of other cases in which you can provide a similarly clear proof for violation of this rule (rating placed before the album has been released), please dont hesitate and report them here. That is really very helpful since we cannot keep an eye on everything.

Written by Redel on 03.01.2025 at 10:07

Keep doing the lord’s work 🙏

Written by Starvynth on 03.01.2025 at 02:40

Seriously though, you’re absolutely right that a 3/10 for Kinship is, under the circumstances you observed, unusual and might seem suspicious. It could indeed be a deliberate attempt to manipulate the Top 20, but in my opinion, mere suspicion does not justify intervention by our mods.
Still, I think it’s important to discuss such matters because there are many users who regularly use Metal Storm to rate albums but don’t otherwise participate. My hope is that some of them might stumble across this thread some day and reconsider their rating habits.

We are both on the same page with this, and ultimately I think that suspicions of rating abuse will come from a place of caring about the legitimacy of the Top 20s. However it is possible that those concerns are not genuine, and people are merely trying to erase votes that they don't like. I am pleased that the benchmark for proving ratings abuse seems very high here, and that something is actually done if it can be established - I think the balance is spot on.

Written by Starvynth on 03.01.2025 at 02:40


What personal benefit do people derive from manipulating the Top 20?

I think this is one of the greatest mysteries of rating abuse, as I cannot fathom what kind of satisfaction anyone could get from manipulating a top list just to give their favorite band a few extra (but ultimately meaningless) decimal points. If someone truly cares about the Top 20, wouldn’t they want it to be as accurate as possible and a realistic snapshot of our community’s average musical taste? The fact that there are people who don’t see it this way doesn’t align with my logical understanding that a statistic - and the Top 20 is ultimately just that - becomes completely worthless as soon as it’s distorted.

I work in politics, so naturally I am inclined to see glass half-empty/thinking the worst of human nature as it is - I apologise! - so, for me, the two biggest reasons for manipulating the Top 20 would be:

- I Am The Winner
A lot of the bad-faith ratings probably do come down to this. By downvoting/upvoting tactically, it would be possible to slide one of your favourite albums into the Top 200 in time. What does this achieve? Who knows; the ego is a powerful thing.

- Bands getting exposure they otherwise would not have
There are a few examples knocking around of musicians' pages linked to voting accounts that have rated their own band's albums 10/10. This is pretty tacky. I would be suspicious that, if they have done it with one account so visibly, how many more have they arranged that are more underhand?

None of this is said to attack the validity of the Tops, and I am continually surprised that, even when they are for a genre I do not like, they are pretty much in tune with my perception of that genre.

Written by Vellichor on 03.01.2025 at 03:47

Hey Vellichor, cheers for that. 5 was just an example - I am not at all wedded to ratings not going below that, and I'm pretty much in agreement with what you have said here. I often think about 60%-70% in terms of the UK's university grading system. 6/10 - Average on MS - would be a 2:i, which around half of students leave with, is generally what employers in any professional field demand.

You did prompt me to reflect on why I hesitate to go below 5 personally - I think it is because 5 = Not Good. If it were 'Below Average' or similar, I think I would have no qualms rating many, many albums 5. Splitting hairs, I know.

Have weighted ratings ever been considered ? I know that's what they're doing on RYM and it might save a lot of time on moderation if people who only give 10s and 1s are just deweighted in album ratings. Obviously whatever algorithm would be used for the weighting would need a lot of fine-tuning to seem fair and it might be too much of a hassle to even consider on a small website like MS.
It's really striking how little conversation there is about rating abuse on RYM compared to here which is why I bring this up, but idk how much work they put on moderation behind the scenes that is just not really communicated

Written by Roman Doez on 03.01.2025 at 15:46

Have weighted ratings ever been considered ? I know that's what they're doing on RYM and it might save a lot of time on moderation if people who only give 10s and 1s are just deweighted in album ratings. Obviously whatever algorithm would be used for the weighting would need a lot of fine-tuning to seem fair and it might be too much of a hassle to even consider on a small website like MS.
It's really striking how little conversation there is about rating abuse on RYM compared to here which is why I bring this up, but idk how much work they put on moderation behind the scenes that is just not really communicated

Yes, this has been discussed multiple times, also within the contributors/elite/staff team, and we’ll definitely revisit the topic at some point - but only after the MS Awards.

To avoid raising false hopes: a system like the one on RYM will hopefully never exist on Metal Storm. Over there, user ratings are not only weighted mathematically (which I personally would be okay with) but also filtered through a secret algorithm that takes into account user activity and other contributions like reviews. We’re unlikely to ever embrace that level of secrecy and lack of transparency.

Written by Starvynth on 03.01.2025 at 16:14

Yes, this has been discussed multiple times, also within the contributors/elite/staff team, and we’ll definitely revisit the topic at some point - but only after the MS Awards.

To avoid raising false hopes: a system like the one on RYM will hopefully never exist on Metal Storm. Over there, user ratings are not only weighted mathematically (which I personally would be okay with) but also filtered through a secret algorithm that takes into account user activity and other contributions like reviews. We’re unlikely to ever embrace that level of secrecy and lack of transparency.

Thank you for the quick reply
My question is really embarassing now that I realize I'm part of the thread you just linked haha
I definitely think the weird algorithm used by RYM is a little silly, especially when looking at the "bolded" albums which sometimes seem to be randomly selected, but a mathematical weighting could be a good idea

Written by Roman Doez on 03.01.2025 at 16:32

I definitely think the weird algorithm used by RYM is a little silly, especially when looking at the "bolded" albums which sometimes seem to be randomly selected

Not only that. On RYM, the general popularity of a band is factored into all charts and in determining an album's score. In other words, already well-known bands are boosted by their opaque algorithm, while lesser-known bands are actively disadvantaged. That is the exact opposite of what we aim to achieve on Metal Storm.

BTW, the fact that comparatively many users on Metal Storm speak out against rating abuse, I consider a positive sign, as it shows that the majority genuinely want fair ratings. On RYM, this is discussed less because individual users have absolutely no influence over the system.

Another classic case of voting abuse.

https://metalstorm.net/users/album_votes.php?user_id=340332&r_order=year

Written by AndyMetalFreak on 02.02.2025 at 13:47

Another classic case of voting abuse.

https://metalstorm.net/users/album_votes.php?user_id=340332&r_order=year

Thanks, Andy. Yes, indeed, accidentally I had already sent a last warning here yesterday.