U2 Catalog: Results Here

[zuma]

tl;dr

It absolutely matters, if we say 5 is defined as "average song" and 10 is "the best song or songs" and 1 is "the worst song or songs" AND we are trying to understand where an individual song lands on this scale. Like, meaning, Streets was almost a 10, meaning "it's likely that the population believes it's the best song." We can't really make that conclusion without scaling bias first. It really doesn't matter, IF we are only interested in the relative positions of each song. Streets and Bad both received near 10s. But, even if we scaled that and they received near 8s after accounting for bias, they would still be in front.


For what that's worth, what I say is only true due to the fact that one ranking set falls entirely within another one. It wouldn't be true if, say, someone decided they wanted to use scores <6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15>. Of course, I would've thrown their survey out, as only integers between 1 and 10 were valid.

Can you write my biostats final for me? [emoji23]

Very interesting data, thanks for doing the analysis!

 

[youarenotimmune]

Yeah, I'm only looking at this data in an ordinal sense. The rankings at the very least should be valid. Pretty great seeing Promenade getting so many 10s. Wish we had a bigger sample size though, could've had some fun with the data!

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Can you write my biostats final for me? [emoji23]

Very interesting data, thanks for doing the analysis!

Oh goodness, if it's alive I don't do well with it.

But in all seriousness, probably not [emoji23] haven't a clue what's covered in biostatistics, but from what I do, life is literally the biggest pain in the ass.

 

[zuma]

Haha. Basics, models etc are the same, just a bit more of an epidemiological focus. I'm sure you'd do really well. [emoji12]

 

[intedomine]

I still haven't had an opportunity to properly digest all the results, but this is absolutely terrific work, Lucky. Thank you son much for assembling this together

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I've delivered the updated info to the Diems. When he gets a chance he will update the first couple of posts.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Diemen has updated our first post for more up to date results. You'll notice some movement here or there starting around the teens - this was mostly due to the fact that the offset data had assigned horrible scores to top songs.

Also, histogram binning errors were corrected, so the full range should display 1 through 10.

 

[Axver]

Aww yeah leaving my mark on the Achtung histograms.

LN7, didn't you say somebody had given Boots a 10?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Yeah, comedic relief.

 

[Luzita]

Yeah, comedic relief.

I can't find Boots on the "Got a 10" list. Are you trying to pretend it didn't happen?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm pretending the person who gave Boots a 10 is a Russian troll

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I can't find Boots on the "Got a 10" list. Are you trying to pretend it didn't happen?

Not pretending - it didn't. When I initially made the comment, I was entirely unaware of whether or not someone gave Boots a 10 (not something I checked for, wouldn't be shocking if someone did).

It appears nobody gave Boots a 10 after all.