Blogger.com: Real Life And Real Charts

Moderators: trebor, kingofskiffle, nympho

 

Postby Graham76man » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:28 am

Sorry Graham, but your explanations just make no sense.
So you want more!

You always seem to answer one question by raising another.
Answering questions does that when you don't except the nose on your face.

what do the initials D.O.L.D.D.R stand for?
The compilers.
Which relates back to what I said about them before.

There is also the fact that singles are loss-leaders, no one makes money off them
The industry told you that!

You say the reason the Madonna record charted
If you re-read the quote you see that it's just my explantion. I can't tell you who bought a record and who sold it or what the reasons were for selling or buying a record.
But the record did sell enough to get it to the top.
If you lot assume that the sales on the Real Chart are correct for a minute, perhaps the experts on here can come up with the reasons for them being higher than Industry figures?

I suspect your sample covers a far, far smaller percentage of the market than the OCC does.
Since the Real Chart gets it's information from all buyers in the UK that makes it better than the OCC. For instance if for whatever reason a site or store doesn't supply any information one week, the OCC chart will be wrong that week.
However that can never happen in the Real Chart.

how many UKMixers who buy singles in the UK have provided information on their purchases to the mysterious Real Chart compilers
ALL of them.

And with so many individual consumers submitting their information, how can you actually verify that they actually have bought what they said they have?
When you buy a record do you lie to yourself that you haven't bought it?

For the chart of August 4th, 1991 (official chart date August 10th, 1991) the Gallup figure was around 110,000 using the reduced multiplier Alan Jones later used to get to 1.53m. It was about 115,000 on Gallup's initial assessment when they were still using 17 as the multiplier.
This sounds like a sample to me that gallup were using. The problem with samples is that it doesn't take into account the weather. For instance it could chucking it down in one town (putting buyers off from going to buy) and bright sunshine in another!
That will lead to wrong figures.
Blame It On The Weathermen! Or the weather!! :lol:
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby Robbie » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:53 am

Since the Real Chart gets it's information from all buyers in the UK that makes it better than the OCC. For instance if for whatever reason a site or store doesn't supply any information one week, the OCC chart will be wrong that week.
However that can never happen in the Real Chart.
Sorry Graham, but this explanation is absolute garbage. You're living in the realms of fantasy land if you believe that every single transaction (in private as well as at retail) ever undertaken by any music consumer has been (since 1948), can be and will ever be captured in data form to produce a chart.

You still didn't answer the question "what does DOLDDR" stand for? Your answer was "The compilers.
Which relates back to what I said about them before". Yes, I know they are "the compilers" but I assume DOLDDR is an abbreviation. An abbreviation of what?
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5247
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby irishguy28 » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:37 am

Graham76man wrote:If you re-read the quote you see that it's just my explantion. I can't tell you who bought a record and who sold it or what the reasons were for selling or buying a record.

<snip>

Since the Real Chart gets it's information from all buyers in the UK that makes it better than the OCC. For instance if for whatever reason a site or store doesn't supply any information one week, the OCC chart will be wrong that week.
However that can never happen in the Real Chart.
So, let me get this right, each individual in the UK that happens to buy a single in any given week somehow conveys that information to the D.O.L.D.D.R - and have been doing so since 1948. Never mind the fact that no-one from UKMix has ever done this; never mind that you haven't told us who exactly D.O.L.D.D.R. is; never mind that you haven't told us how they can be contacted; EVERY OTHER PERSON in the UK just automatically knows to send a fax/telegram/postcard/carrier pigeon after each purchase so the super-duper ultra-precise Real Chart can count what is selling.

You feed us this "information", and at the same time expect us to reject the rational data and clearly-explained methods of the OCC?

You said above you can't tell us who bought a record - but surely D.O.L.D.D.R. must be able to? If not, how do they know if they've counted the same purchase multiple times? What if Mr X forgets he already notified you, and alerts you a second time to his purchase? The D.O.L.D.D.R. will need to check that he hasn't already reported, and then ask him if it's a second purchase. Or if the D.O.L.D.D.R. strips the submitter's names from the data submissions, how can they trace the data back, find errors, avoid duplicates, etc etc etc.

Graham76man wrote:
how many UKMixers who buy singles in the UK have provided information on their purchases to the mysterious Real Chart compilers
ALL of them.
Oh really? Can you please ask just one UKMixer - preferably one we already know - to post a statement of corroboration? I'd love to know. Perhaps they will be less reluctant to share the knowledge.

You see, I reckon a good quarter of my singles collection comes from the UK - either bought in person, by mail order, or over the internet. The first single I bought in the UK was way back in 1991 - Bryan Adams' "Everything I Do (I Do It For You)" - and there have been probably around 400 in total up to the most recent, "Wonderful Life" by Hurts. So the Real Chart compilers didn't get any information on those sales.

Graham76man wrote:
And with so many individual consumers submitting their information, how can you actually verify that they actually have bought what they said they have?
When you buy a record do you lie to yourself that you haven't bought it?
People have been banned from UKMix for creating multiple accounts just to vote for their favourite band/act/song in various games and survivors on here. Don't you think that if people are willing to break the rules to boost their favourite act in an inconsequential and meaningless game, that they would not also lie about their purchases in an inconsequential and meaningless chart?

Graham, through all of the last few weeks, you have provided no justification for why the official chart is wrong, other than the fact that you claim to have figures that state otherwise. You refuse to answer who compiles the chart, hinting darkly that we won't believe/won't want to know/will regret it when we find out. You say at turns that you don't know how it's compiled, and then that every consumer magically reports their own purchases; you believe the industry to be fickle, lying and manipulative, but don't seem to think that the entire population of the UK that somehow magically reports to you are each and individually incapable of lying and manipulation in their data. (Given Madonna's track record on this chart, one would have to surmise that the chart panel is loaded with Madonna fans, for instance).

I still can't truly believe that you do believe in all this guff and nonsense; but I will say - it's extremely unusual, puzzling, and perhaps even troubling for a man in his thirties to be this credulous, if you do in fact believe it.
irishguy28
 
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970

Postby Graham76man » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:43 am

Irishguy28 you keep refering to me as YOU as the creator of the chart positions. But as I said before all I get from the compilers is where a record is in the chart and how much it's sold. All the rest is up to them. I do know how they get them from people. They know all about you for instance. Perhaps you don't like them knowing, but you don't have choice. Whereas I don't know why you keep assuming things about the methods of chart compiling, when you are still thinking inside the box.

You all keep fishing for the answer to who the compilers are, like asking what the letters stand for. So that should answer why I have not told you.
All I can say is none of you are good at puzzles!

You feed us this "information", and at the same time expect us to reject the rational data and clearly-explained methods of the OCC?
No I made it clear that the OCC chart is the Industry chart. So you make of that what you like.
The data and methods are what the Industry wants you to believe.
Personally I don't. But it's your choice.

Back to the puzzle (more clues).
Nothing is ever forgot.
Nothing can be hidden.
You can't lie to them.

Last bit:
I still can't truly believe that you do believe in all this guff and nonsense; but I will say - it's extremely unusual, puzzling, and perhaps even troubling for a man in his thirties to be this credulous, if you do in fact believe it.
So not only you have difficulty reading my posts and coming up with wrong statements, but you can't add up either. As I am certain I said in a previous post I was born 1960! Unless you are mixed up yourself.

PS even if you do work out who they are, keep it to yourself, as I will not be able to confirm it.
Though if anyone does try and gets it wrong I will confirm that (maybe) :lol:
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby irishguy28 » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:10 pm

Graham76man wrote: They know all about you for instance. Perhaps you don't like them knowing, but you don't have choice.
What, exactly, do you mean by that? What do "they" know about me?

Graham76man wrote:All I can say is none of you are good at puzzles!
Others might say you are not good at reality.

Graham76man wrote:So not only you have difficulty reading my posts and coming up with wrong statements, but you can't add up either. As I am certain I said in a previous post I was born 1960! Unless you are mixed up yourself.
Unlike you, or your friends, I don't keep dossiers on people; whether you wrote that you were born in 1960 or not doesn't matter when I didn't read it; and the point I made still stands, regardless of whether you're actually in your 50s, or in your 30s (as your username would suggest).
irishguy28
 
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970

Postby Graham76man » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:01 pm

Your fishing again.

Benny Hill once said never assume anything as it makes an ASS of U & ME.

76 just happens to be my fav year for music.

They are not my friends.

You aggread to it or you wouldn't be in Ireland now. And they are your records anyway (from you) the horses mouth so to speak. Nobody can see them so don't worry about it.

Others might say you are not good at reality.
You don't know what it is! Though you think you do.
If you are trying to say I'm mad read my first answer on here. As you now want to go over old ground again.
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby irishguy28 » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:09 pm

Graham76man wrote:You aggread to it or you wouldn't be in Ireland now. And they are your records anyway (from you) the horses mouth so to speak. Nobody can see them so don't worry about it.
I'm not in Ireland, though. It seems you forgot those pearls of Benny Hill wisdom that you passed on to me just as soon as you typed them.

As you've proved that I didn't agree "to it" - what was the it?
irishguy28
 
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970

Postby kingofskiffle » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:45 pm

May I remind everybody that we Mods do read all these posts and would like the tone kept civil please. Thanks.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 5919
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby Top40 » Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:52 pm

In March 1982, I bought I Want To Be Free by Toyah off a schoolfriend for £1.20 - Graham obviously thinks the Real Chart has a record of this!
Top40
Groupie
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010

Postby Blondini » Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:22 pm

ALL of us? So the chart "compilers" know our IP addresses and our bank statements? :lol:

This is getting us nowhere. Graham cannot answer any question at all. His chart is pure fiction and doesn't belong here. I'm gonna ask for this thread to be locked.
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 54573
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Postby Gambo » Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:49 pm

Hmmm. I dearly hope that Graham is just a genuinely eccentric character whose quirky sense of humour is tickled by rubbing chart followers up the wrong way with a load of hokum, toying with their obsession, pedantry, and hoping their character is prone to gullibility. I can live with that, although the joke's surely been wrung dry of any amusement by now?

If however he is at all serious about these outlandish claims, then one has to wonder how long it may be before the Men in White Coats come to collect him....

....Or maybe the DOLDDR chappies will come to his rescue?!

Actually now I come to think of it I think someone was following me in the queue at HMV when I bought my last single.... Which - spookily - was "Wonderful Life" by Hurts. Oh God Irishguy28, are you and DOLDDR one and the same?! It's been you all along!!
Gambo
Manager
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006
Location: Croydon

Postby irishguy28 » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:06 pm

I passed through East Croydon on the way to Gatwick last Sunday, but I've not been in any record stores in Croydon since 1991!
irishguy28
 
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970

Postby Graham76man » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:43 pm

CALM DOWN

I've told you everything I can, but now your just taking the piss.

Close mind syndrome has struck again.

Remember this I did not join this forum to promote or talk about the Real Chart, it was a members thread that started the ball rolling. The Real Chart is what it is. It's not the Industry chart and never will be. It doesn't need anyone's endorsment on this site or off it. It doesn't need public acceptance of it either. But it's staying. Unless I decide not to post the charts anymore.

It's no skin off my nose if the forum does close the thread, it's not my thread! You'll just have nothing to post the next set of questions to as soon as the next thing I put on the blog site causes a stir.

With that I make this my last post on this thread :-?
Que the music the last post....Dah Dah Didy Dah....
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby kingofskiffle » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:26 pm

Whether this chart is real or made up is largely irrelevant to me because each poster should be able to bring something to the forum and have it debated fairly and without people commenting as they have; some comments here are unworthy of those making them. If the 'real' chart is fake then so what? If the compilers are using data they believe makes their chart more accurate that should be mentioned here and the relative merits debated sensibly. This is not happening.

If the compilers wish to reman secret ten that's fine and their prorogative but will lead to many claims that it's fake as it has done.

Users will treat Graham with respect - he has ever right to post about this chart just as others have every right to challenge him on it BUT in a respectful way.

Users who break rules here know what will happen. Enough said. Behave. All of you. :)
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 5919
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby Shakyfan » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:46 pm

I bought a copy of Green Door on ebay during the week. Can I expect to see it in the Top 10 when the new chart is announced?
User avatar
Shakyfan
Manager
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004

Postby zeus555 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:13 pm

Kingofskiffle is right. Whatever anyone thinks
about 'The Real Chart', the debate about it must
not turn into a sort of 'Witch Hunt' against
Graham, as a person

I find the idea/concept of 'The Real Chart' to
be amusing - but intriguing. However, we must not
sort of 'gang up' on Graham, & make any unkind,
or personal comments about him.

It is wrong to do that. It comes across as
bullying.

However, Graham seems very capable of defending
his 'corner'. Even if many/most of us still do
not accept, or understand 'The Real Chart'.

But, we must not be unkind to him. We must
show him respect. He has caused Zero harm to
any of us.

Zeus555
zeus555
Superstar
 
Posts: 5209
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005

Postby www » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:36 pm

Why does the Industry, or whoever, do "fake" chart and manipulate?
www
Manager
 
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006

Postby Graham76man » Sat Sep 11, 2010 4:44 pm

Going to make a liar of myself now, but had to respond to the thoughts of Kingofskiffle and zeus555.
Even if they don't think the Real Chart is 'real,' at least they are open minded on it. Which I thank them for and the comments.

Shameless plug now, have done some updates on the site today adding more number ones, though not fully complete yet (takes time to type up and edit them onto the blog). Kingofskiffle please take note 1950, 1956 to 1959 added.

As I've respond might as well answer the others!
Shaky you need to get at least 39,999 people to buy it by 12 midnight. Wouldn't it be funny if someone talented sang it on the X-Factor and it made the OCC, but not the Real?
Why does the Industry, or whoever, do "fake" chart and manipulate?
You're guess is as good as mine! Money?
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby BoroButch » Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:47 pm

Graham76man I know you only post the Top 100, but how big is the Real Chart? Also would it be possible to show the weekly sales for each record?
User avatar
BoroButch
Manager
 
Posts: 2262
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004
Location: Strawberry Fields, forever.

Postby Shakyfan » Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:04 pm

Graham76man wrote:First Adams' chart position for each week starting 23 June 1991.
88, 19, 2, 2, 2, 2, 21, 17, 19, 21, 20, 23, 3, 4, 23, 14, 18, 22, 25, 32, 35, 36, 39, 99.
And the sales each week in thousands only:
17, 100, 702, 289, 296, 199, 100, 110, 121, 100, 180, 124, 229, 286, 160, 265, 264, 169, 196, 202, 198, 186, 59, 17.
So in the first week it was at no 2 it took 702,000 sales to reach that position. Yet in the following 3 weeks it only required between 199,000 and 296,000?? I don't think so......
User avatar
Shakyfan
Manager
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004

Postby Graham76man » Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:52 pm

OK I will post the sales figures on the new chart.
From what I can gather they log every sale. So the chart must be bigger than 100. Indeed in the past they had the odd occ top 40 chart entry at 103 etc, they told me when I asked were it was once. And said after 120 it becomes 'unstable', which they won't add further too. Though suspect it means the tracks start doing yo-yos each week. Presumably sales fall off big time after 120.

The chart for 1991 & 1992 Shaky were weird as far as sales are concerned. It puzzles me too why they were so high! As for the point you made I would put it down to lack of stock. 700K would clear stock fast! With the OCC chart fueling demand having it number one when it wasn't, hence the up and down effect in later weeks. But perhaps someone who worked in a record shop could confirm having problems filling shelves, as I didn't work in one.
I remember seeing the Top 50 and later top 75 charts laid out in lots of different stores. I recall never seeing one were all the singles were present. Stock issues?
I also saw records on sale two weeks before the entered the OCC chart too. For instance if a record was released monday 6 September, some stores had it the week before!
I remember seeing a David Bowie single like this and also Sophie Lawrence Loves Unkind too. Plenty of others too.
The only reason I can think that they didn't enter the OCC chart the week before it's offical release date, is due to some understanding between the record companies and OCC, which was to ignore sales of records before the release date. Can anyone confirm this?
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby MFR » Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:29 am

Graham, they register every sale in a shop they take data from. If a few copies are on the shelves ahead of the release week and they sell, they make the chart, but generally only in the lower reaches of the Top 500.
MFR
Personal Assistant
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009
Location: Sussex

Postby Shakyfan » Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:48 pm

Graham76man wrote:The chart for 1991 & 1992 Shaky were weird as far as sales are concerned. It puzzles me too why they were so high! As for the point you made I would put it down to lack of stock. 700K would clear stock fast! With the OCC chart fueling demand having it number one when it wasn't, hence the up and down effect in later weeks. But perhaps someone who worked in a record shop could confirm having problems filling shelves, as I didn't work in one.
....and it took them 3 weeks to get new stock in??? Besides if the stocks in the shops were that low it would have been more likely to have dropped massively in the 2nd week it was supposedly at no 2. So that p***es all over that theory! No doubt your response will be "It was only a suggestion" - perhaps you could try another one - maybe something more plausible???
User avatar
Shakyfan
Manager
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004

Postby Robbie » Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:52 pm

MFR wrote:Graham, they register every sale in a shop they take data from. If a few copies are on the shelves ahead of the release week and they sell, they make the chart, but generally only in the lower reaches of the Top 500.
There is a chart rule where distributors of a single can ask for it to be excluded where it is not generally available and distribution leaks is mentioned as an example. Obviously this means less in the digital age but it still does happen (eg Lily Allen's The Fear was removed from the chart when it appeared a couple of days early on iTunes when its sales would have placed it top 40).

I have a feeling this chart rule first saw the light of day in the mid 1990s when Monday releases became an agreed industry standard between labels, distributors and record shops. Its biggest "casualty" was Do they Know Its Christmas by Band Aid 20 which was removed from the upper reaches of the midweek chart three times in one week before some Saturday sales somehow let it sneak into the top 200 at #144 (? I think it was #144).
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5247
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby Blondini » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:25 pm

Steps slipped in at 72 a week early once. http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=28756
Faith No More's version of Easy ranked below the top 75 a week early too - both post-Christmas releases.
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 54573
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Return to Chart Analysis