Album chart

  • 6
  • Idea
  • Updated 1 year ago
  • Under Consideration
So far album chart aren't bound to the number of tracks.In this way albums with less tracks are penalized.It would be great if you added a chart which consider that, maybe just with a quotient between the album's plays and the number of tracks.
Photo of Alessandro Boni

Alessandro Boni

  • 11 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
  • confident

Posted 4 years ago

  • 6
Photo of pizzicatoiv


  • 250 Posts
  • 614 Reply Likes
I think the basic problem is that scrobbles aren't suitable for measuring artist or album listening. It makes much more sense to measure these by estimating total time listened.  

Album 'scrobbles' are harder because you would have to define a listening 'session', or how do you count several partial listens? Listening time is the only thing that handles this.
Photo of Jon

Jon, Community & Customer Services

  • 4778 Posts
  • 3571 Reply Likes
I'm inclined to agree, but trying to chart albums based on duration or some other metric ("listen to every track off the album in 24 hours") introduces unnecessary layers of complexity, which is something developers usually try to avoid on principal. 

I think we should be attempting to filter out single releases (by using musicbrainz data) or "albums" with less than 3 tracks, but that might result in some rare edge cases being excluded. Failing that, perhaps give people the option to remove the top albums component from their profile if it doesn't make sense to them.
Photo of pizzicatoiv


  • 250 Posts
  • 614 Reply Likes
Many of my ambient albums are a single track, 30-60 minutes long. I'd really like top albums to reflect what music i'm currently spending a lot of time with, but I'd have to scrobble it for 12 hours to match the number of tracks in an average 40 minute album. I don't think there's any fix for this in scrobbles,  only in estimating time listened.
Photo of Profoundemonium


  • 90 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
Excluding albums with less than 3 tracks is definitely not a solution. I don't really have a problem with how the current system works, but the new layout and design prevents me from spending any time on my profile at all.
Photo of Elliot Robinson

Elliot Robinson

  • 883 Posts
  • 2150 Reply Likes
@Jon - if you'll be using MusicBrainz data, hopefully there's a way to utilise the specified release info on there? After all, they list things separately under sub-headings like Albums, EPs, Singles, etc.
Photo of Julio Ruiz

Julio Ruiz

  • 18 Posts
  • 19 Reply Likes
Album charts are messed with "various artists" albums, they are no longer there, instead there's an album from each artist on the album (like on soundtracks). I think the staff isn't aware of this.
Photo of Leo Hanuš

Leo Hanuš

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Simple dividing the number of tracks scrobbled from the album by the total number of tracks on the album and using this as the number of "album scrobbles" would be a great start. No additional data needed and the result would have at least SOME informational value, as opposed to the current album statistics.
Photo of Iezuz


  • 42 Posts
  • 35 Reply Likes
Number of tracks however is not perfect (even with metadata pulled from, say, MusicBrainz):
  1. There are singles that have the same title as the album, resulting in less tracks on the release.
  2. There are special editions that have more tracks than the regular album (sometimes the regular album even just has as much as a  third of the tracks on the SE).
Photo of garynotrashcoug


  • 747 Posts
  • 745 Reply Likes
The idea of filtering using Musicbrainz data makes the most sense to me. In addition to ambient, there are a lot of other genres that seems to produce albums with 1-4 tracks like Jazz and Progressive Rock.
Photo of Cassandra-Leo


  • 119 Posts
  • 269 Reply Likes
I'm leaning towards either this or "time spent listening" being the best approach. The latter is probably still my favourite, but Jon is correct above that it would be difficult to implement. I do suspect that pulling metadata from MusicBrainz would probably make it easier to collect info on the length of tracks and the like, but it does introduce wrinkles where there are multiple versions of a single song on an album, or when there are multiple releases of an album with different versions of the songs.

It's rather unfortunate that didn't begin collecting information on track length at its inception, because that would've made a "time spent listening" feature much easier to build in retrospect. Regardless, people have built "time spent listening" widgets in the past (Lastimer and Normalisr being the most popular ones, though I think they've both become defunct since the profile sidebar vanished and the site API changed), so it's certainly possible to approximate, and it's always something I've wanted better represented.

And yes, jazz and progressive rock have an awful lot of 1-4 track albums. As do metal, post-rock, and electronica.
Photo of Christopher Blomeyer

Christopher Blomeyer

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
It's a shame this feature isn't integrated already. I listen to albums which have a play time of 80 Mins. but still only 4 tracks at all.
This problem goes out to Artists, too. If I am listening to audiobooks with 40 chapters or so, they are at the first place, even I heard the audiobook just one time. :-(
This makes me so sad.
Photo of Ala


  • 3 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
This would be really useful for when I listen to bands such as Godspeed you! Black Emperor for like 4 hours only to find out those only amount to like 3 scrobbles 
Photo of Christopher Blomeyer

Christopher Blomeyer

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Since this is an very important wish for me and problem too I write again for this.
What I want to see is an album view not sorted after most scrobbles of tracks. I want to see which album and also INTERPRET I listened the most time to. Background would be the mount of length.
For example: One track is 20minutes long and I scrobble him 4 times.
This track has a scrobble of 4 but a listening time of 80mins.
Another track is 4 minutes long and I scrobble him 5 times.
The scrobble is now 5, but the listening time just 20 Minutes.
Last.FM would say I like the second track more as the first one.
But in fact of time, it should be the first one.
This became so much more problematic when it comes to the length of an album. Old relaeses of the 70th have just 2 or 4 tracks sometimes but a length of 80 minutes.
Another problem I figured out with this way of "album history" is the fact some of my new albums have just 6 long tracks but they are sepereated into 4-8 tracks each track.
So if I listen to that album I get a scrobble of let's say 35 but in fact listened to the album just one time.
I hope you see my problem and can help me, and Ala above me, who seems to be in the same boat (I knew GYBE).
And I think there is a way since Last.FM always told me my listening time of a week. ;-)
Photo of Elliot Robinson

Elliot Robinson

  • 883 Posts
  • 2151 Reply Likes
I think the problem is that listeners such as those in this thread are in the minority. Your problem/complaint is entirely valid, but bearing in mind the ongoing problems Last FM is having implementing a site with a database that caters to mainstream music which is listened to by 100,000s of users, having it facilitate more niche listening habits (at least from Last FM's perspective) is always going to be lower down the priority list, unfortunately.

There's a similar issue at the opposite end of the track-length spectrum with more mainstream music (especially R&B albums) that have interludes below the standard 30-second scrobbling threshold.

I think a total listening time would potentially be very interesting but incredibly difficult to implement, as such I can't see it being implemented. :(