3rd Gen Group Peaks and Length of Impact - Average Number of Days at Melon Daily #1

    • Best Answer
    Quote from Beesknees

    I’m not understanding the logic. Just because they’ve had chances before and after it doesn’t mean there’s not an inflation in the after.


    There clearly is inflation longevity wise post the chart change. So calculating average impact based on weeks at number one uniformly before and after has limitations as it penalises groups who had their hits before the chart change and elevates those for the after as songs last longer on top. 6 weeks at number one now is not the same as 6 weeks before the change. So having an equivalence of “true peaks” across the two eras is odd lol

    Even if songs stay longer at the top now, it becomes a lot harder to get to the top. It balances out that way. The inflation you speak of positively and negatively affects all groups equally. The inflation you speak of also mainly pertains to the top 10 mores o than number one.

    But, just due to the slow fade out of the 3rd gen, few 3rd gen songs have hit #1 on melon since the change.
    If we redid it to only include before the change in the middle of 2020, the list really wouldn't look that much different. Every group would have the same average except one. BTS would just change drastically as Butter and Dynamite would be out.

    2014-mid 2020


    1. Blackpink - 63 Days / 3 Songs - 3 Weeks per #1 Song

    2. Ikon - 47 Days / 3 Songs - 2 Weeks and 1.67 Days per #1 Song

    3. Twice - 99 Days / 9 Songs - 1 Week and 4 Days per #1 Song
    4. BTS - 14 Days / 2 Songs - 1 week per #1 Song (would be out of this list for only having 2 songs)

    5. Mamamoo - 14 Days / 3 Songs - 4.67 Days per #1 Song

    6. Red Velvet 8 Days / 3 Songs - 2.67 Days per #1 Song

    7. Winner 10 Days / 4 Songs - 2.5 Days per #1 Song.

    So really you complained for almost nothing. Or you were only complaining about BTS. Twice's 2 hits dragged down by their many faux hits, Mamamoo, Red Velvet, and Winner still lacking much lasting impact etc.

    How does it balance it out if you’re working out averages and volume was higher beforehand which will naturally bring down averages for groups popular enough to get multiple number ones? You feeling okay bud.


    I just showed you how it impacted number ones.


    My point was a simple average of weeks at number one to work out impact of number ones doesn’t work in the first place. Ikon on average have more impactful number ones than Twice with their one 2.5m download certification out of 3 number ones whilst Twice have 8 out of 9 lol


    The premise of the thread is too simplistic for the conclusion you’re trying to draw

    I gave you the numbers without any of the changes after the melon change in 2020 and you avoided it because you don't like the truth of the data.

    Twice's hits fell really fast and didn't have as much impact as you would think. 2016-2018 was the peak of downloads, so many songs could easily get 2.5m downloads if their fans were dedicated enough. It's not related to this at all. Ikon's 2 songs that didn't get to 2.5m downloads lasted just as long at #1 as half of Twice's songs. Ikon's biggest song just had considerably more impact than any Twice song.

    Quote from NopeNopeNopeNope

    I gave you the numbers without any of the changes after the melon change in 2020 and you avoided it because you don't like the truth of the data.

    Twice's hits fell really fast and didn't have as much impact as you would think. 2016-2018 was the peak of downloads, so many songs could easily get 2.5m downloads if their fans were dedicated enough. It's not related to this at all. Ikon's 2 songs that didn't get to 2.5m downloads lasted just as long at #1 as half of Twice's songs. Ikon's biggest song just had considerably more impact than any Twice song.

    Lol learn to read my guy, I said in my first response that simple averages get skewed, the inflation was just an extra observation on the limitations of your work


    And of course, 2.5m downloads being easy for fandoms to get with dedication must be why all those bg’s have loads and actual digital monsters with small fandoms don’t lmao 2016-18 was also not the peak of downloads so not sure why you’re trying to sneak out Ikon’s initial no.1’s out of that.


    I don’t care for Twice at all lol I just think it’s too simplistic method and is easily disproven just by one look at your list

    Quote from Beesknees

    Lol learn to read my guy, I said in my first response that simple averages get skewed, the inflation was just an extra observation on the limitations of your work


    And of course, 2.5m downloads being easy for fandoms to get with dedication must be why all those bg’s have loads and actual digital monsters with small fandoms don’t lmao 2016-18 was also not the peak of downloads so not sure why you’re trying to sneak out Ikon’s initial no.1’s out of that.


    I don’t care for Twice at all lol I just think it’s too simplistic method and is easily disproven just by one look at your list


    I don't think you have the intellectual capacity to tell someone to "learn to read" when your arguments are weak and hardly related at best. The inflation you speak of has very little relation to this.

    2016-2018 was clearly the peak of downloads after the price change of 2013. 2014-early 2016 downloads were very low compared to mid 2016-2018.

    If you're that triggered by data, maybe don't read the data.

    Quote from NopeNopeNopeNope


    I don't think you have the intellectual capacity to tell someone to "learn to read" when your arguments are weak and hardly related at best. The inflation you speak of has very little relation to this.

    2016-2018 was clearly the peak of downloads after the price change of 2013. 2014-early 2016 downloads were very low compared to mid 2016-2018.

    If you're that triggered by data, maybe don't read the data.

    Hard to take this seriously from someone that can’t interpret and contextualise data, it’s also called critiquing data not getting triggered by it :pepe-cross:


    If 2015 was low LoA wouldn’t have 2.5m downloads, a song that didn’t even hit number one lol but you do you my guy

    Quote from Beesknees

    Hard to take this seriously from someone that can’t interpret and contextualise data, it’s also called critiquing data not getting triggered by it :pepe-cross:


    If 2015 was low LoA wouldn’t have 2.5m downloads, a song that didn’t even hit number one lol but you do you my guy

    Hard to take you seriously when you don't even have the ability to understand the data in the first place. You tried to argue one point unsuccessfully, then when new data was given to rightfully debunk your point, you ignore it and try to make a new failed argument due to you being triggered by what the data points out.

    Go back to school. It may help you.

    Quote from NopeNopeNopeNope

    Hard to take you seriously when you don't even have the ability to understand the data in the first place. You tried to argue one point unsuccessfully, then when new data was given to rightfully debunk your point, you ignore it and try to make a new failed argument due to you being triggered by what the data points out.

    Go back to school. It may help you.

    What on earth do you think you debunked :pepe-cringe:

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login