I hardly can't  believe I missed the logo contest...

+1

New website looks great!

My only quibble is.... in the "info view", is there a way to hide the slideshow?

New website looks great!

My only quibble is.... in the "info view", is there a way to hide the slideshow?

You raise good points.

On your first thought: I don't know if William and Co. take a song's average rating into account when determining the planned frequency of its airplay. I'd be surprised if they give it primary place of consideration; if they did, they'd create a risk of an undesirably constraining and self-reinforcing listener bias. And yes, then you'd have less variety and eclectic sampling of music getting airplay here.


The average rankings of songs are interesting but they only give you a limited sense of whether your musical tastes agree with other RP listeners. For the most part, my rating of a song is pretty close to the average—I'm in the sweet spot of listeners—but other times my rating is way off.

My own rating of a song fluctuates—some days  it's a 5, other times it's an 8. I don't think there's any point in trying to create set universal rules for rating a song. The average rating of a song doesn't provide an accurate empirical, unfluctuating, universally accepted rating of the song's quality. The average rating of a song captures a lot of different things—the quality of the mix/DJ's ability to set a mood, bandwagoning, and occasionally widespread, unchanging common opinion that a song is universally great or bad.

My collection of song ratings might give some great insight into what kinds of music I like and don't like, my personality, etc. But the collection of numbers I chose when listening to music needs other metrics to provide those great insights. I didn't choose those numbers rationally or systematically, and again my rating of any song is subject to great change.

Why do we need to have a system or science for rating songs here? I think such a thing would be doomed to failure. 

Thinking about it, a simple like / dislike would really do. What good is this ranking from 1-10 anyway? It sometimes feels to me as if likes assemble on a certain average peak per song (1-10, usually around 6-7), and I can't help but feel that it may lower the variety of music being played here in a conservatice way... just like in, "Hey, we've played this 8 times this month, because people really like it".

If one rates a song, what difference does it make? For me, personally, I don't care if it is 6, 7, or 10. The great drawback to me seems, the more I listen to it, the less special it (that particular tune) becomes in the long run... until I've simply listened to it way too often... and a former 8 or 9 may eventually lead to a simple shrug.

For long-time listeners, I think the only reason to keep up their continued listening to RP lies in greater variety of sounds. Especially when so many musicians and music-afficionados keep listening, as they do on this webradio, I guess that is what drives music forward. Inspiration through more ecletic sound-material can't be underrated in this context, imho. 

Maybe a bit provocative to ask, but hey?

I don't advocate limits on ratings but someone who rates a shit-ton of songs as 1 should probably be listening to another radio station

Yeah, limiting the amounts of any specific scores seems sort of unnecessary - though I have not rated everything a 10.

Yeah, limiting the amounts of any specific scores seems sort of unnecessary - though I have not rated everything a 10.

Yeah, limiting the amounts of any specific scores seems sort of unnecessary - though I have not rated everything a 10.

So what about someone like good old Romeotuma / Lazarus or what ever he is these days ?  He rated everything a 10.

So what about someone like good old Romeotuma / Lazarus or what ever he is these days ?  He rated everything a 10.