I’m marking each of the singles out of 10. Marks will vary according to my mood and circumstances as well as by the quality of the record. No consistency is intended and none should be assumed – take them as seriously as you like. If you’re registered and logged in, you can give your OWN mark out of 10 to each record, and the aggregate shows up on the FT Readers Top 100 view.

Baby jumps:   1955   1960   1965   1970   1975   1980   1985   1990   1995   2000


1 2 3 5 All
  1. 1
    Magnus on 31 Aug 2006 #

    I haven’t counted, but by eye you seem to mark on a sort of flattened, short-tailed bell curve.

  2. 2
    Tom on 31 Aug 2006 #

    Yes – there’s a kind of rough attempt at normal distribution being made (i.e. 10s should be rarer than 9s should be rarer than 8s – 5s and 6s should be the most common).

  3. 3
    Tom on 31 Aug 2006 #

    The average mark so far is 5.36.

    The stats suggest that I should have made a couple more things 10 so far.

  4. 4
    Steve Mannion on 31 Aug 2006 #

    Is ‘Everlasting Love’ missing from this list? Can’t see it.

  5. 5
    Tom on 31 Aug 2006 #

    It’s not been updated since “The Ballad Of Bonnie And Clyde”. I’m going to update end of every month I think.

  6. 6
    steve m on 13 Jul 2007 #

    update please!

  7. 7
    Tom on 13 Jul 2007 #

    End of every Plutonian Space Month.

  8. 8
    Admin on 31 Jul 2007 #

    Tom, I’ve put in place the automatic index scheme i outlined to you. Let me know how you like it – and what you want to do with the ongoing Popular ‘meta data’. (I’ve got a copy of your old manual text, just in case)

  9. 9
    Tom on 31 Jul 2007 #

    Alan – sorry I didn’t reply – I wuv it!

    I will try and conform to the meta data – of course I need to write moar entries first.

  10. 10
    Tom on 31 Jul 2007 #

    OK, clearly I will have to work out how to do the meta data

  11. 11
    Alan on 31 Jul 2007 #

    Don’t worry – yr golden. You were fooled by the aggressive caching we do on FT. I’ll see if I can work out a way to ‘expire’ this page when you do a new popular post.

    (However, next time you want to do a ‘twofer’ – like dodd/stones – i might need to tweak the presentation of the post. though if you look at that post you can see how the metadata works for that.)

  12. 12
    admin on 22 Apr 2009 #

    Introducing: the FT Readers’ top 100

  13. 13
    AndyPandy on 24 Apr 2009 #

    Howe often is this updated as there are some with 5 votes or more and a higher than 5.8 average score and there not listed in this Top 100.

  14. 14
    admin on 24 Apr 2009 #

    It was updating twice a day, but i just changed it to 4 times a day, which is still a bit stingy as the calculation isn’t all that resource greedy. still the data won’t change that often, so seems not too bad.

  15. 15
    Tom on 30 Apr 2009 #

    Highest ranked 10: “Israelites” (#2) – I’m amazed at this! Tho not displeased.
    Highest ranked 9: “Good Vibration” (#1) – Fair enough
    Highest ranked 8: “Space Oddity” (#9) – Hmmm
    Highest ranked 7: “The Name Of The Game” (#17) – I can see why it’s loved so much.
    Highest ranked 6: “Geno” (#23) – still wildly overrated I reckon.
    Highest ranked 5: “A Whiter Shade Of Pale” (#34) – Hands up, I was wrong about this.

    Not sure what the highest rated 4-3-2-1 are (not counting K Dodd obv!). I’m guessing “Imagine” and “Vincent” for the 2 and 1.

  16. 16
    Tom on 30 Apr 2009 #

    Highest ranked 4:”What A Wonderful World” (#100) – still too corny for me.
    Highest ranked 3:”She” (#190) – was wrong about this one too.
    Highest ranked 2:”Hold Me Close” (#305) – a bit harsh possibly.
    Highest ranked 1:”Vincent” (#224) – bah!

  17. 17
    Tom on 30 Apr 2009 #

    And going the other way:

    Lowest ranked 10:”Atomic” (#41) – would probably be my lowest too
    Lowest ranked 9: “Out Of Time” (#152) – OK, I’m not sure why I gave it 9 either
    Lowest ranked 8: “Lady Madonna” (#185) – surprised how relatively disliked this is
    Lowest ranked 7: “I’ve Never Been To Me” (#329) – nor have you lot
    Lowest ranked 6: “Summer Nights” (#342) – this is total fun hating
    Lowest ranked 5: “Amazing Grace” (#374) – only I appreciate its dronelike qualities
    Lowest ranked 4: “Billy, Don’t Be A Hero” (#368) – not as bad as all that
    Lowest ranked 3: “Seven Tears” (#383) – harsh!
    Lowest ranked 2: “Figaro” (#384) – there are worse things
    Lowest ranked 1: “Long Haired Lover” and “No-One Quite Like Grandma” (equal #385 – after 385 we’re in the land of <5 votes)

  18. 18
    AndyPandy on 13 May 2009 #

    It’s not letting me vote on any songs at the moment or showing me what other people have averaged

  19. 19
    AndyPandy on 13 May 2009 #

    Problem solved – now I’ve gone back to “pink”

  20. 20
    admin on 14 May 2009 #

    oopsy. i will update the css with the new additions used by the voting feature

    (We changed it so that you can’t see averages until you have voted)

  21. 21
    Tom on 23 May 2009 #

    Jacko into the Top 20 I see!

  22. 22
    admin on 19 Jun 2009 #

    should the simple chronological list be reversed, so recent entries are at the top?

  23. 23
    Tom on 19 Jun 2009 #

    Let’s give it a go!

  24. 24
    rosie on 6 Jul 2009 #

    From the point of view of somebody trying to make a comment on the very first entry, this is inconvenient to say the least. Recent entries I can find easily, but I did think one of the points of this index was to be able to find older entries quickly…

  25. 25
    Tom on 6 Jul 2009 #

    Duly noted! Once we’ve had it this way for a month or so I’ll do some analytics fu and I can work out which is more effective for getting people to entries that have dropped off the front page.

    Ooh – how about a “random entry” function?

  26. 26
    Alan on 6 Jul 2009 #

    The ‘?’ random link on the banner goes to a random FT post

    it could be tied to a random popular post if clicked from a popular post or the /popular page.

  27. 27
    Erithian on 6 Jul 2009 #

    No strong feelings either way, but I would have thought people were more likely to want to comment on fairly recent entries than on the very earliest entries, and if they want to comment on something from the 60s or 70s it doesn’t take long to scroll down whichever way the chronological list is ordered, once you get used to it.

  28. 28
    Tom on 6 Jul 2009 #

    #26 – it could be but I’d prefer keeping the “?” as is and having a separate random entry link I could put in the text box.

  29. 29

    […] If you’d like to read about these records (and everything else that topped the UK charts from 1952 forward), prepare to kill hours and hours reading Popular. The complete list of records Tom has covered so far is here. […]

  30. 30
    Tom on 2 Sep 2009 #

    OMG go Doris Day!

1 2 3 5 All

Add your comment

(Register to guarantee your comments don't get marked as spam.)


Required (Your email address will not be published)

Top of page