DMB Show Flow Chart

[chadizzy1]

This is a pretty massive chart compiled by Chumlee67 (Kevin N.) about show flow and compiles a lot of rating and info of all the shows in the Ants database.

As someone who loves statistics and numbers I can tell how much work went into putting this together. The AM.org podcast spoke about it recently so I thought I'd share it for anyone who wanted to see it. It's really eye opening and interesting.

Thanks to Kevin for taking the time to put it together - I imagine this took a lot of work and time to do.

Here's the chart: http://www.mediafire.com/view/b84n8baa2qw7b8u/DMB.xlsx

[Shogun]

Dude...you guys need to move on.

This band isn't that good anymore. They're turning into a novelty act.

[Chumlee67]

Thanks for the mention Chad! Here is a link that represents the information a little clearer: http://imgur.com/a/KSgea

[Chumlee67]

I encourage every to rate as many shows as possible to create more data and more accurate data! I am going through tours myself and rating as many as possible.

[highlanders]

Originally Posted by Shogun

Dude...you guys need to move on.

This band isn't that good anymore. They're turning into a novelty act.

Yet you are on this site...

[flutterby]

Originally Posted by Shogun

Dude...you guys need to move on.

This band isn't that good anymore. They're turning into a novelty act.

Solid contribution to the conversation.

However, without a decent personal zing and sophomoric band cut down, I'm going to have to only give you 2 out of 5 trolls. Keep working on your dismount bruh.

[dMbJam]

Originally Posted by highlanders

Yet you are on this site...

exactly...

[Trippingchris]

I love the objectivity of stats and these in particular probably are surprising no one. Do we know what year ticket sales had generally started to decline? Would be interesting to layover the data.

Album release tours since 2001 seem to have the lowest overall show flow rating, aside from Busted Stuff:
2001: 46.9
2002: 56.4
2005: 43.3
2009: 45.1
2012: 47.5

Starting back when Busted Stuff was released and the couple tours after we started to see a generally nice increase in show flow:
2002: 56.4
2003: 64.6
2004: 67.9


Tours haven't moved back into the 60s or higher range since 2004.


I work in user experience and if we saw stats like we've seen for 10-15 years with the band we'd be jumping in trying to identify and fix some shit so we can hopefully try to improve conversions and improve a product for our customers before they abandon us completely. I wonder if the band and management have sat down and really analyzed what might be going the fuck on.

[Trippingchris]

I'll also add 2001 was the first year we saw overall song flow for a tour dip below 75.

[Chumlee67]

Originally Posted by Trippingchris

I love the objectivity of stats and these in particular probably are surprising no one. Do we know what year ticket sales had generally started to decline? Would be interesting to layover the data.

Album release tours since 2001 seem to have the lowest overall show flow rating, aside from Busted Stuff:
2001: 46.9
2002: 56.4
2005: 43.3
2009: 45.1
2012: 47.5

Starting back when Busted Stuff was released and the couple tours after we started to see a generally nice increase in show flow:
2002: 56.4
2003: 64.6
2004: 67.9


Tours haven't moved back into the 60s or higher range since 2004.


I work in user experience and if we saw stats like we've seen for 10-15 years with the band we'd be jumping in trying to identify and fix some shit so we can hopefully try to improve conversions and improve a product for our customers before they abandon us completely. I wonder if the band and management have sat down and really analyzed what might be going the fuck on.

Thank you for your input! I can certainly take the time to overlay some of this data, its good to look at and can help identify trends.

I would put an asterisk on the numbers 1995-2001. The reason for this is because the user data for these numbers is low. I've gone through myself and ranked the shows and its obvious only 1-3 people have voted.

If I am not mistake (easily could be) Ants came about in 2001, this could explain why show flows are significantly lower. More people = better AVGs / Less people = skewed AVGs.

[space_raven]

Speak English, doc! We ain't scientists.

[Trippingchris]

Originally Posted by Chumlee67

Thank you for your input! I can certainly take the time to overlay some of this data, its good to look at and can help identify trends.

I would put an asterisk on the numbers 1995-2001. The reason for this is because the user data for these numbers is low. I've gone through myself and ranked the shows and its obvious only 1-3 people have voted.

If I am not mistake (easily could be) Ants came about in 2001, this could explain why show flows are significantly lower. More people = better AVGs / Less people = skewed AVGs.

That's a great point, and I noticed some shows haven't even been rated by someone in attendance. I'd suspect we'd still see relatively higher percentages for those years anyway but could be lower than what we're seeing today with more votes.

[daveshookme]

Originally Posted by Chumlee67

Thank you for your input! I can certainly take the time to overlay some of this data, its good to look at and can help identify trends.

I would put an asterisk on the numbers 1995-2001. The reason for this is because the user data for these numbers is low. I've gone through myself and ranked the shows and its obvious only 1-3 people have voted.

If I am not mistake (easily could be) Ants came about in 2001, this could explain why show flows are significantly lower. More people = better AVGs / Less people = skewed AVGs.

Showflow is a pretty new system, it's only been around for a year or two if I'm not mistaken.

[lockman21]

Could someone please explain to me what the shit I'm looking at in layman's terms?

[Chumlee67]

Originally Posted by space_raven

Speak English, doc! We ain't scientists.

What aspects are you confused about? I can try an elaborate if you would like.

[Chumlee67]

Originally Posted by daveshookme

Showflow is a pretty new system, it's only been around for a year or two if I'm not mistaken.

Ahhhhhhh that would make a lot of sense too! I highly encourage people to rate show as often and as many as possible!

[Chumlee67]

Originally Posted by lockman21

Could someone please explain to me what the shit I'm looking at in layman's terms?

Essentially what you are looking at is a break down of the Show Flows for each tour by show (from '95-Present). I took those numbers and created averages for each tour, each third of a tour and every tour. I wanted to compare user feelings about shows in the past compared to today. I can explain further if you would like!

[aclark0622]

Super geeky.

I love it.

[lockman21]

Please explain further. I get what they represent, but don't know what they mean. Right now they're just "show flow numbers". And I have no idea what show flow is, or if a 50 is good or bad.

[Darth Id]

Originally Posted by lockman21

Please explain further. I get what they represent, but don't know what they mean. Right now they're just "show flow numbers". And I have no idea what show flow is, or if a 50 is good or bad.

Whoa, don't harsh this sweet gig, yo.
Just sit back and go with the show flow, bro...


(Whatever the fuck that is.)

[Trippingchris]

Originally Posted by lockman21

Please explain further. I get what they represent, but don't know what they mean. Right now they're just "show flow numbers". And I have no idea what show flow is, or if a 50 is good or bad.

Think of like grades at school on a scale of 0-100%.

From a show flow perspective:
100 = everyone who voted thought each song in that show had all the right songs and placement of each song fit within the set. A fucking +.

0 = everyone who voted thought the show had all the wrong songs that possibly no one wanted to hear and in an order that probably didn't even matter because they didn't want to hear any of it anyway. Drop out who can't even get their shit together to earn their GED.

There's maths involved to calculate overall average.

If you're just confused what show flow even is, it's a new feature that was started by the owners of this site that allowed fellow ants to rate each song at each show. Based on a simple rating using +1, 0, -1 people on ants can rate each song on a setlist based on favorite songs, placement, guests, particular performances, etc.. The results are then used to provide an overall show flow percentage. The lower the percentage, the lower the overall satisfaction of the show based on song selection and placement.

It's completely possible for someone to rate a song they might want to hear or enjoy hearing at a show as a song they didn't want to hear considering the placement in the set. For example, I might love Space Between and Shake Me Like a Monkey, but placing them together in the encore after dealing with heavy storm for 2 hours might piss me off so I would vote both as a -1.

Lots of voting flexibility.

[Chumlee67]

Originally Posted by Trippingchris

Think of like grades at school on a scale of 0-100%.

From a show flow perspective:
100 = everyone who voted thought each song in that show had all the right songs and placement of each song fit within the set. A fucking +.

0 = everyone who voted thought the show had all the wrong songs that possibly no one wanted to hear and in an order that probably didn't even matter because they didn't want to hear any of it anyway. Drop out who can't even get their shit together to earn their GED.

There's maths involved to calculate overall average.

If you're just confused what show flow even is, it's a new feature that was started by the owners of this site that allowed fellow ants to rate each song at each show. Based on a simple rating using +1, 0, -1 people on ants can rate each song on a setlist based on favorite songs, placement, guests, particular performances, etc.. The results are then used to provide an overall show flow percentage. The lower the percentage, the lower the overall satisfaction of the show based on song selection and placement.

It's completely possible for someone to rate a song they might want to hear or enjoy hearing at a show as a song they didn't want to hear considering the placement in the set. For example, I might love Space Between and Shake Me Like a Monkey, but placing them together in the encore after dealing with heavy storm for 2 hours might piss me off so I would vote both as a -1.

Lots of voting flexibility.

Perfect way to explain it! Lockman21, you can find these show flow numbers and how to rate shows under the Tour Central tab.

[dontdrink36]

As the creator of "Show Flow" and a math teacher there is a general flaw with the % that shows up. The way the site calculates it a negative points score calculates as a negative percentage, and it shouldn't. Hypothetically, a show could score all negatives or all positives. The site doesn't take that into account when calculating the percentage (though, I've pointed this out)

Take a 20 song show. The score range would be from -20 to +20. This makes a score of 0 equate to a 50% but that's not they calculate it.

It should be calculated this way. N=# of songs played

% score = (n + Show Flow points)/2n

So a score of +5 on a 20 song show would be (20 + 5)/2(20) or 25/40 or 62.5%

There should never be a -% score in show flow. But since they don't calculate it correctly it is possible to score a -%

[aclark0622]

Also when I first looked at the thread I thought it was a DMB Show [Flow Chart], not a DMB [Show Flow] Chart.

Someone should make that chart:

Did they open with Oh last night? --> Yes. TMTT opener tonight.
|
|
v
No. Oh opener tonight.

Lovely Ladies? --> Yes. Can't Stop, You and Me, Stay.
|
|
v
No. Jimi, Granny, Ants.

[Chumlee67]

Originally Posted by dontdrink36

As the creator of "Show Flow" and a math teacher there is a general flaw with the % that shows up. The way the site calculates it a negative points score calculates as a negative percentage, and it shouldn't. Hypothetically, a show could score all negatives or all positives. The site doesn't take that into account when calculating the percentage (though, I've pointed this out)

Take a 20 song show. The score range would be from -20 to +20. This makes a score of 0 equate to a 50% but that's not they calculate it.

It should be calculated this way. N=# of songs played

% score = (n + Show Flow points)/2n

So a score of +5 on a 20 song show would be (20 + 5)/2(20) or 25/40 or 62.5%

There should never be a -% score in show flow. But since they don't calculate it correctly it is possible to score a -%

I definitely see how that can be misleading and thank you for the math! There are only two shows with -% which definitely throw things off. I am hoping more people participate and those -% will disappear.

[Chumlee67]

Originally Posted by aclark0622

Also when I first looked at the thread I thought it was a DMB Show [Flow Chart], not a DMB [Show Flow] Chart.

Someone should make that chart:

Did they open with Oh last night? --> Yes. TMTT opener tonight.
|
|
v
No. Oh opener tonight.

Lovely Ladies? --> Yes. Can't Stop, You and Me, Stay.
|
|
v
No. Jimi, Granny, Ants.

I can see your confusion based on the wording of the title. I would love to do something like this, which would be separate from the Show Flows. It would take a lot of time, but I will consider doing it.

[Alexis17]

Originally Posted by Chumlee67

I encourage every to rate as many shows as possible to create more data and more accurate data! I am going through tours myself and rating as many as possible.

The problem with this is going through and rating setlists, or rating shows you've never heard just by looking at them to get as many people to rate shows as possible decreases your accuracy. People need to rate as many shows as they know well, as opposed to as many as possible. At least now, people rated a show because they knew it

[Chumlee67]

Originally Posted by Alexis17

The problem with this is going through and rating setlists, or rating shows you've never heard just by looking at them to get as many people to rate shows as possible decreases your accuracy. People need to rate as many shows as they know well, as opposed to as many as possible. At least now, people rated a show because they knew it

I encourage people to rate as many as possible because there is no way to tell if people have listen to that show or not (either in person or through recording. To get a pure show flow rating for people that have listened to or been to a show is nearly impossible. If this were the case I would have to start doing show flow numbers from about 2000 because there is so little data before that. My goal was to show as much data as possible given the fact that the information wasn't going to be 100% perfect

I see show flows as an average of the in person experience and at home opinion.

Thank you for your feedback though.

[Alexis17]

Originally Posted by Chumlee67

I encourage people to rate as many as possible because there is no way to tell if people have listen to that show or not (either in person or through recording. To get a pure show flow rating for people that have listened to or been to a show is nearly impossible. If this were the case I would have to start doing show flow numbers from about 2000 because there is so little data before that. My goal was to show as much data as possible given the fact that the information wasn't going to be 100% perfect

I see show flows as an average of the in person experience and at home opinion.

Thank you for your feedback though.

Ok, fine, but to encourage people that know nothing about a show except what they see on a screen is making that accuracy issue worse. You're already admitting it's an issue, and before, at least a higher percentage of people that had voted in the past voted because they cared about voting for that show. Probably because they went or listened to it. Now, you are actively recruiting people to vote that you're sure don't know it. You're diluting the rating even more for the sake of extra numbers that increasingly are more meaningless the more you push.

I'm all for stuff like this. I like over-analyzing and putting numbers on things that are hard to quantify. But you're bastardizing your own work by saying "Everyone go rate everything." Because not all song performances are the same. If they were, what would we talk about and why are we still here?

[Chumlee67]

Originally Posted by Alexis17

Ok, fine, but to encourage people that know nothing about a show except what they see on a screen is making that accuracy issue worse. You're already admitting it's an issue, and before, at least a higher percentage of people that had voted in the past voted because they cared about voting for that show. Probably because they went or listened to it. Now, you are actively recruiting people to vote that you're sure don't know it. You're diluting the rating even more for the sake of extra numbers that increasingly are more meaningless the more you push.

I'm all for stuff like this. I like over-analyzing and putting numbers on things that are hard to quantify. But you're bastardizing your own work by saying "Everyone go rate everything." Because not all song performances are the same. If they were, what would we talk about and why are we still here?

Then by your reasoning I should even do this, because all it takes is for one person who wasn't at a show to ruin the data. I challenge you to find a show where someone who wasn't at the show rated the show. I also challenge you to find any statistical analysis for any study or data analysis ever that did not have flawed data in some way.

There is a reason why the admins of the site allow people who were at the show to rate it. It gives a more input into a set list. Just because 5 people who like SMLAM go to a show and rate it 100% doesn't mean the show had great flow.

If you don't like the data, or the data collection method, then move on or do it yourself.