This is a copy paste:

50yearslate,

AvecPaix,

BBCSessions1963,

Beatlefan123,

Callon,

CorporationT-shirt,

Dingle Lad,

Dr.Bert,

Elementary Penguin,

ewe2,

Hannah,

hjnintendofan,

IMDeWalrus,

IveJustSeenAFaceo,

Magill,

myself,

Johnny Rhythm,

knowhereman,

Linde,

Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<,

moriz,

Mr Mustard,

Mr.Bellamy84,

NotABeatlesRelatedUsername,

PACO,

paulramon1962,

PurplishRain,

QuarryMan,

RingoStarrDrums,

Skelter,

Sky999,

StrawberryWalrus,

The Hippie Chick,

The walrus100,

TheWigglyBeatle,

Timothy,

Von Bontee

& Wigwam.

A pretty classic averaging system; it goes basically by giving the maximum amount of points to the top track on every post (in this case 13) and as the list progresses into the "worst" tracks each track gets one point less. The last track gets no points. For this to apply the post must have the 14 With the Beatles songs ranked.

IMPORTANT: if you think one of your rankings might have one of these ambiguous qualities that might disqualify it and you want to be counted in the averaging DON'T edit it; post it again with more detail, otherwise I won't be able to subtract the points and add them again and it won't be counted anyway.

Particular cases:

-NO. 1- Sometimes if there is a track missing but there's a written clarification, it can be counted. In the case of Abbey Road , for instance, some people don't count Her Majesty . In that case I count the post and give no points to Her Majesty only if there is a written statement of why its missing. If one track is missing and the post doesn't have any written clarification then it is considered a mistake and therefore disqualified.

-NO. 2- The tracklist considered is taken out of the Wikipedia/RYM/Discogs "official" tracklists. This means those who rank the Abbey Road Medley as a whole don't get counted unless they clarify by writing that the tracks separately also rank that way, same with any variation of the sort.

-NO. 3- If a person implies to a previous post that "that would exactly be [their] ranking" and don't post any ranking themselves, then the points of the first person will be added a second time in behalf of the second person.

-NO. 4- Only one person each ranking. If you posted several times your changes, only the last one will be counted (unless it has any mistakes, missing tracks, etc., in that case then the last one that has no issues will be the one counted).

-NO. 5- The rankings are considered given the numbers apply to them, "1" universally represents the top spot. Unless there is a written statement that clarifies it's the other way around, this is the way it will be counted.

-NO. 6- If there are no numbers on the ranking and no written clarification it could go either way. At first I used to think the ones at the top were the number 1 spot but in some cases it just isn't that way. So I decided I'll just grab the worst rated track up to that point and I see if it falls on the top half or the bottom half. If it falls on the top half I'll consider the bottom half the top spot and if it falls on the bottom half then I'll consider the top half the top spot. It might be unfair at times as it might reverse someones' ranking if they are unlucky by voting positively a previously negatively voted track, but in the grand scheme of things I think it was mostly accurate. In case that the number of tracks is odd (A Hard Day's Night , Sgt. Pepper 's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Magical Mystery Tour , Yellow Submarine 's Side B & Abbey Road ) and the worst rated track falls in precisely the middle spot then I just take the second to worst rated and judge as to where that one falls.

-NO. 7- If there are "ties" in someone's ranking their ranking can still be counted but it won't represent exactly the ties in the overall averaging. If there is still a list-like format then I go from the bottom to the top adding points just like usual, so tied tracks can get different scores but just differing in one single point or two (unless you tie like 5 tracks together), but I think it's more fair than not letting those people participate at all. It might seem unfair but if the tied tracks were to get the same points, it would increasingly leave an averaging gap between those songs so it's mathematically better to just stick to the original adding process.

-NO. 8- If there are two tracks that are "tied" then I will just give more points to the one that is named first, regardless of descriptions, just to keep the whole thing going. Unless there's a specific written clarification of why one of the tracks is better or more of a favourite, then I'll just give more points to the one named first.

-NO. 9- However, if there's a tie between three tracks (or more) then that post will no longer be counted unless the list has a specific ranking format in which case see item "-NO. 7-".

-NO. 10- I guess that if someone doesn't want to be counted in the averaging he can ask me not to count him in but I hope nobody does that so we get his opinion too

All of these rules are up to debate if someone disagrees with part of the judgement. I'm sure we can reach an agreement if they are considered questionable.

I'll try to update it as new rankings are posted. If in enough time this proves effective then I'll ask moderators to pin these posts to the top of the thread and become OFFICIAL Once in a while I'll revisit the entire thread to be sure in case someone edited their previous rankings (but that might be just once in a while (unless someone wants to do it for me in which case send it to my inbox and I'll update this post)). [BTW if there is already a thread or post about this stuff then tell me right away so I can erase this and not look like a fool]

Also in time we could use this information to add some more statistics (just to give it flavour). Someone can request them to me and I'll see how to add them.