Net Radio Ratings

[djdragons5]

Well the discussion on the IBA seems to have died so im here to kick start it. To get people intrested I think it would be a good idea to start doin ratings for stations. the rating system will work like this:

4 times per day stations Shoutcast pages will be viewed. Current listeners and possible listeners will be counted. At the end of the week each stations results will be averaged. the station with the highest percentage will be #1 for the week, and the station with the lowest percentage will be last.

if you would like your station to be a part of this please post your link to your shoutcast info page here. Thanks. This will start when I have 10 stations intrested. I currently have three.

[dotme]

Well, sounds good in theory - But it would maybe be possible to game the system, by anticipating the 4 visits and manipulating listener counts accordingly.

I prefer this idea to the notion of "most listeners" though, because that favors established stations and doesn't give the little guy a chance. Might I offer an additional suggestion?

You could make your directory random - it shuffles on each page load, so every station no matter what size/popularity gets an equal shot of being on the first page when that page is loaded. Something to consider anyway - that's how I built IORSN. Link provided below...

http://www.iorsn.org/stations.asp

[djdragons5]

The Idea here isnt to build a directory, but to show who is making the most out of what they have. I know of stations that flat out lie to sponsors and tell them the get hundreds of listeners when in fact their max is 25 or less (one has a max of 5). Sure the have the ability to (at least according to their shoutcast page)host 1,000. However, just to gain ad revenue, they lie to sponsors and advertisers who either dont care to check up on it or are unfamiliar with netcasting so do not know how to.

The 4 visits will be at random and will count only UNIQUE listeners. So that some small station isnt opening 20 connections to manipulate their status. The problem I ran smack dab into last night was the "clustering" phenom. You cant just look at one shoutcast page, but have to look at all of them. For instance [XRM] has like 5 or 6 IP addresses in their Alternative cluster, making it difficult to get an accurate read on their standings.

This is just the first of many services a Unified netcasting organization could provide. Imagine the IBA (internet broadcasters association) being able to tell advertisers and such how long a station has truely been around, what stations are the best in their genre, and other important information.

Also this rating system could be modified as more stations join to divide it into segments based on genre, quality of cast (128 vs 24, etc...), and possible max listeners [e.g. market size].

For now I just want to test to show how it works. I have a few "gaming" radio stations already signed on, but that end of the industry is very volitile so I was hoping to get some steadier stations from here to even things out.

[ravetrax]

how are you going to gain the stats info form each server of each station?

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by ravetrax
how are you going to gain the stats info form each server of each station?
the best and most accurate way is to read the unique users from the streams shoutcast DSP page. im guessing your refering to the problem of clusters. in that instance I would have to look at all IP's and add the max possible listeners, along with the actual uniques users. this will put clustering stations at a slight disadvantage and may cost them one or two percent, however; most clustering stations are able to keep near full 24/7 meaning they will still get a good rating.

the shoutcast info page is located at the root ip+port of the stream for instance if your stream is htpp://111.11.11.111:8000/listen.pls then the info page will be located @ htpp://111.11.11.111:8000

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by djdragons5
The Idea here isnt to build a directory, but to show who is making the most out of what they have. I know of stations that flat out lie to sponsors and tell them the get hundreds of listeners when in fact their max is 25 or less (one has a max of 5).

The easiest way to prove you're not full of it to advertisers and sponsors is to stick it all up in a very public way and update it on a regular basis. If you have enough information that all verifies the other information it's real hard to lie.

http://www.megarockradio.com/stats/

Sadly most of the advertisers out there refuse to deal with net radio stations because of what you mention above. Too many people want to pretend they have big massive radio stations, use misleading stuff on their websites like referring to themselves as 100.0 FM when they are not an FM station, claiming huge listener numbers yet having none and of course my favorite - "We're the best, the #1 place for music on the internet!". Advertisers hate bullshitters and they consider most web broadcasters full of it unless you can prove it because of all the idiots who just can't be truthful to their listeners.

Only after I could prove without any doubt of my numbers, visitor counts and size they would have nothing to do with me. Now I get to deal with the cream of the crop.

Lies get a station nowhere.

[djdragons5]

and that is why the IBA must exsist. if we ban together we show the world of possibile investors and such that hobbyist also can make great station managers. it can take one station forever to gain credibility but if one organization gains that credibility then it can simply apply it to its member stations.

not only will this increase your benefit but it will also provide a high playing level seperating the good from the bad.

I will start the net radio ratings on monday, even if i need to snag some random stations (or glean them from user sigs) just to show you guys the format and the process, and then post the results here at the end of next week.

[ravetrax]

Originally posted by djdragons5
the best and most accurate way is to read the unique users from the streams shoutcast DSP page.
your going to quiry the html and trips it all out? woudln't it be easier to use 7.html, or get xml access via the dj pass since it is non-destructive?

Originally posted by djdragons5
im guessing your refering to the problem of clusters. in that instance I would have to look at all IP's and add the max possible listeners, along with the actual uniques users. this will put clustering stations at a slight disadvantage and may cost them one or two percent, however; most clustering stations are able to keep near full 24/7 meaning they will still get a good rating.
i have to disagree with from personal knowledge. i have handfulls of relays from various sources and donors and very rarely keep them full. which already shows your rankings sytem will be baised because i could setup a sever with 5 liseters to stay maxed and ge a higher ranking than my normal network of relays because i have prepaired for ample room to grow.

Originally posted by djdragons5
the shoutcast info page is located at the root ip+port of the stream for instance if your stream is htpp://111.11.11.111:8000/listen.pls then the info page will be located @ htpp://111.11.11.111:8000
do you realize how much cpu you will be waisting just filtering through all the html to get stats listed at either http://ip:port/7.html or the xml output?

[djdragons5]

you seem to misunderstand. the point at first is to just show the ratings and start something. I know it will be a logistical nightmare which is why i only asked for 10.

By showing percentages we are not favoring any stations. if you have all this bandwidth and arnt using it then in effect you are inefficent, and that is bad for business. Obviously if a station is packing in 5 listeners they deserve at least the chance to upgrade, this will be recognized by advertisers. Please read where I state that as more stations join they will be divided into segments to alieviate issues caused by a 5 listener peak vs. a 10,000 listener peak. Also please remember it is counting UNIQUE listeners, which if im correct means 1 listener per IP addy. Yes that could cause a few issues with jim and jane who live in apts next to each other and share a wireless net so only get counted as one listener, but it will eliminate cheating.

Right now im monitoring a stations Launch and they have a peak of 5/1000 that is awful, I understand it's their launch and they arnt paying for the 1,000 but they should understand that it makes them look sloppy and unpopular. If advertisers knew how to check this information then they wouldnt even give a second thought to them ever. They should have understood that they were new and started smaller, like most everyone else.

You dont build a $20 million station in a city with only 10,000 people, so why would you try and reach out to more listeners than you can attract? its the same principle here.

Eventually a script would have to be written and used to do the query and the calculations, but for now its just me scanning pages. I dont see why you are so against this idea since judging based on percentages is a fair way to determine the popularity of a station.

For now as well it is only for Shoutcast / Streamcast. Ways of keeping the fairness and including Live365 and Icecast stations will have to be found as those stations join as well.

When Neilson ratings started they sat people in homes around the country to watch them watching television. that was way less efficient and accurate as this system will be.

[djSpinnerCee]

Believe it or not guys, a cluster "really" means that the stream title is the same (because the source is the same), so that makes it really easy to "chunk" multiple stations as the same broadcast.

If 100 people want to name their station "My SHOUTcast" you shouldn't care in terms of generating statistics - it's upon the broadcaster to "attempt" to be unique.

I've been watching this thread, and I hate to say it, but using listeners (now or whenever) in any way is the absolute wrong way to rank stations -- if you start there, you'll end up another YP.

Real terrestrial radio has no way of counting listeners, so how do they measure success? They are 100% commercial, so if they can get and keep advertisers ($$), they stay on the air, period. That means their "goal" is advertisers, not listeners.

SHOUTcast and webcasting is totally different -- It's ALL about content -- a good webcast has content that people want to listen to, not only that, they are willing to give up bandwidth to do so -- the most expensive commodity on the internet.

The question is how do you "rank" that?

How does a station running at 24kbps with 250 listeners "rank" vs. a station running at 128kbps with 10 listeners at the same time when it is the same source program?

Answer this last question, and you will be a hero.

Stats are stats, but the majority are totally useless.

[ravetrax]

please note this is only an opinion... but it seems like to me that your great intentions are gettig over powered by your actions of jumping into something you don't really understand...

you say i am "inefficent" because i offer multiple bitrates, with multiple formats, and have enough room to handel the load during larger events, but yet make us look empty when nothing special is going on.

how do you figure?

anyWHO... i never said i downed your ideas, hell i even played around with somethign simular, i am sure there is a few people that do remember what echo34 was before it became a music based irc network...

i was just questioning your theories and pushing your buttons, but you seem a bit too tightwadish for that.

so disreguard my comments and i'll be on my merry way.

[djdragons5]

umm ok i wasnt being tighwadish im defending my theories. no where did you mention different bitrates. that is counted as different streams in this system so if you have a cluster that would appear on YP as "clusterMy Station 128kbps 100/101 is counted as one station and "clusterMy Station 24kbps 20/50" would be a completely different station

Its not listeners fault you dont entice them to return. Dont blame them for the content of your station. That is why the rating system will work. It is the listeners deciding which stations should be recognized, not the shoutcast YP and it would cover all station types not just Shoutcast.

You think i know nothing about shoutcast? i was using DSP from day one. sure im not a pro, but i do know a thing or two.. mostly thanks to festerhead. Ive always appreciated this community and the open mindedness it has, but if your going to go all egoimbetterwithshoutcast on me then I dont think I would like to help you or anything at all.

k thanks.

<soapbox>
now if you want me to get an attitude lets talk about your IRC network. I found it to be a great idea, made an account and still couldnt register a channel. After swimming through some bad navigaiton on your site i found something about chan registering. Your site said to enter a simple command.. when i did that it told me to goto #echo64 and ask for help.. i did this and got nowhere. until someone told me i had to email you. wow, thats way too much.

Perhaps you could make a form on your site that users could fill out and it would send the info for the channel registration to your emai.
</soapbox>

see a helpful suggestion comes out of my frustration.

Ok now that was me being tightwadish. I respect your opinion and you are free to disagree. I will contine whatever you think and hope you see that this is the way to rank netradio stations.

Lets get along now...

[ravetrax]

lmao...

anyWHO... you just have to get my attention in chat. no email is invloved... we just don't allow anyone to register a channel, which keeps out the riff raff of unappropriate channels and thus a cleaner network. as for your request today to start #radiorevolt, i wasn't around to help you because i was having my wisdom teeth pulled.

and fyi, by no means did i ever say i was better at shoutcast. never said anything of such...

also as for your system, i'm just stating that i don't think it will be accrate enough to be helpful.

[Jay]

it's pretty clear that caculations based solely on listener counts is about the best capability to understand the popularity of a station. You should also consider stream hits as well, not just concurrents. Penalizing stations because they have head room is not the way to go in my view. As it has no impact to the station's ability to earn future growth nor does it say anything about the audience.

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by KXRM
it's pretty clear that caculations based solely on listener counts is about the best capability to understand the popularity of a station.

KXRM you and I have been here forever, you've been more stable than me. what if suddenly i spammed 7,000 threads and looked cooler than you in thread counts? would that mean im more popular?? no it would mean for some reason I suddenly found the need to post on that many forums. However if we took the percentage of helpfulness out of those post more than likely you would win, since my limited knowledge would have me talking out my ass. Therefore you are the better poster on these forums no matter what. It would take me crafting very careful responses to people's post to defeat you in this light.

That is percisely the way net radio should be viewed. Not by taking the maximum number of people one can host at a certain point in time but the way in which he/she can approach netcasting and prepare for their future audience.

[MegaRock]

I'm confused as hell now.

[ravetrax]

/me takes another vicotine for the pain... and sits on the confusion couch with megarock while mumbling something about purple goldfish swiming in the window.

i'm all for dragon doing something positive... so i'll shut up and just see what happens.

[djdragons5]

does that mean i can use your stations in the test week that starts monday?

[ravetrax]

um, ok... i guess... lol

[Jay]

you cannot compare forum post counts and listener counts that is like comparing apples and oranges. Nice try though.

[ravetrax]

Originally posted by KXRM
is like comparing apples and oranges

they are both fruit that grow on trees?

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by KXRM
you cannot compare forum post counts and listener counts that is like comparing apples and oranges. Nice try though.

Ok, I admit I was rushed for an example. But they can be compared, its like the guns or butter parable for learning the economic priciple of trade and comparitive advantage. Sure it souds odd, but it works, you just need to look closely.

Here:
Forum Post:
1. The idea is to prove who is the better poster
2. To prove this one would use highest # of post at the given time
3. This only proves the # of post is high, not the efficency of the post.

Shoutcast YP:
1. The idea is to prove who is the better station
2. To prove this one would use the highest # of listeners at the given time
3. This only proves the station is able to support a high # of listeners, but does not prove the satisfaction of the listener, therefore being the stations efficiency.

Soultion:
Forum: Count the # of post and the # of post that were proven to be useful or helpful. Compare them and using simple math get a % of useful or helpful post. The person with the highest percentage is the most useful poster and therefore should be called the best and praised for their help.

Net Radio: Count the # of unique listeners at differing time intervals for all stations and the # of max listeners possible. Compare them and using simple math get a % of efficency. The station(s) with the highest efficency are the most enjoyed and therefore deserve to be called the best and praised for their success.

See... they do have something in common.

And going back to the remark that someone can just set up a 5 listener station and leave 5 winamps open on it. There are two ways this system would battle this.
1. Counts only unique listeners
2. The 4 different (unannounced) times of the day will be in four segments e.g. 12-6am, 7am-12pm, 1pm-6pm, 6pm-12.
sure its possible for them to guess maybe one of the times, but not all 4 meaning a more accurate # will prevail.

[ravetrax]

i'm participating, but i still disagree...

for example, ravetrax will have less a ratio because we have ample bandwidth... not because we are ineficant, but because our users have donated enough to make erverything possible.

and thats just one exmaple.

there has to be a better way to calculate this.

[Jay]

yup, this method is still flawed, you do realize that I can get 5 different ip's with a dedicated server right. The point is that what makes a station good is content and the amount of listeners who agree that the content is good. This just can't be measured your way. Your way is just measuring management of servers. All of this being completely voluntary. If I don't like my ratings with you I just drop my max listener count and now I am an awesome station. This defies logic.

Also the point of this forum is to help members find solutions to their problems I don't think it's a popularity contest, so I still say that your example is quite off. Also servers can't be as easily tricked as forum who has a poster who post pumps.

Regarding arguement 3 against the YP. Why would a listener sit and listen to an unsatisfying broadcast, I don't understand what proof you have that people do this.

Advertisers care about one thing, and one thing only. Ears. The more ears the better. This is going back to terra as well. Find an advertiser who doesn't care about the amount of people hearing their ads and I will concede.

[djdragons5]

no offense rave but that is inefficent. If you wanted to be effient you would choose to not accept the bandwidth since your just taking something your not going to use. perhaps it could go to another station who is in need of it. and that is the point of this. Not saying that your station is bad and evil, but there are good stations (i know of one that has a 2 listen max @ 64kbps) that do keep an audience and pay to stream to their few listeners. There has to be a better way to put them on the same level as a station like Digitally Imported which can host thousands of listeners. This is that way.

KXRM i wasnt saying that that is what happens to the forums, just that I could drop that many post and boast that I am better because of it.

Secondly why attack an even system? you support a flawed system that takes nothing into consideration except for one number. I love looking at some stations info and noticing they have 80/100 (17 unique) its insane.

Advertisers dont want fake ears, and that is what is happening. the YP cant show that but an even percentage based system can. I realize the YP has been around for a while now and that you hardcore'rs are stuck in your ways, but its time for a change to give evey station the opportunity to succeed. Don't hold back others because you are scared of change.

Sure you can go ahead and use all the ip's you want to listen in, but your just wasing your time and hogging your own servers resources. Im not saying this will get rid of all the cheating, but it will certainly help curtail it. Deny that most stations that started of cheated and I will laugh at you, I have watched almost every station grow and those that start with a 10 listener max but left 5 ips on it grew much quicker than the ones who just let their station run. Its not fair and should be taken care of. This is the best way I, as a non-coder, can see to mathmatically prove which stations are indeed better.

Your arguments hold no water and just prove your stubborness to change, perhaps if you were not intrested in this theory you would have been better off to not even post. After all you lead by example and this thread is now dragging on and destroying its original intent which was to unify stations and provide a common rating system for ALL broadcasters, not just shoutcast.

[ravetrax]

i keep the bandwitdh because i feel i have earned it... if it was gold, would you think i'm an stingy for harboring it as well?

i have spent my money, and lots of it over the years keeping ravetrax online and still spend a pretty penny each month to keep things going.

i'm being patent... i'm curious to see what you come up with.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by djdragons5
does that mean i can use your stations in the test week that starts monday?

Wouldn't bother me any but it would be a wise idea to contact the station owners offsite and let them know IP addresses and such of what will be connecting. Alot of us watch for strange activity and connections and might ban an offending IP if we don't know what's going on.

:)

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by MegaRock
Wouldn't bother me any but it would be a wise idea to contact the station owners offsite and let them know IP addresses and such of what will be connecting. Alot of us watch for strange activity and connections and might ban an offending IP if we don't know what's going on.

:)

im not connecting to the stream mearly the information page which is upto date the second I view it. I dont think that logs in the Shoutcast log, but i maybe incorrect perhaps KXFM or another veteran of shoutcast that is more familiar with that can answer that question.

again for demonstration.
if your connection IP is: http://000.00.00.000:8000/listen.pls

then your shoutcast info page is: http://000.00.00.000:8000/

it list the encoder info, except for the quality of the cast [kbs], including Listeners, Unique Listeners, Max Listeners, station AIM, station site, and station IRC chan.

I know you know this megarock that is for browsers viewing the forum but not chiming in, who maybe confused by what has been said.

[NJK]

there are still too many variables in your way to count.

example:

take my station , (big word for my hobby)
i don't have dedicated servers nor do i have hosting.
I run it on my own computer at home.

your messurementpoints are 4 times a day --> every 6 hours since 4x 6 = 24

you messure my station at 12.00 hours and i have 1 listener, after your messurepoint 6 listeners start to listen to my station and at 17.00 hours my computer thinks it's about time for a reboot.
at 18.00 hours you messure again and see that since the last messurepoint i didn't get a listener but lost one.
my stats are poor at the time of messurement both 12.00 and 18.00 while inbetween i nearly toped my max listeners.

your messuring only works for stations that are hosted or have dedicated servers with 100% uptime.
a power failure would corrupt the whole way you want to track these things.

just my 2 cts about this.
the idea isn't bad but there are far too many variables to get a good result

[Pioneer]

I think some people are misinformed about why advertisers don't necessarily like to deal with Internet radio stations. It is not because of "lies" (and by the way, positioners are not lies, they are marketing tools which are even used by stations in FM markets that are not in the #1 spot), it is because of its youth. Internet radio is still young, and many stations have not proven to be stable.

Internet radio stations need stability and good references to get advertisers.

And to settle the confusion about Net Radio ratings, Arbitron does it and so does RadioWave Monitor. You guys just have to consent to their monitoring of your servers. FM stations get their ratings based upon Arbitron diaries. Nothing is automatic and ratings are never accurate, but they do a good job of showing a near-accurate representation of listener counts, TLH and market density.

Internet radio cannot have an organization until standards are set and adhered to. Otherwise, we'd be setting up an organization for failure. And if you insist, I recommend drafting a business plan for the organization and give it a test launch.

[Jay]

Originally posted by djdragons5
...KXRM i wasnt saying that that is what happens to the forums, just that I could drop that many post and boast that I am better because of it.

Secondly why attack an even system? you support a flawed system that takes nothing into consideration except for one number. I love looking at some stations info and noticing they have 80/100 (17 unique) its insane. ...

I am certainly not saying that the YP is perfect, but again the YP looks at your uniques not the real count. As I said before I don't see how adding the max listener count to the mix is going to help show that a station is better then another anymore effectively then the YP does by just comparing their uniques.

[djdragons5]

spaceplay your talking about a worst case scenario. The point is if your station is really all that and a bag of chips your listener count will fluxuate less no matter what your max, you should have a stable number. Doing this 4 times daily ensures all stations a fair shot. Your in the Netherladns also so this would give a fair shot versus Western Hemisphere based stations. Most ratings organizations do a one time, one day check up. Neilson's television rating system has improved over time but again is still in now way as accurate as this system.

Eventualy I would like to see a program made that could scan for the info almost constantly and generate daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly reports.

Internet radio stations need stability and good references to get advertisers.

If you read above I state that an organization of radio stations combining resources would be able to gain that sort of credibility faster than a solo station, then apply it to current and future members.

Many stations work together in their infancy to get things running smoothly, this organization is just an amplified version of that.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by Pioneer
I think some people are misinformed about why advertisers don't necessarily like to deal with Internet radio stations. It is not because of "lies" (and by the way, positioners are not lies, they are marketing tools which are even used by stations in FM markets that are not in the #1 spot),

I can partially agree with this but in reality do you ever hear an FM station run a commerical that says "We are the # 1 Rock station in town" when they are not? In the same instance a TV network claim "We are the most watched TV network in America" when they are not? There is nothing wrong with using those statements if you can back them up with proof but if you're not it's false advertisement plain and simple. There are much better station 'mottos' one can use (like 'the rocking best' or 'real rock radio' for instance) but misleading statements ward off advertisers - trust me on this one as I've had to deal with alot and they've told me it is the main reason they don't like to deal with internet stations - because so many make claims they can't back up. It's their choice to say things like that but it's also the advertisers choice to deal with someone who misleads the audience.

Originally posted by KXRM
[B]I am certainly not saying that the YP is perfect, but again the YP looks at your uniques not the real count. As I said before I don't see how adding the max listener count to the mix is going to help show that a station is better then another anymore effectively then the YP does by just comparing their uniques.

Indeed. In the same fashion that a station can artifically inflate their listener count they can also artificially inflate or deflate their max listener numbers to fool such a system. I can easily take my main incoming links and direct it towards a small capacity server to intentionally fill it up or set a server with 5000 slots and set a time limit on it so no one stays connected for very long thus never really pushing the capacity. Both are easily done so using max listener count numbers can easily be messed with. Also KXRM is right as the YP only counts unique listeners and not overall connections and also limits the number of shown slots to 1000 per server even if you are running 5000 slots.

[djdragons5]

thanks for clearing up the YP KXRM. See this system may have its imperfections, im not gonna argue that. Im arguing that it has less than the YP and will provide a dynamic enviroment for health net radio competition.

And yeah. I dj'd for a strip club for a year that claimed to be 'The #1 gentlemens club in the state' I suggested they claim to be t'The #1 gentlemens club in the city' because they were the only one. At least its more true than the previous statement.

So perhaps another thing a unified organizitaion could provide is slogan assitance? basically tell up starters and 12 yo's what not to make their slogan say. Its like the principle of depreciating property [ok so that may not be the correct term for it, blame my real estate friend] It's where as your homes property value is partially affected by your neighbors and the neighborhoods appearance and property value. So this would benefit everyone not just the one or two stations who avoid using crappy slogans.

[Pioneer]

Stations in Atlanta claim the #1 Countdown in Atlanta and their station really ranks #4 with Arbitron.

They also use things like "#1 For Today's Hit Music" or other stations in the U.S. use "Boston's New #1 for Hit Music" and if you look at it closely, how are they new and #1 at the same time?

But I do see where advertisers are not keen on it for Internet radio stations. For one, there are literally tens of thousands of Internet based stations and when advertisers see #1 on most of the stations they contact, it does confuse them and they wouldn't want to deal with them.

Fortunately, we've never had that as a reason.

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by djdragons5

If you read above I state that an organization of radio stations combining resources would be able to gain that sort of credibility faster than a solo station, then apply it to current and future members.


Credibility is built. References aren't. References are what build credibility.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by Pioneer
They also use things like "#1 For Today's Hit Music" or other stations in the U.S. use "Boston's New #1 for Hit Music" and if you look at it closely, how are they new and #1 at the same time?

Indeed. It seems to me stations get way more listeners by saying 'we're the new kid on the block, come check us out' than to make claims of superiority.

And for at least some period of time we did have Measurecast which did measurements for internet stations but sadly that was discontinued some time ago. Until a major organization supports net radio ratings we kinda make due with what stats we have to show advertisers our standing in the radio community.

A second thing that makes organizing webcasters is that much like many other industries people don't want to group up in ways that help their competitors in any way. Although terrestrial broadcasters have the NAB it is their ownership groups that belong and not individual stations. Most are not willing to divulge their secrets such as how they get their listeners, format ideas and the such. About the only time I've seen it work is when it involves stations that are of different genres as these are not direct competitors.

[PC Radio Net]

Hey, We'll join your listings. Another great opprtunity to get our name out there!

http://thepcradionetwork.no-ip.info:8000

[Pioneer]

Like I said, Arbitron and Radiowavemonitor already do Internet radio ratings. Arbitron of course is more established and most acceptable. The cost to be included ranges from station to station. Radiowavemonitor provides it free.

And I have to agree, I wouldn't partner up with competitors, especially if they don't really have anything to bring to the table other than "another Internet radio station".

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by MegaRock
A second thing that makes organizing webcasters is that much like many other industries people don't want to group up in ways that help their competitors in any way. Although terrestrial broadcasters have the NAB it is their ownership groups that belong and not individual stations. Most are not willing to divulge their secrets such as how they get their listeners, format ideas and the such. About the only time I've seen it work is when it involves stations that are of different genres as these are not direct competitors.

And that is the threat. Ownership groups recognize that through a trade/industry association they can improve themselves, and indvidual stations subscribe to the theory of "isolationism". This organization is not to divulge ones secrets, but to provide a stable place where those who take this business a little more seriouly can gather and talk. Without this surely the market will soon be dominated by ClearChannel, Viacom, Sirius, XM, Chum, and other broadcast networks that are already established. A few netcasters will survive, but those could be few and far between.

NAB is not the only thing. There are other orgs that provide this same sort of commune. In fact every single state in the USA has a radio broadcast association that does the very same thing; the get together once or twice a year and discuss trends that affect the industry, publish a magazine that includes the latest FCC regs and top dj's/shows/station for the month, lobby for changes in gov't&fcc policy on the behalf of the stations, highlight artist and their works, provide amber alert and other social services, a distribution of PBA's, negotiations with royalty services, and product reviews and recomendations.

Terrestrial broadcasters are way more organized than you assume, just because your google search turned up the NAB doesn't mean its the only club/group for AM/FM broadcaster. I have attended many of these meetings and trade shows and can tell you that they are quite useful and informative. The competition is then more about who can utilize the information better, than who can keep a secret the longest.

[Pioneer]

If netradio.clicdev.com is the association's address, I would recommend that you get a domain name, a professional-looking site and develop your business plan with values, mission and history of the management staff involved and have those readily available on the web site.

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by Pioneer
If netradio.clicdev.com is the association's address, I would recommend that you get a domain name, a professional-looking site and develop your business plan with values, mission and history of the management staff involved and have those readily available on the web site.
This is definately in the works, im hoping to get more stations signed of before I commit my limited resources to this endeavor.

Day one is down and im getting some intresting results so far. can't wait to post them on Monday.

[Pioneer]

I would actually be interested in seeing your goals and values. And if you're going to publish results, it would be great to see the benefits that have been produced as a result of this association as opposed to how many people show their interest or support for what you are doing.

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to be real with you. This is a bit of what it takes to make any association/organization successful.

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by Pioneer
I would actually be interested in seeing your goals and values. And if you're going to publish results, it would be great to see the benefits that have been produced as a result of this association as opposed to how many people show their interest or support for what you are doing.

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to be real with you. This is a bit of what it takes to make any association/organization successful.
I appreciate your trying to help me assuming im a noob at this. However, your sorely mistaken. I have created many successful organizations and clubs. From campus groups to enthusiast groups to competitive groups. I am very familiar with what it will take and I do have plans to complete everything, but yet again I would like to see more intreste (users on the forum) before I commite my limited resources to this project.

There is another thread on here where a guy purchased a URL and I asked him to teamup with me, but have yet to recieve a response. Thats fine I am more worried right now about crunching these numbers than working on a site, since I am already working on a site. Thanks for trying to be helpful thought, and I didnt assume you were being an ass at all.

[Pioneer]

Originally posted by djdragons5
I appreciate your trying to help me assuming im a noob at this ... I didnt assume you were being an ass at all.

And I didn't assume you're a noob. I'm just telling you what I'd like to see, or, what most of us would like to see.

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by Pioneer
And I didn't assume you're a noob. I'm just telling you what I'd like to see, or, what most of us would like to see.
lol and I appreciate it, i really do. I assure you, like that means a whole lot on the internet, that I have plans to get a real site up and going and looking all proffesional.

ok I couldn't resist. here are the Day One results as a little teaser:

#1: 9412 | Rating = 0.825
#2: VGamp [128kbps] | Rating = 0.663
#3: GameSurge Radio | Rating = 0.61
#4: RaveTrax | Rating = 0.26
#5: MMORadio | Rating = 0.087
#6: Awakened Radio | Rating = 0.084
#7: Radioation | Rating = 0.02
#8: BFRadio | Rating = 0.018
#9: NS Radio | Ratiing = 0.011
#10: SpinFM [128kbps] | Rating = 0.01
#11: iTG Radio | Rating = 0.004
#12: XV Live | Rating = 0.001

My apologies to those whose stations im using that didnt ask to be in this test run. I just grabbed a few random stations to round out the list.

note: Stations with no listeners or whose server was down at all check times are not listed since all of their ratings would be 0. If the server is down for all check times on day 2 then the station will be removed. This is by no means any measure of what your final score will be since these are mondays ratings, and there is an entire week of results left to calculate and compile.

[WBAT]

Not try to be difficult, just curious what is different about what you are trying to do and such programs already in existance (such as www.radiowavemonitor.com).

Thanks.

[djdragons5]

i think i found a way to smooth out some of the figures. You see not all of those stations broadcast at the same bit rate. infact one of the top stations broadcast at a fairly low bitrate, so it seems unfair to assume listeners enjoy it more all around. To better represent the listener the need for bit rate to counted has to be considered.

For instance:
9412's bit rate = 56kbps
BF Radio's bit rate = 128kbps

They both have a max listener count of 400, and according to stats for Day One, 9412 keeps more of its listener base tuned in all day.

So to show that BF Radio does offer a high quality cast we create a point system like this:
8kbps - 20kbps = 0 points
24kbps - 48kbps = 1 point
56kbps - 96 kbps = 2 points
112kbps - 160kbps = 3 points
192kbps - 320kbps = 4 points

The points are added to the stations daily/weekly total before averaging. This changes the scores for the two stations to this:
BF Radio - 1.018
9412 - 1.476

9412 is still ahead, but BF Radio has a more substantial chance to leverage their higher quality cast and gain higher ranking quicker. Look at how the difference between the two scores altered dramatically.
Before = 0.807
After = 0.458

what do you think?

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by WBAT
Not try to be difficult, just curious what is different about what you are trying to do and such programs already in existance (such as www.radiowavemonitor.com).
Thanks.

Those are brute figures gleaned from stations who have ample bandwidth to spare, and therefore have a better chance of leveraging listeners. also most of the top stations in that listing seem to be getting help from outside influences such as AOL (see my other post) although Im not sure, but the ip's do trace to AOL data networks.

Spin FM who has a max listener base of 200 doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell in that listing since again its all brute figures. That is just a larger version of the Shoutcast YP and only proves just that.. brute numbers. The internet is dynamic and each bit of streaming cost $$ it doesnt matter if its being donated or purchased by the station, someone is footing the biil.

The purpose here is to show what stations are the most effective. What radiowave monitor claims to be 50% of the market share turns out to be about 4,000 listeners. And the stations I looked @ have the ability to host 26,000+ that equals a high rate of ineffeiciancy. Like RaveTrax said "I dont care I earned it" that is just setting net casting up for failure.

Those large stations you see at the top are ineffective and ineffeciant, and by counting nothing but pure numbers at a given time you destroy the opportunity for competition. That is why many stations back radio wave and the YP. Because they realize the potential keeping their market position. This will ultimately lead to a ClearChannel+Viacom sort of market where a few large stations move further to block the entrance of new stations and the ability of the small caster. This is just the way business works.

Our rating system is not intended to replace the radiowave monitor but to suppliment it by providing information they do not and cannot.

[ravetrax]

now your being mp3 biased...

what about my 48k aacPlus stream thats sound as good as my 128k mp3 stream?

you have to keep this in mind when adding weight based on bitrates. :)

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by ravetrax
now your being mp3 biased...

what about my 48k aacPlus stream thats sound as good as my 128k mp3 stream?

you have to keep this in mind when adding weight based on bitrates. :)
lol yes, but in the test none of the streams are AAC just MP3. Im sure if this worked out we would have two different categories to make things less confusing.

[ravetrax]

then which of my streams did you use to test with?

[djdragons5]

128k stream i would have liked to use all of them, but family things and business classes have me running all over. do you have any idea how much it sucks waking up at 5am to take readings.....

[ravetrax]

Originally posted by djdragons5
do you have any idea how much it sucks waking up at 5am to take readings.....

its possible...

[radiowazee]

Independent ratings firms already exist. Yes, most cost $$, but if advertising revenues is what you're after you'll need to spend some $$


Radiowave Monitor http://www.radiowavemonitor.com
&
Ando Media http://www.andomedia.com

Are two that come to mind. The latter being affiliated with Ronning Lipset agency (for the express purpose of gathering ratings to sell ads).

Of course, Arbitron is back in the game as well.

As far as ratings methodology is concerned, there are established metrics the radio industry already uses for these purposes -- its a daunting task to get advertisers interested in internet radio to begin with, to try to convince them with ratings data that is different than what the industry is used to makes it even more difficult.

So, why reinvent the wheel? Want to have some fun and play with a new directory scheme - fine.

Advertisers want audience reach within a specified demographic (age, sex, region, etc.) If audience reach is what you want, then ratings need to ne driven on the size of a stations audience. Certainly a station's "quality" will drive its audience, but audience is the name of the game with advertisers.

If you want to build a directory of "quality" stations, that's another story altogether -- however, this shouldn't be confused with ratings for purposes of gaining advertisers.

My $.02
Howard

[radiowazee]

Originally posted by djdragons5
[B]Those are brute figures gleaned from stations who have ample bandwidth to spare.

Yeah, we pay for it.

As for those with shoutcast servers, I say good for them. Nothing wrong with negotiating with a partner to help support your infrastructure -- just good business.

Spin FM who has a max listener base of 200 doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell in that listing since again its all brute figures.

So, buy some bandwidth if you're serious about your station.

Those large stations you see at the top are ineffective and ineffeciant

Ineffective at what? Apparently they are pretty effective at getting people to tune in and listen.

Howard

[Pioneer]

We can carry up to 400 listeners, you're not including the dial up stream. And I'm sure your stats don't include the number of listeners tuning in over their cell phone or the multiple listeners under the same IP from a work place.

You can remove SpinFM from your project, we were never solicited for permission.

[djdragons5]

Originally posted by radiowazee
Nothing wrong with negotiating with a partner to help support your infrastructure -- just good business.
No it is bad business. You see the supporting businesses are donating to help a station that appears to need its help, but what they don't realize is the bandwidth is more than likely not being used. With that being said the company who is suppling it free of charge suffers an opportunity cost that it could have gained from the sale of that bandwidth = BAD BUSINESS.

Apparently they are pretty effective at getting people to tune in and listen.

Apparently not. Im sorry i have yet to post the results but I'm tinkering with a formula I think should make this a little more fair.

All in all Radio Wazee im glad you chimed in. I actually do tune into your cast from time to time. Unfortunately you do lie to advertisers and here is how.

In operation since 1998, radio.wazee is one of the net's most listened to radio stations.
That is a direct quote from http://www.wazee.org/sponsor and a complete and utter lie. Since you prefer brute figures then perhaps I can show my point my using them. You see at 3:06am (central) the YP shows the top Shoutcast station @ 3977/80852 and your station @ 387/1360. Hmmmm you station is 10% the max of the largest station. Your stations MAX user count is 1/3 or the top stations current listeners and 2% of the top stations max listeners. Thus not making you ONE of the top stations, but close enough (at same time stations was listed @ #54 in YP - thats page 3 = not prominent)

In this formula, however, your station would rank higher. due to the fact that you utilize more of what you have, provide a high quality cast, and keep consistent numbers. You would have a good chance at competing with mr. 80,000+ possible listeners.

As well your little advertisers page goes on about being Non-Commercial but not officially non-profit. This means you have no goverment business license to practice business and therefore cannot be held accountable for where the "donations" and "revenue" go. I'm by no means suggesting your shady, but from a professional point of view I dont care how many listeners you have that is not good business. In fact how can you call it business if you accept donations and do not intend to make a profit.

I do want to applaud the demographic information listed on your page, just kind curious as to how it was obtained (survey im guessing). That is something I have seen very few net casters try and do. Unfortunately again from my professional stance once I see the "not licensed" part most of that becomes rubish and hard to believe. Again not assuming you inflated numbers, but lets be honest. If it turns out to be a crock then I have a better recourse against a legal company/organization than I do against a private citizen.

Have fun selling out the next generation.

Regards.
DS5

[Pioneer]

djdragon, I am beginning to believe that you have come here with a personal agenda, not necessarily to help other stations, but to make them feel inferior to you.

If your intentions are to stir trouble, then find elsewhere. Your business classes obviously haven't taught you the simplest rule in business: never burn your bridges. And you're defintely on the track to destroying some credibility and reputability among web broadcasters.

[CraigF]

how is this any different from the shoutcast ttsl?

http://www.shoutcast.com/ttsl.html

[radiowazee]

DS5 - That's your response? To call me a liar, throw out some 3AM listener counts and go on to suggest that I'm pilfering listener donations.

Good luck with your "association".

[Jay]

wow, and now you see why there are no "associations", because as djdragon has done here, they tend to try to invent new ways of doing old things and alienating everyone.

TTSL stats is all you need. If that isn't enough their are plenty of stat packages out there to give you industry standard numbers rather then made up figures using made up formulas.