Sunday, May 11, 2014

THE PGSC SCORE, PART III: A LOOK AT CONTESTANT PLACEMENT BASED ON AGE, GENDER, GEOGRAPHY AND GENRE (AGGG)

This is part III of an article about the PGSC score metric to quantify Idol placement:
PART I: THE PGSC SCORE, PART I: PGSC (PERFORMANCE, SONG FRESHNESS, GROWTH AND CONSISTENCY) VERSUS ACTUAL IDOL RANK
THE PGSC SCORE, PART II: UPDATED FEATURES (GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, AGE AND GENRE)

*Part I contains the ranks of the Idol contestants on a season-by-season basis, based on the PGSC score. Think of this as the way the contestants should be ranked, assuming neutral ground and zero pimpage. It is also the way I would rank them.
*Part II ranks the Idol contestants based on PGSC score, according to genre.
*Part III, which is this article, attempts to use historical rank data since AI3 to put actual rank numbers into contestants, based on PGSC score, and based on the features added in at Part II. Unlike Part I, this is how we predict the audience would vote based on these features, and this model gets more informed as we get more data points (more seasons).

As explained in the title above, from part II of my study I utilized the four features I implemented for the PGSC score, and for greater accuracy of specific trends within the PGSC score, I used the 8-degree polynomial function  for each of those features, and took averages of the four. Remember, the smaller the number, the better!--that means you're ranked higher. The average rank corresponds to the average rank within the top ten--an average of 2.54, as was Scotty McCreery's case, means the model is predicting an outcome between 2nd and 3rd place for that particular contestant, or if that contestant is the highest rank of that season, as was in McCreery's case, then he/she is the predicted winner of the season. There are certain errors for sure, but it attempts to create a model using prior knowledge of past seasons to update the current knowledge on how to peg contestant placement. It's not Bayesian, but it's informed to a certain degree.


Saturday, May 10, 2014

THE PGSC SCORE, PART II: UPDATED FEATURES (GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, AGE AND GENRE)

This is part II of an article about the PGSC score metric to quantify Idol placement:
PART I: THE PGSC SCORE, PART I: PGSC (PERFORMANCE, SONG FRESHNESS, GROWTH AND CONSISTENCY) VERSUS ACTUAL IDOL RANK

*Part I contains the ranks of the Idol contestants on a season-by-season basis, based on the PGSC score. Think of this as the way the contestants should be ranked, assuming neutral ground and zero pimpage. It is also the way I would rank them.
*Part II ranks the Idol contestants based on PGSC score, according to genre.

I've integrated several features used in previous models to this PGSC score model. Check it out below:


Friday, May 9, 2014

THE PGSC SCORE, PART I: PGSC (PERFORMANCE, SONG FRESHNESS, GROWTH AND CONSISTENCY) VERSUS ACTUAL IDOL RANK



So I recently created a model which I thought was able to perfectly encapsulate the general fan's assessments of the majority top ten American Idol contestants, starting from AI3 all the way to what we have now in AI13, independent of producer and judge manipulation. We start with AI3 because that's when we are able to chart one of our metrics, as will be explained below. This is the likely ranking of the contestant had every contestant played on a neutral ground.