Talk:Billboard Hot 100

Algorithm

I don't see any mention on the algorithm used to compile the chart. Is it by any mean an objective method or is this chart just a marketing tool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.248.61 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The exact algorithm and formula is kept a trade secret so that people can not copy and predict their charts exactly, however we know for sure that this algorithm does use objective data to create the charts. 24.180.22.221 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Number One

On the Wikipedia page it says Do I Make You Proud as number one, but the Billboard website still lists Hips Don't Lie as number one. What's up with this?

There is an extra external link in the article pointing to the Billboard.com news article confirming that Hicks is at number one for the July 1 issue. That new chart is released by Billboard tonight/tomorrow. -- eo 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia's page, it claims that "Sexyback" is number one by Justin Timberlake, but Billboard includes Timbaland. Shouldn't Wikipedia as well?

In both the print and online editions of Billboard I see it credited solely to Timberlake. -- eo 02:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In this week's Chart Beat, Fred Bronson credits "SexyBack" to Justin Timberlake and Timbaland.

OK. Timbaland did produce it, but Bronson is a columnist for the magazine. For the official namecheck, you need to look on the actual chart. You may want to see Bronson's "Chart Beat Chat" feature from this week, which coincidentally addresses this very issue: link. A reader asked about determining who gets credit... in short, part of Bronson's reply was "Artist credits are determined by record companies in collaboration with artists and their legal representatives. Billboard is guided by how an artist is credited on a single or album. On rare occasions, if there is confusion or the credits are unclear or vague, our chart department staffers will contact the label to determine how the credits are supposed to read." so ya. -- eo 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Early comments

The Hot 100 List of Number 1 Hits (USA) seems to be weekly, but some Hot 100 websites show 100 songs for a year. Anyone know what is going on? --ShaunMacPherson 14:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Recently, pop star Kelly Clarkson hit #2 with "Since U Been Gone." This is the first female pop song by a white singer to hit that spot in a long time.

...um, is this comment neccessary? --FuriousFreddy 16:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, but it might be necessary Drdr1989 20:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

regarding R. Kelly/Celine Dion "I'm Your Angel"

Kelly/Dion's duet "I'm Your Angel" technically did not make a 46-1 move on the Billboard Hot 100.

The song became #1 on the first week Billboard allowed airplay-only songs to chart on the Hot 100. In Billboard's print edition that week, the "last week," "2 weeks ago" and "weeks on chart" columns reflected ranks from UNPUBLISHED TEST CHARTS Billboard had been using prior to making the new chart rules official. Because of this, it appeared that "I'm Your Angel" made a 46-1 move, when in fact the song debuted at #1, as the official Hot 100 chart of the week prior did NOT contain "I'm Your Angel" at all.

This song's statistics should be moved from the "Biggest Gain To #1" section to "#1 Debuts," perhaps with an asterisk explaining the situation and/or reasons why people may dispute this song's official debut position.

Previous charts to the Hot 100

The second paragraph of the article is vague and sounds like guessing. "Almost a half-dozen" is useless; a half-dozen is six and anything below that can be simply stated as a number. "Apparently all the charts became a little too difficult..." sounds like guessing. Unless a source backs this up, I'm going to change it so it's reflective of obvious facts. -- Mjwilco 18:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Could someone please help with me the following two things.

1) What is the difference between "impressions" and "detections" in terms of airplay?

2) Is there anyway of accessing #1 singles for the different charts such as Hot 100 Airplay and Hot 100 Single Sales since their inception to the current time, or is that only available through back catalogue issues of Billboard magazine?

Ultimate Star Wars Freak 6 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

1) I don't know

2) Joel Whitburn's book on the Hot 100 (2000 edition) includes the positions that a song attained on the airplay and sales charts.

Acegikmo1 6 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

1) I am not 100% sure about this, but those terms have to do with which radio stations are being monitored, what the rating is of the radio station (# of people who listen), and the time of day that the song is played (a song played on a popular Top 40 station at 4PM when young listeners are home from school on a weekday as opposed to the same station playing a song at 3AM on a Sunday morning). It is my guess that a detection is an actual, literal count of the number of times a song is played, and an impression is a calculation of how many potential listeners there are, based upon the factors I just described, plus other things.

2) Those Joel Whitburn books do have some Sales and Airplay information, but as they are collections of data specifically geared towards actual Hot 100 positions, it is not arranged in a way that would be easy to find out everything that has hit either just the sales or just the airplay chart. on top of that, those books to do not list the week-ending dates for sales-only or airplay-only chart peaks. The book may show that Song X hit #1 on the airplay chart, but there is no way of telling what issue date that occurred. You'd probably have to obtain (and pay for) that information from Billboard or Record Research (www.recordresearch.com).

Hope that helps..... eo 7 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 7 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)

Hey USWF, for #1, this is probably maybe not the most technically correct way to explain it, but als for impressions, it also depends what city you're in. Like 1 detection in New York and 1 detection in some city in the middle of nowhere will not be the same in terms of impressions. More weight would be given to the NY station because the NY stations would reach more people in terms from a stat point of view. Hope this helps. OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

Random Question

My random question is: How did the pre-"American Idol" singles debut at number one? Was a commecial single released like "AI" or was they're initial airplay that great to warrent a number one debut? An unrelated question: Did Faith Hill have a CD single for "There You'll Be"? I read on some sites that she did, and others that she didn't and that's the reason that song didn't debut or peak higher than #10. Can anybody answer these?

Pre-American Idol - before 1998 songs were not allowed to chart if there was no single in retail stores. So record labels would hold off for weeks and weeks, letting airplay build. Once airplay was huge, a single was released and then *bam* the song could chart and by then it was easily able to hit number one. Then airplay-only songs could chart, so that whole thing kinda ended. For AI songs - usually they sell so many copies that it doesn't even matter if 0 radio stations play it - it simply has enough sales points to clear everything out of the way. As far as I know the Faith Hill song was not a single - just included on a soundtrack and charted on airplay points alone. -- eo 19:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Another random question: My question regards Katharine McPhee's debut single. It has been announced that "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" will become the double A-side of "My Destiny." If my knowledge serves me correctly, that would mean that radio stations would be given the choice of playing "Somewhere..." and "My Destiny." My question is this: besides the obvious physical sales the single will get, will they combine the airplay of each song to determine how it debuts on the Hot 100? Will both songs be available for digital download, and if so, would the sales for both of those be combined to the aforementioned figures as well? Sorry, that was two questions.

Related question: When it charts, should it be referred to as "My Destiny"/"Somewhere over the rainbow" or just "My Destiny"?

Somebody needs to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost sure that Billboard will appoint an A-side and a B-side itself, depending on which song gets more airplay. Therefore, it would be referred to as "My Destiny" or "Somewhere over the rainbow."

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that "My Destiny" gets the A-side over "Somewhere..." because I fail to see radio stations playing a cover song over an original.

Most #1s (revert text)

I have reverted the text in the "Most #1s" section and removed a new reference to Diana Ross and Michael Jackson, who were noted by combining their hits with the Supremes and the Jackson 5. This is getting into a real grey area, as technically early singles by the Supremes did not have Ross's name listed out front (i.e. "Diana Ross & the Supremes"). Also, if we begin to add artists' solo and group #1s then we'll have to start doing with other people, such as the individual Beatles, etc. The general rule is that if an artist is "name-checked" in the credits of the song, then they get credit for it, but not if they are a current or featured member of a group. So for example, Ross's solo #1s do not technically include her hits with the Supremes, yet it does include her "Endless Love" duet with Lionel Richie, since at that time she was already established as a solo recording artist.

If anyone disagrees with my assessment, by all means put the text back but I think we'll be entering into an arena that is up for a lot of debate if we start combining group and solo #1s.

Also, the Elvis stats were removed as male soloist with the most #1s and I put it back.

• eo 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

AGAIN, I am reverting the text regarding most #1s. Combining #1 totals for an artist from their participation in a GROUP/BAND and their SOLO work is going to lead to argument. If the article combines Diana Ross's #1s with the Supremes and Michael Jackson's #1s with the Jackson 5, then its only fair to start combining Paul McCartney's #1s with the Beatles and with Wings and as a solo artist. It's not going to work. And even if you are combining ALL of Michael Jackson's #1s, why are the Elvis Presley statistics being removed?

Also, Regarding longest runs at #1, please do not remove the 11-week Elvis Presley "Don't Be Cruel"/"Hound Dog" record, as it stood for OVER 30 YEARS before Boyz II Men broke the record. Presley's run is significant in the history of the chart.

I am open to reading arguements for or against these changes. Please do not change it back until it is discuessed here!

• eo 17:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100 changes

Eric, if you describe yourself as a Billboard fanatic, you'll know that Elvis Presley's Don't Be cruel/Hound Dog never spent OFFICIALLY 11 weeks at #1, but 7.

Yes it did spend 11 weeks on top, however I think seven weeks listed "Cruel" ahead of "Hound Dog", while four was vice versa. The official tally is 11 weeks for the "double" single Drdr1989 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Plus, the Billboard Hot 100 exists since 1958, so technically, This single shouldn't be taken into account as a record. Furthermore, the male artist with the most #1s on the HOT 100 is Michael Jackson, not Elvis Presley. Like I said earlier, most of Elvis '#1 came before the Hot 100 existed.

A little history for you:

Officialy, Elvis never had 18 #1s (or 17) and didn't spend 79 weeks on top. Joel Whitburn changed through the years the accuracy of his compilations of the charts by introducing new elements on his books.

Joel Whitburn has done a lot of good to Elvis` chart stats over the past decades. The old folks may remember that Elvis only had 14 No. 1 Hits in the first edition of Whitburn`s "Top Pop Singles" book (published 1969). That`s because in the two legitimate charts, the Top 100 (1955-58) and since 1958 the Hot 100, Elvis indeed only has 14 No. 1 Hits.

Yet in 1977, Whitburn began to compile a completely new chart for the years 1955-1958. I think you know it already, Billboard used to compile four different pop charts from 1955 to 1958, not just one. These four charts were the Disk Jockeys chart, the Sales Chart, the Juke Boxes Chart as well as the Top 100 (which put all 3 charts together). Apart from the Top 100, the other charts only ranged from 20-50 positions. Thus Whitburn - when he compiled his first book - legitimately used the Top 100 for the 1955-58 period. However Elvis only had 9 No. 1 Hits in the Top 100. This was due to airplay factor reducing the power of his big hits. In the sales chart, a variety of songs hit no. 1, but failed to do so in the disk jockeys chart (airplay). That meant the sales power was limited in the Top 100 chart, which also used airplay and juke boxes.

In 1977, Whitburn created a new "amalgation" chart, using the peak position for one chart, the # of weeks spent at that peak and in the chart from another chart, and so on. Thus he created a chart that didn`t exist historically. This also meant that Elvis` # of no. 1 hits was increased from 14 to 17 (or 18 if "Hound Dog" is counted), because now the sales chart peaks were used.

One may argue that it is okay to use the sales chart instead of the Top 100, and I would agree here, BUT, the Hot 100 has always been a combination of sales and airplay, thus I see no reason why for the pre-1958 years, a pure sales chart should be used, especially since a Hot 100 precursor like the Top 100 existed that could have easily been utilised. See, from 1958 onwards, all acts had to struggle if their songs didn`t get enough airplay, thus nothing is taken away from Elvis if the Top 100 is used for the 1955-58 period.

And I seriously think Joel Whitburn - who is known to be a major Elvis fan - wouldn`t have created this artificial "amalgation" chart in 1977, if he hadn`t had at least one eye at the benefit this change in chart-use from Top 100 to "new chart" would have had for his boy Elvis.

• Rikta: I agree with your assessment, and yes I am familiar with the pre-Hot 100 charts. I am not the author of that particular portion of this article, although I don't think that I am going too far out on a limb to say that most people attribute 17 #1s to Elvis (as it has been mentioned a lot lately with Mariah Carey quickly closing in on his total). Anyhoo, if other Wikipedians agree with excluding his pre-Hot 100 #1s and then removing that specific text about Elvis from the article (or perhaps modify it with an asterisk or something), so be it. Perhaps an expansion on the pre-Hot 100 charts ("Top 100" included) is in order? Elvis aside, I was concerned with editors beginning to make notations that combined group and solo #1s. Technically Michael Jackson has 13 solo #1s, additional four w/the J5. Having 13 #1s does put him in first place as a male solo artist but once we start talking in the article about how he "really has 17" and Diana Ross "really has 18 if you count the Supremes" blah blah... you see where I'm gong here? I stated it above in my other comments. I do appreciate your input, and for the record I'm not bringing this up because I like Elvis; I think he's crap, mostly.
• eo 20:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• • As no one else has contributed to the conversation, I would agree to changing the "most #1's" section to say something compromising, along the lines of "Michael Jackson is the male solo artist with the most (13). Elvis Presley is widely attributed with having 17 chart-toppers, but a number of his big hits were released prior to the implementation of the Hot 100." Anyone have an issue with that text? I wanna get the conflict notice taken off the top of this article. If that text is changed, however, ALL of the stats/totals throughout the article (most chart entries, most top 40 hits, etc etc) will also have to be modified to omit any Elvis songs that are pre-Hot 100. Sound fair and accurate? Anyone?
  • eo 03:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the sentence "That`s because in the two legitimate charts, the Top 100 (1955-58) and since 1958, the Hot 100, Elvis indeed only has 14 No. 1 Hits".

For starters, who is legitimizing what, when, and why?. Look, folks, whoever took the decision to have ¨Hound Dog" and "Don't be cruel" count as one hit, whether reaching the number one, or Top ten positions, is crazy. It was a double sided monster single, the biggest ever, but with the two songs having a life of their own. And because they did have a life of their own, they were listed separately in some of the other Billboard charts (airplay, jukeboxes, Top 100). The so called "Hot 100", the greatest thing that was ever invented according to Billboard, was a combination of airplay and sales, wasn't it? And who on earth is going to be able to convince me that both ¨Hound Dog¨, and ¨Don`t be cruel¨ were not, by far, the most played songs, on radio and on television, during the entire summer of 1956, and even beyond, into early 1957?

Conversely, who amongst you is going to deny the fact that both ¨Hound Dog¨and ¨Don`t be cruel¨, when purchased together, as they had to be, were not the biggest selling single of 1956, or of the entire decade, in the United States, for that matter? Does any one here would care to mention any other single, from the fifties, which is certified by the RIAA with a higher certificationm namely 5XPlatinum?

Do you want to judge songs in the fifties, with the same kind of "airplay", of the kind we have today? You know, the one where the song is not even released as a single, sells zilch, but allows you to get it for close to nothing in the comfort of your own home, ia the computer? Well, in the case of "Hound Dog", and "Don't be cruel" they had airplay to boot, both from radio, which everyone listened to, and from television, in numbers people today would not even be able to dream about.

I go back to the original statement, and my original complaint. Why, when, and how come Elvis was limited to 14 number ones, even if by Joel Whitburn, in 1969? Why the following considerations were not taken into account?

The two sides were cited separately, in other charts, so why did Joel originally count the two songs as only one hit?

Didn't he know, in 1969, that the two songs had separate stories, of how each affected people, in an entirely different manner, in the summer of 1956?

Were, for instance, the 700,000 letters of protest which Milton Berle received ( out of an audience of 28 million viewers that night), after Presley delivered ¨Hound Dog", in any way related to whatever happened, in the charts, or vis a vis the american public, with "Don't be cruel"?

Were the 40 million who saw, three weeks later, Elvis dressed in a tux, and tails, at the Steve Allen Show and singing ¨Hound Dog¨ to a live hound, missed his not singing "Don't be cruel¨ that night so much, but so much, that they sent Allen letters of protest?

Did Ed Sullivan, who next booked Presley for his 9 September show, requested him to sing both "Hound Dog" and "Don't be cruel" that night because they were one single, or ¨because he knew, fully well, in fact, that both songs had topped the various Billboard charts, separately and, knowing that Elvis was to later appear, in October, again, that this was the moment to raise his ratings, especially after he had lost, for the first and eventually only time ever, to Allen the night when Elvis appeared there? That night, 50 million americans tuned in and, when he returned in October, another 55 million returned to watch his show. And, in early January of 1957, another 45 to 50 million tuned again.

All together, "Hound Dog" was seen, live, by a cumulative audience of over 230 million, with ¨Don't be cruel" reaching less than 200 million, as it was not sang at either the Steve Allen or Milton Berle shows. Yet, as did Whitburn in 1969 ( he later corected it), and as Bronson does today, "Hound Dog" is not cnsidered separately, either as a number one record, or as a Top ten record bacause one of the charts, the Best seller in Stores had them as one single, which they were, which does not mean they were not two separate hits, which they were.

I'm with you in regard to everything you posted here. Don't Be Cruel/Hound Dog might have been only one single, but it included two monster hits. The idea that it didn't include two gigantic recordings that both went to #1 is patently absurd. BTW, whoever changed the criteria for double-sided hits was flat-out wrong. At least you can tell the relative strengths of two songs on the same single pre-1969, but there is no real way to do it after that. jtmatbat 10:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.47.102 (talk)

Elvis #1's

Err, ok so no one responded above regarding pre-Hot 100 totals, so I changed the text in the article so that everything reflected Hot 100 hits only, this included adjusting the totals in other sections like "most chart singles," "most top 40 hits", etc. Just now I had to revert again because someone put the Elvis #1s total back in, without updating any of the other sections. This is lame, people. Either the article includes pre-Hot 100 stats or it doesn't; it's that simple. Do we want them in or not? I don't care either way, but if I or someone else goes to the trouble to make this article accurate it's really frustrating to have someone swoop in and make a half-assed modification. And please, enough about friggin' Mariah Carey - yes, she has plenty of achievements but must every section have something inserted about her "smash hit singles"? Lord knows there's enough POV in her bio, album and singles articles already, we don't need more here. Sheesh, sorry to rant. Input from anyone else is appreciated. See ya.

• eo 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You got a problem with Mariah Carey, buddy? LOL jk. Anyway, I think we should include the pre-hot 100 stuff, but include the technically correct stuff first with the stricly Hot 100 stats (and songs credited strictly). Then in a subsection you should include stuff about Elvis and about MJ and Diana Ross having more #1's. OmegaWikipedia 19:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I am removing page protection as it seems unneeded. Rich Farmbrough 09:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I am removing page protection just to update it, since the August 20 chart has been released. -Sebastian Prospero 00:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now replaced page protection, leaving the page as I found it. -Sebastian Prospero 00:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

self-replacement at number one

Not to take away from the achievements of Michael Jackson or Mariah Carey, but aren't we getting just a little too detailed about discussing artists who almost replaced themselves at number one? Come on now. Why don't we also add text about artists or songs that almost achieved other milestones? It's becoming ridiculous, and its so obvious at this point that this article has become yet another Wikipedia page that has slowly turned into a fan-page for Mariah Carey. Now it's displaying the entire chart history of "Shake It Off"? Sorry people, but that needs to be removed!... It is something that would belong on a "Shake It Off" article (which I'm sure exists already). Listing Carey and/or Jackson within sections explaining (without POV!) chart achievements is one thing, but someone wanting to learn about the Hot 100 does not need to know the week-by-week chart placings of "Shake It Off." -- eo 01:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the info is useful, so I replaced it, but I agree, we don't need a chart breakdown of Shake It Off, so I removed that, and toned the section down OmegaWikipedia 03:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Omega: Thanks. To continue with this topic, do you (or anyone who contributes to this page on a regular basis) think it may be time for an additional page dealing solely with significant Hot 100 achievements? It seems like statistics and lists are constantly being added here. Perhaps the Hot 100 page can contain just the basics about its history in Billboard and how it is compiled each week, and the 1998 change in policy to allow album cuts... and then have a new page on which people can expand all of these ever-growing lists of most weeks at #1, most chart entries, most hits from one album, #1 self-replacement, etc.? Or am I jumping the gun? -- eo 04:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I agree. We should make another page for Hot 100 achievements. I've actually kind of started working on one on my space here, [1]. It's not complete at all, but yeah, we need to make a seperate page for achievements. OmegaWikipedia 04:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Omega, I've been putting together my own Hot 100 achievements page as well... perhaps we can combine what we're both working on and then work with others to decide what should be removed from the main Hot 100 page? Anyone can check it out. All I ask that that people leave comments about it here instead of on the temp page, as I'll eventually delete it from there. -- eo 14:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

update: as I didn't hear from anyone, I published it: List of Hot 100 (US) chart achievements and trivia. I have not removed stuff from the Hot 100 main page, although I would eventually like to see that happen. I'm curently re-writing the Hot 100 page in an external text editor but do not want to publish it without others reviewing it first, as there are a bunch of us who visit/modify this page frequently. More later..... -- eo 16:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

songs w/most weeks at number one

Just explaining revert which removed No Doubt "Dont Speak" from this list.... article already points out that there are several big songs that only hit Airplay chart due to no-retail-single rule. Also, if No Doubt song is listed, then Goo Goo Dolls "Iris" also needs to be mentioned (18 weeks #1 Airplay I think?) and any other songs that spent long #1 stays on Airplay chart. List should not have some songs and not others.... unless consensus agrees that ALL of big Airplay only #1s should be there. -- eo 03:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hot 100 and AT40

I just made a change in the article. According to the American Top 40: Countdown of the Century book by Rob Durkee, it's mentioned that AT40 switched to the Airplay chart only when Billboard started using Soundscan. The reason was simple: They knew from the test charts that Billboard had been running that the new Hot100 would have many more rap and metal records on it and most AT40 stations weren't comfortable playing that kind of music. So they switched. IIRC they went even further and went to the Mainstream Top 40 airplay chart eventually. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Re-write

Editors: I've made a new Hot 100 article which retains portions of the old version (the history, the policies and weekly calculations) and got rid of a lot of the growing clutter (trivia, achievements, records, musical act mentions), which I moved to a new article (link is in this new version). I think this is more encyclopedic and keeps things a lot more direct and streamlined. I researched as much as I could from archived articles and old print issues of Billboard that I own. Is anyone interested in tweaking this new version to bring it to a FA status? -- eo 14:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Album Cuts

We need to keep the notes I made about several album cuts listed due to the fact that the songs in question *did* actually chart on the Hot 100 chart for various reasons. "Torn" (Natalie Imbruglia) and "Iris" (Goo Goo Dolls) charted due to a change in chart methedology which allowed album cuts to finally chart. "I'll be there for You" (Rembrandts) was eventually released as a single on the flip side of "This house is not a home". In all 3 cases the song entered the Hot 100 chart well after they dominated the airplay chart, resulting in a Hot 100 chart position that didn't nearly reflect the popularity of the song.

Yes this is true, but I dont think that amount of detail is necessary in this article. Mentioning in the text above that songs either a) didnt chart or b) charted well after their airplay peaks nicely and concisely explains the scenario. - eo 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Has a song ever peaked at #100?

This is kind of a trivial question, but has a song ever peaked at #100 on the Hot 100? I know of two songs that peaked at #99 on it ("The Talkin' Song Repair Blues" by Alan Jackson and "Why, Why, Why" by Billy Currington"), but I don't know of any #100's. TenPoundHammer 18:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there have been plenty: "Girl" by Beck, one of James Blunt's songs peaked at #100 last year, just to name two. There was a trivia item (since removed) about an artist who had multiple #100 songs. Really, there have been a lot of 'em. - eo 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of number one hits

I have kept track of this over the years. Both the running count of the Hot 100 number ones and those prior to that starting with Rock Around the Clock - the Rock Era. The pre-Hot 100 information is based on Fred Bronson's books. Here is the list which I update now and again [2]. It is possible I have missed one out somewhere and my count is wrong and if so please let me know. -- Phildav76 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

W00t!! Thanks for the correction, Phildav76! - eo 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite notice

The Sources section doesn't need a cite notice because each source has a link or ISBN numbers and no additional cite is necessary for a source. Removed the notice. Sundaybrunch 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hot Digital Songs

On a singles page I think the position it peaked at on the Hot Digital Songs chart should be added rather than the Pop 100. Why? Because The pop 100 chart i just a different version of the hot 100, airplay is used and airplay is promo and not how popular the single is in the shops or on the internet

Please concider this.

Dmkimberley (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note: "I Kissed a Girl" is 961st number-one, not 1000th

Please read source carefully: the "1000" represents the beginning of the rock era, generally agreed to have begun with "Rock Around the Clock" hitting number one. The Hot 100 had not yet been created at that time.

Except from Fred Bronson's "Chart Beat" column:

"I should point out that "I Kissed a Girl" is the 1000th No. 1 of the rock era, not the 1000th No. 1 on the Hot 100. The chart as we know it today was first published Aug. 4, 1958, three years and one month after the rock era began. Before the Hot 100, the official singles chart of the day was Best Sellers in Stores. The first 39 No. 1 songs of the rock era topped the Best Sellers tally. The song that was No. 1 on the first Hot 100 was "Poor Little Fool" by Ricky Nelson. "I Kissed a Girl" is thus the 961st No. 1 on the Hot 100." - eo (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

How is the hot 100 different to the pop 100?

"Bird Dog" #1?

There is still some confusion on my part whether "Bird Dog" by The Everly Brothers actually was a #1 single or not. While all the older publications, including Joel Whitburn's, list it as a #1 hit (according to Whitburn, both it and The Elegants' "Little Star" supposed to have occupied the top spot simultaneously on the week ending August 25, 1958), the current list on Billboard's Hot 100 anniversary page omits this entry. According to the song's Wikipedia entry, it only reached #3. Allmusic.com on the other hand, still lists it as a #1. I suppose, if Billboard itself claims it not to have been a #1, you should stick with their data, but it still puzzles me how it historically used to be considered a #1 hit, when, all of a sudden, in retrospect it never was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keemo23 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hot 100 started in August 1958 and Bird Dog did not top the chart. But it was likely a #1 hit in the months previous to the Hot 100s begining. —  MateyAhoy  18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Joel Whitburn lists "Bird Dog" as #1 on the Best Seller in Stores chart and #2 on the Hot 100. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the link to the 50 first songs was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.235.21 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

United World Chart

I distinctly remember a few years ago there was a United World Chart, what ever happened to that chart and why don't we use it anymore? Str8cash (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

UWC has nothing to do with Billboard magazine. See WP:CHARTS and WP:BADCHARTS. - eo (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Two Twist" or not "Two Twist"?

That is the question. Shouldn't "The Twist" be counted twice when it comes to the number of actual #1 hits (not the number of songs that hit #1)? Although Billboard at the time treated is as the same item by adding the number of weeks from the initial chart run during the second one, probably because it was the same issue with the same catalog number, I think they should be regarded as two separate things since they charted over more than a year apart from each other. They did the same in Britain when it came to assembling the list of their first 1000 #1 singles. JW also lists it twice. Whether they had the same catalog number or not shouldn't make any difference, IMO. Therefore I think the info about the number of #1 hits on this page should be corrected to that effect. However, the chief author of this page seems to disagree as he kept removing the change, even deleting the Twist reference which I had added. I guess, since we're only a couple of months away from hitting the 1000 in any case, there will probably be another feature on Billboard like the one for the 50th anniversary, so that we'll know which one will be the 1000th #1 hit of the Hot 100 era.--Verda stelo (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Different versions

in the section "Paid digital downloads" it says that billboard is now compiling the Digital Songs chart, whice charts the versions of a song in the same place. In the section "Remixes" it says billboard " separates airplay points from a song’s original version and its remix, if the remix is determined to be a "new song". Since administering this new chart rule, several songs have charted twice, normally credited as "Part 1" and "Part 2". The remix rule is still in place." What does it mean? How do they summerize it in the Hot 100? and why they aren't seperationg the versions in the Digital charts? Thank, Ofekalef (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

New number one

Katy perry's, "Part Of Me" is now number one, not Kelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayythehuman (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Top 100

By the end of 1957, the Top 100 was, for lack of a better term, a component chart to the Best Sellers in Stores chart, as it was based on the sale of records depending on which side of the record a customer asked for, and did not incorporate any data from surveying DJs. I'm not sure how or if to incorporate this, however. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion: A table that shows the hot 100 songs and is edited weekly?

It'll be extremely helpful....Spbone (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a copyright violation. And, ya know, Billboard.com has the Hot 100 listed so why not just look there? - eo (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

New tracking week adjustments occuring in July

Link to the story so that this info can be inserted into the article when it occurs: [3]
Please add this message to other talk pages of Billboard-related articles (so that I don't hve to do ALL of them!) Thank you! - eo (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hot 100 Music Festival

Perhaps this should be added "Billboard announced its first-ever Billboard Hot 100 Music Festival, a weekend of live music featuring some of the charts' biggest artists as well as quickly rising newcomers. The festival will take place Aug. 22 and 23 at New York's Jones Beach." http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6605863/billboard-hot-100-music-festival -- Cyrusdurden (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong article name

The list is named "Hot 100", not "Billboard Hot 100". Eurohunter (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources

• http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7334207/rihanna-hot-100-desiigner-panda

Weekly no. 1 update: necessary?

I've noticed that an administrator's revision removing the real-time Hot 100 updates was undone without consensus. It would only be right to bring it to the talk section to form a consensus and conclude whether or not the weekly update should stay.

I'll start by saying that I think that the real-time update is useful for readers and would make a great addition to the page. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Never mind then... :P GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

ARIA Charts in See also section please

It's music related anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Australian ARIA chart has no connection to the Billboard charts.Nqr9 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

there should be a top 5 chart at the top for convenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielTheDon (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Stating that something is the "current #1" when its not #1 on Billboard's "current" chart issue

is inaccurate and needs to stop. Regardless of who started it or since when its been like this, its still inaccurate and too soon. People need to control themselves for a few hours until the URL updates--NØ 06:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No, "people" don't. It is not inaccurate whatsoever. Billboard literally published an article saying "the new number one is 'Sicko Mode'", so regardless of what the chart URL shows, it is the new number one. You are acting like the current URL for the actual chart is law or the last word on the matter and that we have to wait only because that's all you want to follow. I don't think anybody else is going to agree with you, I'm afraid, and you'll need consensus to try to change it. I think you're being ridiculous and only taking issue with the wording because you were reverted. You need to pick your battles. No other user has ever had an issue with it, and that tells us that that's because it's common sense—we don't need to wait for the specific Billboard Hot 100 page to update if Billboard is clearly telling us itself elsewhere on their website that there is a new number one on that chart. Ss112 07:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

/Billboard Hot 100 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect /Billboard Hot 100. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

In the section "Use in media" is mentioned that Michael Jackson is one of the five artists to have a Hot 100 Top 40 hit in four different decades. Actually, he has at least one Hot 100 Top 10 hit in five different decades, starting with 'Ben', which peaked atop the chart in 1972 and, so far, ending with 'Love Never Felt So Good', which peaked at number 9 in 2014. That can be verified in his own Wikipedia page and the songs' Wikipedia pages. That is a huge deal that should be corrected. ;) 2804:14D:688E:444:E84D:882C:EFC3:2A95 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done. First, you are lacking a source stating this. Second, the sentence says "Only five artists had a Hot 100 Top 40 hit in each of the four decades from the 1980s through the 2010...", and excludes the 1970s (1972). --Mvqr (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Source for future use

• https://www.vulture.com/2023/09/billboards-hot-100-doesnt-make-sense.html Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)