What's the maximum OMI?

I mean, there must be a point where the index could not be any higher.

I'm at 153 at the moment, and the arrowhead is either at the very end of the scale or past it (I can't see the point of it). But 153 is a silly place to cut off.

So what, does it go to 200? And who here have higher OMIs than me?
I have very diverse taste, but most of my tag categories large enough to show up on the pie chart are metal sub-genres, and that's been discussed to death. Death metal, oh, ohar har har, raucous laughter.

I finally got a chance to generate a chart. I have been waiting patiently as apparently the app was on the fritz for a little while. The new chart gave me a 139. I guess that's a pretty good OMI value then?

Cordelliot said:
I mean, there must be a point where the index could not be any higher.

I'm at 153 at the moment, and the arrowhead is either at the very end of the scale or past it (I can't see the point of it). But 153 is a silly place to cut off.

So what, does it go to 200? And who here have higher OMIs than me?

Well, as far as I understand it, OMI is supposed to be a statistical method, giving a distribution with a mean of 100 over the entire population. If the scores have a normal distribution (as would be expected, ideally), they would technically be unbounded, such that, in principle, it could go up to 200 and beyond.

Nevertheless, if they are indeed normally distributed and the standard deviation is normalized to 15 (as is typical for scores such as the IQ), it would be quite rare for them to go over 150, as it would represent about 1 in 1000 (which I'd say is a fair upper cutoff for the graphic). In theory, it should be exceedingly rare to see OMIs over 160 (~6 in 100000) and only some 5 members in 10 million would have an OMI greater than 175 (does anyone know how many members are there on Last.fm, btw?).

However, given how many >160 seem to go around these days, either the OMI is normalized differently or it isn't exactly normally distributed (which is most likely).

It would be nice when people will stop writing what's their OMI at any possibility -_-

I have 175, but flesh&bones people are nothing compared to machines. A guy named TigTag has 265, and Sneykey 322 :) These numbers are achieved somewhat artificially, I mean using all possibilities that last.fm offers, nevertheless they are real.

EDIT: oops, 175 was last month, now I got degraded to 174 :(
Looks I'm just a human after all, listening to what I like :)

I'm @ 182.

i've seen someone with 207.

A friend of mine has got 157. But she doesn't show it in her profile.

I've seen fake profiles with over 300. ;P

Mine (I haven't listened to music in a LONG time... This is old. ;P I listen to ever moar stuff now.) is the highest I've seen not being fake. (209, actually.) I'm sure there's higher, since there are some genres I still won't listen to.

Before stopping my profile, I indeed try to have a good looking profile, listening to every band almost the same number of times, but that's still the profile I would have had. (High AEP...) I just like to have as much diversity in a day as possible.

Well, I'm at 178 right now, and I've not seen anyone (besides fake profiles, of course) higher than me.

im at 186. i thought that was pretty high till i saw someone with a 230. i think 230 may be close to the cuttoff.