I believe it is very important for the ranking criteria to address the way in which songs with time signatures of x/8 ought to be timed, as currently it is only suggested that the timing be 'accurate' which is very subjective and can lead to a great amount of debate when the song has an odd number for the top of the time signature, as it cannot be reduced, which is a problem in its own right (i.e.: 7/8 -> 3.5/4)
The best way to set a precedent for song's with time signatures of this matter is to simply require that an uninherited timing point is placed at the first beat of every measure with the correct bpm and the time signature represented with the correct number on top. For example: 7/8 at 100bpm would be timed as 7/4 at 100bpm with an uninherited point at the start of each measure (which would be half of a 7/4 measure) so that the correct time signature can at the very least be ascertained given the timing data within the map and the metronome resets as it ought to, to represent the music correctly.
The alternative is to double the bpm of the music and time as 7/4, though i strongly disagree with this suggested implementation as it presents multiple problems. Doubling the bpm makes the song read an incorrect bpm, and if the song has other parts with standard time signatures, you will have both x bpm and x*2 bpm which will mess with SV and again, read incorrectly in the map info, as the map is not in any way x*2 bpm. For example, if a song were to alternate between standard 4/4 at 110bpm and 7/8 at 100bpm, requiring that the 7/8 section is timed as 7/4 at 200bpm does not truly represent the music and only further convolutes the process as well as requiring the mapper to constantly reset the SV for each section. This would save on the number of red-lines in the map, but at the cost of inaccuracy, there is no benefit in doing so other than a desire to do less work.
Another more minor topic that i would like to address is the simplification of compound time signatures. Often times in music, 7/8 is played in groupings of 4 beats and 3 beats, 10/4 as 2 groupings of 3 and 2 of 2, (etc..) which in some cases is urged to be timed instead as alternating 4/4 and 3/4 or alternating 6/4 and 4/4, respectively. Reducing these compound time signatures to their groupings does not result in a higher degree of accuracy and 99 times out of 100 in music, the artist would represent this as 7/8 or 10/4 in their notation. It is too often that I see compound time signatures urged to be reduced when it achieves nothing and merely represents the music in a parallel but more convoluted way. Simply including an addendum that addresses this with a "Compound time signatures are not required to be reduced to more common expressions" would address and absolve this problem.
If anyone should desire a deeper explanation or have any questions I'd be happy to help. I strongly urge the team to consider addressing either or both points formally in the ranking criteria as I have seen it become a point of contention between mappers and the BN/QAT team as there is no precedence or level of understanding as to how to treat these cases.
The best way to set a precedent for song's with time signatures of this matter is to simply require that an uninherited timing point is placed at the first beat of every measure with the correct bpm and the time signature represented with the correct number on top. For example: 7/8 at 100bpm would be timed as 7/4 at 100bpm with an uninherited point at the start of each measure (which would be half of a 7/4 measure) so that the correct time signature can at the very least be ascertained given the timing data within the map and the metronome resets as it ought to, to represent the music correctly.
The alternative is to double the bpm of the music and time as 7/4, though i strongly disagree with this suggested implementation as it presents multiple problems. Doubling the bpm makes the song read an incorrect bpm, and if the song has other parts with standard time signatures, you will have both x bpm and x*2 bpm which will mess with SV and again, read incorrectly in the map info, as the map is not in any way x*2 bpm. For example, if a song were to alternate between standard 4/4 at 110bpm and 7/8 at 100bpm, requiring that the 7/8 section is timed as 7/4 at 200bpm does not truly represent the music and only further convolutes the process as well as requiring the mapper to constantly reset the SV for each section. This would save on the number of red-lines in the map, but at the cost of inaccuracy, there is no benefit in doing so other than a desire to do less work.
Another more minor topic that i would like to address is the simplification of compound time signatures. Often times in music, 7/8 is played in groupings of 4 beats and 3 beats, 10/4 as 2 groupings of 3 and 2 of 2, (etc..) which in some cases is urged to be timed instead as alternating 4/4 and 3/4 or alternating 6/4 and 4/4, respectively. Reducing these compound time signatures to their groupings does not result in a higher degree of accuracy and 99 times out of 100 in music, the artist would represent this as 7/8 or 10/4 in their notation. It is too often that I see compound time signatures urged to be reduced when it achieves nothing and merely represents the music in a parallel but more convoluted way. Simply including an addendum that addresses this with a "Compound time signatures are not required to be reduced to more common expressions" would address and absolve this problem.
If anyone should desire a deeper explanation or have any questions I'd be happy to help. I strongly urge the team to consider addressing either or both points formally in the ranking criteria as I have seen it become a point of contention between mappers and the BN/QAT team as there is no precedence or level of understanding as to how to treat these cases.