What’s the world’s best ocean? An objective and evidence-based ranking

The Pacific. It's alright, I s'pose. Image: Getty.

A few years ago, “Which is the best ocean on the planet” would have seemed like a meaningless question. It’s easy enough to identify the world’s biggest ocean (the Pacific), or the warmest (Indian), or the most conveniently located for the Piccadilly line (the Atlantic, unless you change at Heathrow). But the best? There’s no such thing, right?

Wrong. That’s because it’s 2016, Facebook is a thing, and a significant chunk of the world’s population now has access to a single platform on which they can enjoy cat pics, share memes, and rate large bodies of water.

So, here are the world’s five oceans, objectively ranked from worst to best according to their Facebook scores.

5th. Indian Ocean – 4.3 stars

A surprisingly poor showing for the body of water which contains such holiday destinations as the Maldives, Seychelles and Mauritius. (That a rating of 4.3 gets you last place is a reflection, perhaps, or just how many fans the bounding main has around the world.)

Why does it score so badly? Sam Sam has a theory:

That’s not one, but two, strikes against the Indian Ocean. No wonder it's struggling.

(Incidentally, it was actually quite hard to find the page for this one among the sea of Indian restaurants, travel businesses and other such things that Facebook wants to direct me towards instead. There’s also the page for the band Indian Ocean, which Wikipedia informs me are “widely recognized as the pioneers of the fusion rock genre in India”. Don’t say we never teach you anything.)

4th. Arctic Ocean – 4.4 stars

The Arctic Ocean is the smallest and shallowest of the world’s five major oceans, but that hasn’t stopped it from picking up fans.


Its page has also attracted this single issue campaigner, who has posted this exact comment rather a lot, actually.

3rd. Pacific Ocean – 4.6 stars

The Pacific is the largest, and arguably the most famous, of the world’s oceans. Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, it attracts a better quality of reviews:


Although this one’s a big baffling.

Oh hang on, there’s our old mate Swapna again:

No idea.

2nd. Atlantic Ocean – 4.7 stars

Just pipping the Pacific into second place is its old rival, the Atlantic. The latter may be smaller – but, for the users of Facebook, it’s also 0.1 stars better.

The reviews seem to reflect this:

Although not everyone is impressed:

And this one frankly raises more questions than it answers:

And so, finally, we are in a position to answer the question we posed at the outset of this watery odyssey: which is the world’s best ocean? By a process of elimination, it can only be

1st. Southern Ocean – 4.8 stars

Also known as the Antarctic, the Southern Ocean is generally thought to be the world’s coldest. That has not held it back in the ratings, though, and it’s currently toping the charts, with 4.8 stars.

Exactly where the ocean ends, though, is a matter of some controversy:

Quite so, Julie. As CityMetric readers know, boundaries are a serious business.

Will the Southern Ocean retain its crown? It’s attained its high rating based on just 18 ratings – far fewer than the 121 for the Atlantic, 406 for the Indian and 828 for the Pacific.

So tactical voting could yet knock it off the top. Atlantic Ocean fans – you know what to do.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.



Was the decline in Liverpool’s historic population really that unusual?

A view of Liverpool from Birkenhead. Image: Getty.

It is often reported that Liverpool’s population halved after the 1930s. But is this true? Or is it a myth?

Often, it’s simply assumed that it’s true. The end. Indeed, proud Londoner Lord Adonis – a leading proponent of the Liverpool-bypassing High Speed 2 railway, current chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, and generally a very influential person – stood on the stairs in Liverpool Town Hall in 2011 and said:

“The population of Liverpool has nearly halved in the last 50 years.”

This raises two questions. Firstly, did the population of the City of Liverpool really nearly halve in the 50 year period to 2011? That’s easy to check using this University of Portsmouth website – so I did just that (even though I knew he was wrong anyway). In 2011, the population of the City of Liverpool was 466,415. Fifty years earlier, in 1961, it was 737,637, which equates to a 37 per cent drop. Oops!

In fact, the City of Liverpool’s peak population was recorded in the 1931 Census as 846,302. Its lowest subsequent figure was recorded in the 2001 Census as 439,428 – which represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over a 70 year period.

Compare this to the population figures for the similarly sized City of Manchester. Its peak population also recorded in the 1931 Census as 748,729, and its lowest subsequent figure was also recorded in the 2001 Census, as 392,830. This also represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over the same 70 year period.

So, as can be seen here, Liverpool is not a special case at all. Which makes me wonder why it is often singled out or portrayed as exceptional in this regard, in the media and, indeed, by some badly briefed politicians. Even London has a similar story to tell, and it is told rather well in this recent article by a Londoner, for the Museum of London. (Editor’s note: It’s one of mine.)

This leads me onto the second question: where have all those people gone: London? The Moon? Mars?

Well, it turns out that the answer is bit boring and obvious actually: after World War 2, lots of people moved to the suburbs. You know: cars, commuter trains, slum clearance, the Blitz, all that stuff. In other words, Liverpool is just like many other places: after the war, this country experienced a depopulation bonanza.

So what form did this movement to the suburbs take, as far as Liverpool was concerned? Well, people moved and were moved to the suburbs of Greater Liverpool, in what are now the outer boroughs of the city region: Halton, Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton, Wirral. Others moved further, to Cheshire West & Chester, West Lancashire, Warrington, even nearby North Wales, as previously discussed here.

In common with many cities, indeed, Liverpool City Council actually built and owned large several ‘New Town’ council estates, to which they moved tens of thousands of people to from Liverpool’s inner districts: Winsford in Cheshire West (where comedian John Bishop grew up), Runcorn in Halton (where comedian John Bishop also grew up), Skelmersdale in West Lancashire, Kirkby in Knowsley. There is nothing unique or sinister here about Liverpool (apart from comedian John Bishop). This was common practice across the country – Indeed, it was central government policy – and resulted in about 160,000 people being ‘removed’ from the Liverpool local authority area.

Many other people also moved to the nearby suburbs of Greater Liverpool to private housing – another trend reflected across the country. It’s worth acknowledging, however, that cities across the world are subject to a level of ‘churn’ in population, whereby many people move out and many people move in, over time, too.

So how did those prominent images of derelict streets in the inner-city part of the City of Liverpool local authority area come about? For that, you have to blame the last Labour government’s over-zealous ‘Housing Market Renewal Initiative’ (HMRI) disaster – and the over enthusiastic participation of the then-Lib Dem controlled city council. On the promise of ‘free’ money from central government, the latter removed hundreds of people from their homes with a view to demolishing the Victorian terraces, and building new replacements. Many of these houses, in truth, were already fully modernised, owner-occupied houses within viable and longstanding communities, as can be seen here in Voelas Street, one of the famous Welsh Streets of Liverpool:

Voelas Street before HMRI implementation. Image: WelshStreets.co.uk.

The same picture after HMRI implementation Image: WelshStreets.co.uk. 

Nonetheless: the council bought the houses and ‘tinned them up’ ready for demolition. Then the coalition Conservative/Lib Dem government, elected in 2010, pulled the plug on the scheme. 

Fast forward to 2017 and many of the condemned houses have been renovated, in a process which is still ongoing. These are over-subscribed when they come to market, suggesting that the idea was never appropriate for Liverpool on that scale. 

At any rate, it turns out that the Liverpool metropolitan population is pretty much the same as it was at its peak in 1931 (depending where the local borough boundaries are arbitrarily drawn). It just begs the question: why are well educated and supposedly clever people misrepresenting the Liverpool metropolis, in particular, in this way so often? Surely they aren’t stupid are they?

And why are some people so determined to always isolate the City of Liverpool from its hinterland, while London is always described in terms of its whole urban area? It just confuses and undermines what would otherwise often be worthwhile comparisons and discussions. Or, to put it another way: “never, ever, compare apples with larger urban zones”.

In a recent Channel 4 documentary, for example, the well-known and respected journalist Michael Burke directly compared the forecast population growths, by 2039, of the City of Liverpool single local authority area against that of the combined 33 local authority areas of Greater London: 42,722 versus 2.187,708. I mean, what bizarre point is such an inappropriate comparison even trying to make? It is like comparing the projected growth of a normal sized-person’s head with the projected growth of the whole of an obese person, over a protracted period.

Having said all that, there is an important sensible conversation to be had as to why the populations of the Greater Liverpool metropolis and others haven’t grown as fast as maybe should have been the case, whilst, in recent times, the Greater London population has been burgeoning. But constantly pitching it as some sort of rare local apocalypse helps no one.

Dave Mail has declared himself CityMetric’s Liverpool City Region correspondent. He will be updating us on the brave new world of Liverpool City Region, mostly monthly, in ‘E-mail from Liverpool City Region’ and he is on twitter @davemail2017.