f20588a4   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   In article , cloud dreamer   
    wrote:   
      
   > On 14/11/2010 3:58 PM, Artisan wrote:   
   > >   
   > > "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   > > news:qK2dndZVm4t1q33RnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   > >> On 14/11/2010 3:33 PM, Artisan wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>> "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   > >>> news:JradnczYGL-ckkLRnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> It costs more to produce hence it needs better ratings to justify it.   
   > >>>> It needed to be in the one and a half million range, not the 800,000   
   > >>>> range.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Well I watched it every week. I hope it wasn't too dumb of me to like   
   > >>> it. And on a separate note, I wonder if they even counted me in the   
   > >>> 800,000... I don't have a two-way box so they probably didn't even know   
   > >>> I was a fan and didn't count me in their totals.   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >> That's not how the rating system works. Neilsen has a set number of   
   > >> meters out there in selected homes. They base their numbers on them   
   > >> and extrapolate total viewership from the sample set.   
   > >   
   > > Yikes!! Well there's the problem then, you can't extrapolate the worth   
   > > of a sci-fi program from a random set of "normies"! Under such a system,   
   > > the highest quality programming on the PBS stations (viewer supported   
   > > public broadcasting in the Americas) would fail, because normies (normal   
   > > undereducated people) don't watch heavy programming, they watch the   
   > > equivalent of comfort food. Neilsen needs to step aside and stick with   
   > > the major networks. The niche cable channels need to be represented by   
   > > the niche audiences for which the channel is intended for. This would   
   > > put wrestling at the very low end of the list, paranormal "reality tv"   
   > > somewhere in the middle, and the quality expensive heavy programs on top.   
   >   
   >   
   > That's not how it works. Neilsens can extrapolate statistically how many   
   > people are watching a particular show at a particular time. It isn't   
   > biased towards any one demographic - normie or geek or whatever.   
   >   
   > Just as a poll of 1000 or 2000 people can, statistically, predict the   
   > outcome of an election fairly accurately, Neilsens uses the same idea.   
   > So, if 8 people out of an average sample of 1000 are watching Caprica,   
   > they can estimate that 800,000 out of so many are watching it nationwide   
   > (don't quote me on the numbers...I'm just using them as an analogy to   
   > illustrate the process).   
   >   
   > They've been using this process for decades. It works. We don't always   
   > agree, but it works.   
      
   It works when done properly with a large random sample ... it doesn't work   
   with ridiculoulsy small hand-picked samples.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)