6ce1dc39   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   In article <1pSdnXaGtPH_5n3RnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@supernews.com>, cloud dreamer   
    wrote:   
      
   > On 14/11/2010 8:39 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > Their samples are not small and are picked to represent the demographic.   
      
   Their samples are small when compared to the total possible viewers.   
   Surveying 100 or even 1000 out of millions of people is ridiculous. It's   
   also ridiculous  that they pick and choose those few people they do   
   survey.   
      
   Even more ridiculous is that so many people blindly believe their   
   guessimates as some sort of real fact.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)