XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   news:UOedncgJ-rAhrHzRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   > On 15/11/2010 1:52 AM, Your Name wrote:   
   > > "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   > > news:W76dnTFBGrMuL33RnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   > >> On 15/11/2010 12:39 AM, Your Name wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>> 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.   
   > >>   
   > >> You obviously don't understand anything about statistics. A sample size   
   > >> of only a few thousand can reliably predict the mood of millions.   
   Gallop   
   > >> does it every day within a couple percentage points, 19 times out of   
   20.   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>> Even more ridiculous is that so many people blindly believe their   
   > >>> guessimates as some sort of real fact.   
   > >>   
   > >> Just because you don't understand the process doesn't mean its flawed.   
   > >   
   > > Believe me, I've done Statistics right through to University level (and   
   > > passed). I do know all the methods and flaws, as well as the flaws in   
   the   
   > > way results are reported.   
   > >   
   > > Flip a coin 10 times, and lets say you get the true results of 7 heads   
   and 3   
   > > tails.   
   > >   
   > > Now according to Neilsen (and other stupid survey / polls companies),   
   that   
   > > means that if you flip the coin 1000 times you will definitely get 700   
   heads   
   > > and 300 tails ... which is complete and utter nonsense, and little   
   better   
   > > than simply guessing.   
   > >   
   > > Then of course many of those companies try to hid their lies behind   
   > > statsically manpipulated percentages by saying "70% of coins are heads"   
   ...   
   > > again, complete and utter nonsense. In reality, they mean "70% of the 10   
   > > coins we bothered to test were heads", but by falsely and inaccurately   
   > > stating their results in a misleading way they can confuse the naive   
   public.   
   > >   
   > > Neilsen and many other companies compound their stupidity by   
   hand-picking   
   > > who they do and don't ask.   
   > >   
   > > In many cases such stupid and inaccurate surveys are nothing but   
   meaningless   
   > > and useles drivel ... but in some case idiots base their decisions on   
   these   
   > > misleading numbers, and in the case of "medical studies" it can be down   
   > > right dangerous when reported by morons in the "don't let facts get in   
   the   
   > > way of a being first with a story" journalists.   
   >   
   > If you're so smart, tell them. I await to see the email they send you   
   > back with a giant LOL splashed across the screen.   
   >   
   > It's worked for them for decades. If it were a problem, producers,   
   > executives and actors etc would have been up in arms long ago.   
      
   Despite what idiot managers and naive public like to believe, it doesn't   
   "work", it has never "worked" and it will never "work".   
      
   The only way it "works" is that some greedy big business company can con   
   other people into paying for their dodgey services and whoever is paying for   
   the "results" can have them statistically manipulated to show whatever they   
   want them to show.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)