From: cpd@cat.pan.net   
      
   "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   news:DNydnXV1WtTPGH_RnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   > On 16/11/2010 9:37 AM, catpandaddy wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   >> news:7fCdnfKUqZsd43_RnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   >>> On 16/11/2010 9:09 AM, Neil Rieck wrote:   
   >>>> [...snip...]   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The measurement boxes are expensive so they (Nielson) still support a   
   >>>> larger paper diary system which allows people to lie (network bias).   
   >>>   
   >>> They would statistically lie in equal numbers so the difference would   
   >>> be negligible.   
   >>>   
   >>> So, tell me. What else are they supposed to do???   
   >>>   
   >>> Until they can start collecting data live from DVRs, what other system   
   >>> are they supposed to use???   
   >>   
   >> [delurk, trimming newsgroup headers and momentarily breaking silence]   
   >>   
   >> Hi cd, it's been awhile... I'm trying to minimize my presence on the   
   >> newsgroups because of all the identity hijacking going on, both with   
   >> others and myself.   
   >>   
   >> We seemed to get along okay, and so I just wanted to say that I do   
   >> perceive some signal in with all the noise in this thread. My sense is   
   >> that Neil wrote in good faith, and what I took away from it was that   
   >> while there may not be a solution, being aware of some of the problems   
   >> is still wise. I don't see him as a "your name" clone, and I agreed with   
   >> his analysis about the B5 situation among other things. Many of the   
   >> things I agreed with were items that got snipped out or otherwise   
   >> unaddressed. I'm not all that familiar with who Neil is, maybe his   
   >> contribution came from one of the crossposted groups, but I'm hoping to   
   >> do a good turn by advocating for the things he said that I agree with.   
   >>   
   >> Well, that's all I wanted to mention.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   > The individual example was irrelevant to the original point. They're just   
   > going all conspiracy-nut over the rating system and that it killed good   
   > shows. (Yet, AFAIK, the producers, writers, actors etc from all these good   
   > shows it supposedly killed have never blamed the rating system as the   
   > reason for the show's demise. You'd think they would have at some point   
   > over the last four or five decades if they had a problem with it).   
   >   
   > My question is simple - what else are they supposed to do until DVRs   
   > become a reliable tool for gathering data?   
   >   
   > Your Name seems to think they can poll all 115 million households and   
   > doesn't appear he'll be happy until they do.   
      
   Okee.   
      
   Good talking to you too, if only briefly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)