The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I signed up for Neilsen once, but then it turned out I was out of town the week the list was supposed to be filled out. And of course the rest of my family didn't do it.
Hey, Knob, they ever figure out what happened with that missing camera that you got questioned about?
Never turned up. I asked about it awhile ago, and the leading theory is that it was taken out on a shoot and then forgotten, or someone busted it and rather than owning up and shelling out a few grand to replace it they just vanished it.
Knob on
0
KnobTURN THE BEAT BACKInternetModeratorMod Emeritus
But maybe if all TVs were monitored we wouldn't have so many crappy shows and lose so many good shows.
I'd think you'll find that if the amount of televisions monitored was to increase, the ratings would remain largely unchanged. Arrested Development didn't get canned because it wasn't a good show, or because they just weren't monitoring the right people, it seriously got pulled because hardly anyone was watching it
But maybe if all TVs were monitored we wouldn't have so many crappy shows and lose so many good shows.
I'd think you'll find that if the amount of televisions monitored was to increase, the ratings would remain largely unchanged. Arrested Development didn't get canned because it wasn't a good show, or because they just weren't monitoring the right people, it seriously got pulled because hardly anyone was watching it
Well like what's the percentage of households that are part of the Nielsen thing? Is it big enough to offer a proper sample?
# 1997–1998: Seinfeld (NBC) [Final season of series]
# 1998–1999: ER (NBC)
# 1999–2000: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire (ABC)
# 2000–2001: Survivor: The Australian Outback (CBS)
# 2001–2002: Friends (NBC)
# 2002–2003: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (CBS)
# 2003–2004: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (CBS)
# 2004–2005: American Idol (FOX)
# 2005–2006: American Idol (FOX)
# 2006–2007: American Idol (FOX)
But maybe if all TVs were monitored we wouldn't have so many crappy shows and lose so many good shows.
I'd think you'll find that if the amount of televisions monitored was to increase, the ratings would remain largely unchanged. Arrested Development didn't get canned because it wasn't a good show, or because they just weren't monitoring the right people, it seriously got pulled because hardly anyone was watching it
Well like what's the percentage of households that are part of the Nielsen thing? Is it big enough to offer a proper sample?
I imagine that the ratings numbers are a raw number of Nielsen sets. Is this correct?
Also, um, the sample size for statistical significance is 30. So if they had 10,000 across the entire nation, that would be enough. And I seriously doubt that it's anywhere near as low as 10,000.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that "percentage" doesn't really matter so much.
Defender on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
and i'm sure if you searched a site like myspace for users who have arrested development listed as their favorite show compared to the users who have american idol, or jerry springer, or most other shows, the results would be much the same
and even if it's 1% of television owners, you'll find that you can accurately measure 10,000 people by only polling 100 of them
Knob on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
But maybe if all TVs were monitored we wouldn't have so many crappy shows and lose so many good shows.
I'd think you'll find that if the amount of televisions monitored was to increase, the ratings would remain largely unchanged. Arrested Development didn't get canned because it wasn't a good show, or because they just weren't monitoring the right people, it seriously got pulled because hardly anyone was watching it
Well like what's the percentage of households that are part of the Nielsen thing? Is it big enough to offer a proper sample?
I imagine that the ratings numbers are a raw number of Nielsen sets. Is this correct?
Also, um, the sample size for statistical significance is 30. So if they had 10,000 across the entire nation, that would be enough. And I seriously doubt that it's anywhere near as low as 10,000.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that "percentage" doesn't really matter so much.
Well as long as it's a big enough group that everyone's really represented. If the 10,000 homes are the homes that vote on American Idol, then that's going to be #1 all the time. But like no one in my house watches that show, so I'd hope there are some Nielsen households that don't.
KnobTURN THE BEAT BACKInternetModeratorMod Emeritus
edited May 2007
the majority of people watch bullshit
every day i hear people go one and on about cheaters and montell williams while i'm going, 'hey, did anybody watch house? no, it isn't an interior design show'
Knob on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
every day i hear people go one and on about cheaters and montell williams while i'm going, 'hey, did anybody watch house? no, it isn't an interior design show'
Yeah I guess my beef is really with American culture and not the Nielsen system.
But maybe if all TVs were monitored we wouldn't have so many crappy shows and lose so many good shows.
I'd think you'll find that if the amount of televisions monitored was to increase, the ratings would remain largely unchanged. Arrested Development didn't get canned because it wasn't a good show, or because they just weren't monitoring the right people, it seriously got pulled because hardly anyone was watching it
Well like what's the percentage of households that are part of the Nielsen thing? Is it big enough to offer a proper sample?
I imagine that the ratings numbers are a raw number of Nielsen sets. Is this correct?
Also, um, the sample size for statistical significance is 30. So if they had 10,000 across the entire nation, that would be enough. And I seriously doubt that it's anywhere near as low as 10,000.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that "percentage" doesn't really matter so much.
Well as long as it's a big enough group that everyone's really represented. If the 10,000 homes are the homes that vote on American Idol, then that's going to be #1 all the time. But like no one in my house watches that show, so I'd hope there are some Nielsen households that don't.
That's not how statistics (by which I mean the field within mathematics) works. If you pick your sample at random, that sort of thing will not happen. Weird coincidences will happen, but you know what's cool about statistics? You can also use stats to figure out how often those weird coincidences will happen.
I had one roommate in college who watched the Morey show on a daily basis.
I tried to tell him that they are all the same.
Either the guy is the father, or he is not.
Either the women will yell at him, or the guy will tell the girl she’s a whore.
He gave me the blankest look ever.
I don’t know if I can explain it any better then that.
Trexy on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
But maybe if all TVs were monitored we wouldn't have so many crappy shows and lose so many good shows.
I'd think you'll find that if the amount of televisions monitored was to increase, the ratings would remain largely unchanged. Arrested Development didn't get canned because it wasn't a good show, or because they just weren't monitoring the right people, it seriously got pulled because hardly anyone was watching it
Well like what's the percentage of households that are part of the Nielsen thing? Is it big enough to offer a proper sample?
I imagine that the ratings numbers are a raw number of Nielsen sets. Is this correct?
Also, um, the sample size for statistical significance is 30. So if they had 10,000 across the entire nation, that would be enough. And I seriously doubt that it's anywhere near as low as 10,000.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that "percentage" doesn't really matter so much.
Well as long as it's a big enough group that everyone's really represented. If the 10,000 homes are the homes that vote on American Idol, then that's going to be #1 all the time. But like no one in my house watches that show, so I'd hope there are some Nielsen households that don't.
That's not how statistics (by which I mean the field within mathematics) works. If you pick your sample at random, that sort of thing will not happen. Weird coincidences will happen, but you know what's cool about statistics? You can also use stats to figure out how often those weird coincidences will happen.
What do you mean that's not how statistics work? If there's 30 homes, isn't there a greater chance that they all watch American Idol than if there's 200,000 homes?
Ubik on
0
KnobTURN THE BEAT BACKInternetModeratorMod Emeritus
edited May 2007
yeah, you use non-commercial airtime in shit timeslots to pimp the big money shows
But maybe if all TVs were monitored we wouldn't have so many crappy shows and lose so many good shows.
I'd think you'll find that if the amount of televisions monitored was to increase, the ratings would remain largely unchanged. Arrested Development didn't get canned because it wasn't a good show, or because they just weren't monitoring the right people, it seriously got pulled because hardly anyone was watching it
Well like what's the percentage of households that are part of the Nielsen thing? Is it big enough to offer a proper sample?
I imagine that the ratings numbers are a raw number of Nielsen sets. Is this correct?
Also, um, the sample size for statistical significance is 30. So if they had 10,000 across the entire nation, that would be enough. And I seriously doubt that it's anywhere near as low as 10,000.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that "percentage" doesn't really matter so much.
Well as long as it's a big enough group that everyone's really represented. If the 10,000 homes are the homes that vote on American Idol, then that's going to be #1 all the time. But like no one in my house watches that show, so I'd hope there are some Nielsen households that don't.
That's not how statistics (by which I mean the field within mathematics) works. If you pick your sample at random, that sort of thing will not happen. Weird coincidences will happen, but you know what's cool about statistics? You can also use stats to figure out how often those weird coincidences will happen.
What do you mean that's not how statistics work? If there's 30 homes, isn't there a greater chance that they all watch American Idol than if there's 200,000 homes?
Yeah, obviously if you poll fewer homes then you get more error. Statistics features these gigantic tables that can tell you exactly how much error you have.
Statistics can let you make a prediction and then say how certain you are that it's correct. For example, you can calculate that there are between 48 and 52 percent of houses watching American Idol with 95% certainty if you poll the right amount of houses. This "right amount" can be calculated, but I suck at stats and don't have the tables with me right now anyway. If you use that method, you will be correct 95% of the time, assuming that you did indeed pick a random sample when you first started.
EDIT: But the point is that if you poll a really small number of households, stats will tell you that your margin of error and/or your chance of being wrong will be HUGE. That said, if half the households are watching American Idol, the chances of you picking 30 out of 30 that are ALL watching it are not good. Like, not good at all. We don't even need stats, the chances of that are the same as the chances of flipping a coin and getting heads 30 times in a row.
Defender on
0
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
Yeah what I was saying was that I hope they have enough people to make good predictions for the rest of the nation. But it seems like the Nielsen people know what they're doing. And it really comes down to the fact that Americans watch shit.
Yeah what I was saying was that I hope they have enough people to make good predictions for the rest of the nation. But it seems like the Nielsen people know what they're doing. And it really comes down to the fact that Americans watch shit.
It's really not hard. Probably 100,000 households would be enough, and equipping that many households in a nation of 300,000,000 isn't really that hard. That said, I'm sure they have more than that.
tivo has apparently fucked the long since outdated ratings system up.
I kind of wish that maybe our tv was more like how I understand bbc to work.
Wait, don't brits pay extra to get the bbc, like a bbc tax for everyone? Because I'll be damned if I'll put mone directly into NBC's or whoever's wallets. Or are you referring to something else about the bbc?
every day i hear people go one and on about cheaters and montell williams while i'm going, 'hey, did anybody watch house? no, it isn't an interior design show'
my tv's only use is to be hooked up to my dvd player and games systems
My tv is really only used for watching Lost and BSG, along with a once a week Colbert marathon on the weekends.
It's not going to be getting much use by me until next year I guess.
Posts
It wasn't too bad, I guess.
It just made me realise I don't have the attitude to work on a live TV show.
anyone willing to pay every single last television manufacturer to put superfluous circuity in their product? no
citizens who are okay with gross invasions of privacy? no
Except maybe if something interesting is on the History Channel and I've got nothing better to do.
God forbid someone finds out I watch King of the Hill reruns at 12am.
Or someone in my house does.
I still kept the $5 though.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Never turned up. I asked about it awhile ago, and the leading theory is that it was taken out on a shoot and then forgotten, or someone busted it and rather than owning up and shelling out a few grand to replace it they just vanished it.
I'd think you'll find that if the amount of televisions monitored was to increase, the ratings would remain largely unchanged. Arrested Development didn't get canned because it wasn't a good show, or because they just weren't monitoring the right people, it seriously got pulled because hardly anyone was watching it
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Well like what's the percentage of households that are part of the Nielsen thing? Is it big enough to offer a proper sample?
Do you understand the concept of privacy?
Because if and only if you don't, then what you just said is a very understandable thing to think.
Dang...
I imagine that the ratings numbers are a raw number of Nielsen sets. Is this correct?
Also, um, the sample size for statistical significance is 30. So if they had 10,000 across the entire nation, that would be enough. And I seriously doubt that it's anywhere near as low as 10,000.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that "percentage" doesn't really matter so much.
I mean there's degrees of privacy.
There's things worse and more specific that I wouldn't want monitored
But like which station a tv in my house is tuned to, I'm not worried about.
google trends can also give us some similar insight
http://www.google.com/trends?q=arrested+development%2C+american+idol%2C+lost%2C+heroes&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
and i'm sure if you searched a site like myspace for users who have arrested development listed as their favorite show compared to the users who have american idol, or jerry springer, or most other shows, the results would be much the same
and even if it's 1% of television owners, you'll find that you can accurately measure 10,000 people by only polling 100 of them
Well as long as it's a big enough group that everyone's really represented. If the 10,000 homes are the homes that vote on American Idol, then that's going to be #1 all the time. But like no one in my house watches that show, so I'd hope there are some Nielsen households that don't.
every day i hear people go one and on about cheaters and montell williams while i'm going, 'hey, did anybody watch house? no, it isn't an interior design show'
Yeah I guess my beef is really with American culture and not the Nielsen system.
That's not how statistics (by which I mean the field within mathematics) works. If you pick your sample at random, that sort of thing will not happen. Weird coincidences will happen, but you know what's cool about statistics? You can also use stats to figure out how often those weird coincidences will happen.
these are commercials that play between commercial breaks? like during the entertainment programming?
I don't even watch tv and this is the worst news I've ever heard
I tried to tell him that they are all the same.
Either the guy is the father, or he is not.
Either the women will yell at him, or the guy will tell the girl she’s a whore.
He gave me the blankest look ever.
I don’t know if I can explain it any better then that.
What do you mean that's not how statistics work? If there's 30 homes, isn't there a greater chance that they all watch American Idol than if there's 200,000 homes?
been going on for ages
Yeah, obviously if you poll fewer homes then you get more error. Statistics features these gigantic tables that can tell you exactly how much error you have.
Statistics can let you make a prediction and then say how certain you are that it's correct. For example, you can calculate that there are between 48 and 52 percent of houses watching American Idol with 95% certainty if you poll the right amount of houses. This "right amount" can be calculated, but I suck at stats and don't have the tables with me right now anyway. If you use that method, you will be correct 95% of the time, assuming that you did indeed pick a random sample when you first started.
EDIT: But the point is that if you poll a really small number of households, stats will tell you that your margin of error and/or your chance of being wrong will be HUGE. That said, if half the households are watching American Idol, the chances of you picking 30 out of 30 that are ALL watching it are not good. Like, not good at all. We don't even need stats, the chances of that are the same as the chances of flipping a coin and getting heads 30 times in a row.
It's really not hard. Probably 100,000 households would be enough, and equipping that many households in a nation of 300,000,000 isn't really that hard. That said, I'm sure they have more than that.
Yeah, the fact is that people just watch shit.
I kind of wish that maybe our tv was more like how I understand bbc to work.
Wait, don't brits pay extra to get the bbc, like a bbc tax for everyone? Because I'll be damned if I'll put mone directly into NBC's or whoever's wallets. Or are you referring to something else about the bbc?
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
But House is a horrible show Knob.
Visions of the things to be,
The pains that are withheld for me,
I realize and I can see...
That suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please.:whistle:
My tv is really only used for watching Lost and BSG, along with a once a week Colbert marathon on the weekends.
It's not going to be getting much use by me until next year I guess.
In fact I watch just about everything on my computer.
Including occasional TV.