Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows like
Heroes, Lost, etc.

Anyone know?

Cheers

Stewart

Stewart wrote:

> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows like
> Heroes, Lost, etc.
>
> Anyone know?
>
> Cheers
>
> Stewart
>
>
>
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/kacylynnelizabeth/fat.jpg

On Apr 3, 1:15 pm, "¢¾F<(*¢¯*)>M¢¾" <I.hate.the.Cowb...@Dallas.com>
wrote:
> Stewart wrote:
> > Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
> > I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows like
> > Heroes, Lost, etc.
>
> > Anyone know?
>
> > Cheers
>
> > Stewart
>
> http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/kacylynnelizabeth/fat.jpg



You need a new hobby, dude.

Tom

In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@saix.net>, "Stewart"
<runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:

> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows like
> Heroes, Lost, etc.
>
> Anyone know?
>
> Cheers
>
> Stewart

Actual real figures? Nobody will ever know.

Faked garbage figures from Neilsen and friends? Who cares, they're
meaningless guesswork.

"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:040420080937180124%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@saix.net>, "Stewart"
> <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
>
>> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
>> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows like
>> Heroes, Lost, etc.
>>
>> Anyone know?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Stewart
>
> Actual real figures? Nobody will ever know.
>
> Faked garbage figures from Neilsen and friends? Who cares, they're
> meaningless guesswork.

Don't they have reliable figures that are taken from the number of people
watching?
Thus they know when a show is not popular, advertsising and cancel, etc.

Just curious, as SG-1 has ten seasons. Not many shows go past that.

"Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
news:-rCdnaZukv7bTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>
> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:040420080937180124%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>> In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@saix.net>, "Stewart"
>> <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
>>> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows
>>> like
>>> Heroes, Lost, etc.
>>>
>>> Anyone know?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Stewart
>>
>> Actual real figures? Nobody will ever know.
>>
>> Faked garbage figures from Neilsen and friends? Who cares, they're
>> meaningless guesswork.
>
> Don't they have reliable figures that are taken from the number of people
> watching?
> Thus they know when a show is not popular, advertsising and cancel, etc.
>
> Just curious, as SG-1 has ten seasons. Not many shows go past that.


Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
them. If you google the SG-1 newsgroup, you may find figures for some
seasons as someone used to post them regularly at one point, morjana, for
example. IIRC, the later seasons used to hover around the 1 mark, sometimes
going slightly above.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

"Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
news:-rCdnaZukv7bTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>
> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:040420080937180124%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>> In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@saix.net>, "Stewart"
>> <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
>>> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows
>>> like
>>> Heroes, Lost, etc.
>>>
>>> Anyone know?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Stewart
>>
>> Actual real figures? Nobody will ever know.
>>
>> Faked garbage figures from Neilsen and friends? Who cares, they're
>> meaningless guesswork.
>
> Don't they have reliable figures that are taken from the number of people
> watching?
> Thus they know when a show is not popular, advertsising and cancel, etc.
>


It is a sampling, not real figures.
Do you think they really have 100,000,000 machines across the US?

> Just curious, as SG-1 has ten seasons. Not many shows go past that.
>
>

On Apr 4, 8:27 am, "GeekBoy" <nos...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> "Stewart" <run...@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
>
> news:-rCdnaZukv7bTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Anybody" <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> >news:040420080937180124%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> >> In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdn...@saix.net>, "Stewart"
> >> <run...@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
>
> >>> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
> >>> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows
> >>> like
> >>> Heroes, Lost, etc.
>
> >>> Anyone know?
>
> >>> Cheers
>
> >>> Stewart
>
> >> Actual real figures? Nobody will ever know.
>
> >> Faked garbage figures from Neilsen and friends? Who cares, they're
> >> meaningless guesswork.
>
> > Don't they have reliable figures that are taken from the number of people
> > watching?
> > Thus they know when a show is not popular, advertsising and cancel, etc.
>
> It is a sampling, not real figures.
> Do you think they really have 100,000,000 machines across the US?

Uh, with a significant sample size the extrapolations are valid. The
field of statistics is not based on guesswork.

Tom wrote:

> On Apr 3, 1:15 pm, "♥F<(*¿*)>M♥" <I.hate.the.Cowb...@Dallas.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Stewart wrote:
>>
>>>Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
>>>I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows like
>>>Heroes, Lost, etc.
>>
>>>Anyone know?
>>
>>>Cheers
>>
>>>Stewart
>>
>>http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/kacylynnelizabeth/fat.jpg
>
>
>
>
> You need a new hobby, dude.
>
> Tom

Q. Why is the camel known as the ship of the desert?

A. Because it's full of Arab semen

In article
<6b233f4b-1e5b-4787-9a2d-b466d81cfdab@m1g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Stile4aly <stile4aly@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 4, 8:27 am, "GeekBoy" <nos...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > "Stewart" <run...@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
> >
> > news:-rCdnaZukv7bTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Anybody" <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> > >news:040420080937180124%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> > >> In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdn...@saix.net>, "Stewart"
> > >> <run...@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
> >
> > >>> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
> > >>> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows
> > >>> like
> > >>> Heroes, Lost, etc.
> >
> > >>> Anyone know?
> >
> > >>> Cheers
> >
> > >>> Stewart
> >
> > >> Actual real figures? Nobody will ever know.
> >
> > >> Faked garbage figures from Neilsen and friends? Who cares, they're
> > >> meaningless guesswork.
> >
> > > Don't they have reliable figures that are taken from the number of people
> > > watching?
> > > Thus they know when a show is not popular, advertsising and cancel, etc.
> >
> > It is a sampling, not real figures.
> > Do you think they really have 100,000,000 machines across the US?
>
> Uh, with a significant sample size the extrapolations are valid. The
> field of statistics is not based on guesswork.

Yes, they are. You can't accurately predict 300 million viewers based
on 1000 samples, no matter what they claim.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

In article <65m6mkF2gd5lrU1@mid.individual.net>,
eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
> "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
> news:-rCdnaZukv7bTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
> >
> > "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> > news:040420080937180124%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> >> In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@saix.net>, "Stewart"
> >> <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
> >>> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows
> >>> like
> >>> Heroes, Lost, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone know?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> Stewart
> >>
> >> Actual real figures? Nobody will ever know.
> >>
> >> Faked garbage figures from Neilsen and friends? Who cares, they're
> >> meaningless guesswork.
> >
> > Don't they have reliable figures that are taken from the number of people
> > watching?
> > Thus they know when a show is not popular, advertsising and cancel, etc.
> >
> > Just curious, as SG-1 has ten seasons. Not many shows go past that.
>
>
> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
> them.

Then they aren't pointless are they ;)

In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@saix.net>,
runner@tiscal.co.za says...
> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows like
> Heroes, Lost, etc.
>

Alas I forget, just below 2 mill I think.

But they have been going slightly *up* during season 4 (and of course
season 5 is already recording) so it should be safe for a while.

In article <050420081355346997%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> The only thing "ratings" prove is how many of those original 1000
> people interviewed watched a show (or more precisely how many claimed
> to watch a show).

That one, right there.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg

In article <ANIM8Rfsk-B9E66A.13221004042008@news.west.cox.net>,
Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> In article
> <6b233f4b-1e5b-4787-9a2d-b466d81cfdab@m1g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> Stile4aly <stile4aly@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 8:27 am, "GeekBoy" <nos...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > "Stewart" <run...@tiscal.co.za> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:-rCdnaZukv7bTWjanZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@saix.net...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Anybody" <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:040420080937180124%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> > > >> In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdn...@saix.net>, "Stewart"
> > > >> <run...@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
> > > >>> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows
> > > >>> like
> > > >>> Heroes, Lost, etc.
> > >
> > > >>> Anyone know?
> > >
> > > >>> Cheers
> > >
> > > >>> Stewart
> > >
> > > >> Actual real figures? Nobody will ever know.
> > >
> > > >> Faked garbage figures from Neilsen and friends? Who cares, they're
> > > >> meaningless guesswork.
> > >
> > > > Don't they have reliable figures that are taken from the number of
> > > > people
> > > > watching?
> > > > Thus they know when a show is not popular, advertsising and cancel, etc.
> > >
> > > It is a sampling, not real figures.
> > > Do you think they really have 100,000,000 machines across the US?
> >
> > Uh, with a significant sample size the extrapolations are valid. The
> > field of statistics is not based on guesswork.
>
> Yes, they are. You can't accurately predict 300 million viewers based
> on 1000 samples, no matter what they claim.

Exactly.

The only thing "ratings" prove is how many of those original 1000
people interviewed watched a show (or more precisely how many claimed
to watch a show). The same goes for idiotic medical "studies" that use
the same silly method of guesswork based on ridiculously small sample
sizes (and ignore all other possible factors) ... that's why the fools
keep chaning their minds about what is and isn't good for you!

Not to mention that the idiot "ratings" completely ignore the viewers
in rest of the world. If XYZ network is making a show that they sell
overseas, and zero people in America watch it but millions overseas do,
then they will still make money.

Of course, the idiots in charge of anything are rarely intersted in
actually asking us "lesser beings" anything. They just blindly go on
doing whatever they want. :-\

"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
> In article <65m6mkF2gd5lrU1@mid.individual.net>,
> eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...

<snip>

>> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
>> them.
>
> Then they aren't pointless are they ;)


They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system, but
that doesn't mean it is meaningful. Especially when it comes to sci-fi
which, as we all know, still has a minority audience. A much fairer system
would be to include only people who are interested in sci-fi and then record
which sci-fi programmes they like best.

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

""?F<(.¿.)>M?"" <I.hate.the.Cowboys@Dallas.com> wrote in message
news:rXuJj.211$mL2.190@trndny03...
> Tom wrote:
>
>> On Apr 3, 1:15 pm, "?F<(*¿*)>M?" <I.hate.the.Cowb...@Dallas.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
>>>>I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows
>>>>like
>>>>Heroes, Lost, etc.
>>>
>>>>Anyone know?
>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>>Stewart
>>>
>>>http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/kacylynnelizabeth/fat.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You need a new hobby, dude.
>>
>> Tom
>
> Q. Why is the camel known as the ship of the desert?
>
> A. Because it's full of Arab semen

That's not funny or sick, sorry even suck at trolling...

In the sacred domain of alt.tv.stargate-sg1,
Stewart <runner@tiscal.co.za> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> Q. Why is the camel known as the ship of the desert?
>>
>> A. Because it's full of Arab semen

> That's not funny or sick, sorry even suck at trolling...

That joke is older than arthur askey's truss.
(or bob hope's for those americans out there who can't be bothered to
google)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <65oqm4F2h5cf0U1@mid.individual.net>,
Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
>> In article <65m6mkF2gd5lrU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
>
><snip>
>
>>> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
>>> them.
>>
>> Then they aren't pointless are they ;)
>
>
>They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system, but
>that doesn't mean it is meaningful. Especially when it comes to sci-fi
>which, as we all know, still has a minority audience. A much fairer system
>would be to include only people who are interested in sci-fi and then record
>which sci-fi programmes they like best.
>
>Eva

Nielsen figures are even more pointless then most people realize! I
have had two friends 'chosen' to have Nielsen boxes. They hook them up
to the 'most commonly watched tv in the house'. Um... that implies
there are other tvs! My one friend would always put that tv on a
specific channel, even if he wasn't going to watch that show, just to
force the ratings to indicate he was voting for that channel. Plus,
now with tivo and dvds and so on, people can really mess with the data
to bias it any way they want it to look. My other friend watched
stargate 'over and over and over' according to _his_ set because it
was on tivo and he just looped episodes. The box thought he was
watching that show 24/7.

Maybe in the 50s this was a good way to count viewers but not now!

Jill
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
jill@tuells.org

In article <65oqm4F2h5cf0U1@mid.individual.net>,
eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
> "Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
> > In article <65m6mkF2gd5lrU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
> >> them.
> >
> > Then they aren't pointless are they ;)
>
>
> They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system, but
> that doesn't mean it is meaningful.

Ah, but now you are changing tangent - there is a point to them: Who
gets the money and who doesn't :)

> Especially when it comes to sci-fi
> which, as we all know, still has a minority audience. A much fairer system
> would be to include only people who are interested in sci-fi and then record
> which sci-fi programmes they like best.

Hm.. not sure they'd want that - they want bulk - masses, not the nerdy
few (unless they are very rich :)

On Apr 5, 6:21 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <65oqm4F2h5cf...@mid.individual.net>,
> eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk says...
>
> > "Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
> > > In article <65m6mkF2gd5l...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk says...
>
> > <snip>
>
> > >> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
> > >> them.
>
> > > Then they aren't pointless are they ;)
>
> > They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system, but
> > that doesn't mean it is meaningful.
>
> Ah, but now you are changing tangent - there is a point to them: Who
> gets the money and who doesn't :)

Exactly. As a viewer, I don't care about the business implications
for their own sake. I do care about them simply because they affect
whether or not shows I like get renewed or not. Since I'm not an
insider, the fact (and it is a fact) that the Neilson system is deeply
flawed is not in itself that important to me.

> > Especially when it comes to sci-fi
> > which, as we all know, still has a minority audience. A much fairer system
> > would be to include only people who are interested in sci-fi and then record
> > which sci-fi programmes they like best.
>
> Hm.. not sure they'd want that - they want bulk - masses, not the nerdy
> few (unless they are very rich :)

They check all kinds of stuff. Demographics are very important for
advertisers/sponsors, so most networks and cable channels do marketing
surveys of all sorts. I'm told these are far more comprehensive and
detailed than the Neilson ratings, but they aren't usually public. I
think I was contacted once by phone by someone who wanted to know what
I was watching, but when I admitted I was over 50, they said thank you
and hung up so I didn't find out what else they were asking about.
They're mostly looking for the 14-34 age bracket I'm told. Apparently
advertisers feel people my age have well developed buying habits that
are hard to change so they go for those they feel are still more
malleable. I'm not sure that assumption about age groups is any more
accurate than the Neilson ratings, but it's accepted wisdom in
marketing and so has an effect even if it's totally inaccurate.

himiko

In article <MPG.226243f6aecd6e2498bd18@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
<xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:

> In article <65oqm4F2h5cf0U1@mid.individual.net>,
> eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
> > "Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
> > > In article <65m6mkF2gd5lrU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > > eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
> > >> them.
> > >
> > > Then they aren't pointless are they ;)
> >
> >
> > They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system,
> > but
> > that doesn't mean it is meaningful.
>
> Ah, but now you are changing tangent - there is a point to them: Who
> gets the money and who doesn't :)

Who gets the money is the Neilsen company. Who doesn't get the money
are the people making the few decent TV shows rather than the "reality"
TV garbage.

In article <0caeaf43-45da-4cdb-a027-47e85eb84833
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, himiko@animail.net says...
> On Apr 5, 6:21 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> > In article <65oqm4F2h5cf...@mid.individual.net>,
> > eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk says...
> >
> > > "Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
> > >news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
> > > > In article <65m6mkF2gd5l...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > > eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk says...
> >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > > >> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
> > > >> them.
> >
> > > > Then they aren't pointless are they ;)
> >
> > > They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system, but
> > > that doesn't mean it is meaningful.
> >
> > Ah, but now you are changing tangent - there is a point to them: Who
> > gets the money and who doesn't :)
>
> Exactly. As a viewer, I don't care about the business implications
> for their own sake. I do care about them simply because they affect
> whether or not shows I like get renewed or not.

Indeed.

> Since I'm not an
> insider, the fact (and it is a fact) that the Neilson system is deeply
> flawed is not in itself that important to me.

You are sure its not an opinon?

> I'm not sure that assumption about age groups is any more
> accurate than the Neilson ratings, but it's accepted wisdom in
> marketing and so has an effect even if it's totally inaccurate.

Because your shopping is always swayed by commercials you have seen? :)

On Apr 6, 10:31 am, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <0caeaf43-45da-4cdb-a027-47e85eb84833
> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, him...@animail.net says...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 6:21 pm, Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> > > In article <65oqm4F2h5cf...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk says...
>
> > > > "Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
> > > > > In article <65m6mkF2gd5l...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > > > eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk says...
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > >> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
> > > > >> them.
>
> > > > > Then they aren't pointless are they ;)
>
> > > > They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system, but
> > > > that doesn't mean it is meaningful.
>
> > > Ah, but now you are changing tangent - there is a point to them: Who
> > > gets the money and who doesn't :)
>
> > Exactly. As a viewer, I don't care about the business implications
> > for their own sake. I do care about them simply because they affect
> > whether or not shows I like get renewed or not.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Since I'm not an
> > insider, the fact (and it is a fact) that the Neilson system is deeply
> > flawed is not in itself that important to me.
>
> You are sure its not an opinon?

Yes. Research on the Neilson ratings and their many, many
shortcomings is pretty conclusive.
>
> > I'm not sure that assumption about age groups is any more
> > accurate than the Neilson ratings, but it's accepted wisdom in
> > marketing and so has an effect even if it's totally inaccurate.
>
> Because your shopping is always swayed by commercials you have seen? :)

No, it's not. Because I'm over 50, my shopping is relatively unswayed
by anything...or so the theory goes. :)

himiko (still plenty swayable)

In article <ANIM8Rfsk-B9E66A.13221004042008@news.west.cox.net>,
ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net says...

> > Uh, with a significant sample size the extrapolations are valid. The
> > field of statistics is not based on guesswork.
>
> Yes, they are.

Or you could go to school.

In article <sZydnZ3FGZIrKWranZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@rockynet.com>,
jill@tuells.org says...
> In article <65oqm4F2h5cf0U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
> >> In article <65m6mkF2gd5lrU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
> >>> them.
> >>
> >> Then they aren't pointless are they ;)
> >
> >
> >They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system, but
> >that doesn't mean it is meaningful. Especially when it comes to sci-fi
> >which, as we all know, still has a minority audience. A much fairer system
> >would be to include only people who are interested in sci-fi and then record
> >which sci-fi programmes they like best.
> >
> >Eva
>
> Nielsen figures are even more pointless then most people realize! I
> have had two friends 'chosen' to have Nielsen boxes. They hook them up
> to the 'most commonly watched tv in the house'. Um... that implies
> there are other tvs! My one friend would always put that tv on a
> specific channel, even if he wasn't going to watch that show, just to
> force the ratings to indicate he was voting for that channel. Plus,
> now with tivo and dvds and so on, people can really mess with the data
> to bias it any way they want it to look. My other friend watched
> stargate 'over and over and over' according to _his_ set because it
> was on tivo and he just looped episodes. The box thought he was
> watching that show 24/7.

Of course they know there are mentally deficient people out there and
try to compensate for that ;)

In article <c972613a-73a1-44a2-9391-
8081c926864b@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, himiko@animail.net says...


> > > Since I'm not an
> > > insider, the fact (and it is a fact) that the Neilson system is deeply
> > > flawed is not in itself that important to me.
> >
> > You are sure its not an opinon?
>
> Yes. Research on the Neilson ratings and their many, many
> shortcomings is pretty conclusive.

It's Nielsen Ratings.

In article <MPG.2263793ff719744598bd2d@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
<xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:

> In article <sZydnZ3FGZIrKWranZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@rockynet.com>,
> jill@tuells.org says...
> > In article <65oqm4F2h5cf0U1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Eva <eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > >"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
> > >news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
> > >> In article <65m6mkF2gd5lrU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > >> eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >>> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives by
> > >>> them.
> > >>
> > >> Then they aren't pointless are they ;)
> > >
> > >
> > >They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system,
> > >but
> > >that doesn't mean it is meaningful. Especially when it comes to sci-fi
> > >which, as we all know, still has a minority audience. A much fairer system
> > >would be to include only people who are interested in sci-fi and then
> > >record
> > >which sci-fi programmes they like best.
> > >
> > >Eva
> >
> > Nielsen figures are even more pointless then most people realize! I
> > have had two friends 'chosen' to have Nielsen boxes. They hook them up
> > to the 'most commonly watched tv in the house'. Um... that implies
> > there are other tvs! My one friend would always put that tv on a
> > specific channel, even if he wasn't going to watch that show, just to
> > force the ratings to indicate he was voting for that channel. Plus,
> > now with tivo and dvds and so on, people can really mess with the data
> > to bias it any way they want it to look. My other friend watched
> > stargate 'over and over and over' according to _his_ set because it
> > was on tivo and he just looped episodes. The box thought he was
> > watching that show 24/7.
>
> Of course they know there are mentally deficient people out there and
> try to compensate for that ;)

Yep, Neilsen employs them all.

"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.226243f6aecd6e2498bd18@news.usenetserver. com...
> In article <65oqm4F2h5cf0U1@mid.individual.net>,
> eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
>> "Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2260e9b0a9165d0298bd0e@news.usenetserver. com...
>> > In article <65m6mkF2gd5lrU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> > eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Nielsen figures are pointless but, unfortunately, the industry lives
>> >> by
>> >> them.
>> >
>> > Then they aren't pointless are they ;)
>>
>>
>> They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system,
>> but
>> that doesn't mean it is meaningful.
>
> Ah, but now you are changing tangent - there is a point to them: Who
> gets the money and who doesn't :)

Not really. :-) Just because someone makes money out of them still doesn't
make them meanigful. Profitable, yes, but not meaningful.

>> Especially when it comes to sci-fi
>> which, as we all know, still has a minority audience. A much fairer
>> system
>> would be to include only people who are interested in sci-fi and then
>> record
>> which sci-fi programmes they like best.
>
> Hm.. not sure they'd want that - they want bulk - masses, not the nerdy
> few (unless they are very rich :)

They should stop making sci-fi shows then. <g> That's the problem, isn't it?
Your average person in a certain bracket might half-watch a sci-fi show but
if they have to get involved beyond that, they will not bother, especially
if the schedules are being messed with. IMO, the best shows (not just
sci-fi) are those where you do need to pay attention and you need to watch
every week to follow the arc and the average viewer will probably not be
prepared to do that. A sci-fi fan would but he/she doesn't matter in the
Nielsen world. And that's how good shows get cancelled and average shows
live on. Apart from the fact that the ratings system is faulty, that is.
;-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

In article <65u1kbF2gv48mU1@mid.individual.net>,
eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...

> >> They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a system,
> >> but
> >> that doesn't mean it is meaningful.
> >
> > Ah, but now you are changing tangent - there is a point to them: Who
> > gets the money and who doesn't :)
>
> Not really. :-) Just because someone makes money out of them still doesn't
> make them meanigful. Profitable, yes, but not meaningful.

And meaningful to them.

"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.226448ca52ec13c98bd39@news.usenetserver.c om...
> In article <65u1kbF2gv48mU1@mid.individual.net>,
> eva1removethis@ukonline.co.uk says...
>
>> >> They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a
>> >> system,
>> >> but
>> >> that doesn't mean it is meaningful.
>> >
>> > Ah, but now you are changing tangent - there is a point to them: Who
>> > gets the money and who doesn't :)
>>
>> Not really. :-) Just because someone makes money out of them still
>> doesn't
>> make them meanigful. Profitable, yes, but not meaningful.
>
> And meaningful to them.


I would argue that even they know very well that they are not meaningful.
:-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

On Apr 8, 12:28 am, "Eva" <eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> "Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.226448ca52ec13c98bd39@news.usenetserver.c om...
>
>
>
> > In article <65u1kbF2gv48...@mid.individual.net>,
> > eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk says...
>
> >> >> They still are. :-) The industry needs something so it invents a
> >> >> system,
> >> >> but
> >> >> that doesn't mean it is meaningful.
>
> >> > Ah, but now you are changing tangent - there is a point to them: Who
> >> > gets the money and who doesn't :)
>
> >> Not really. :-) Just because someone makes money out of them still
> >> doesn't
> >> make them meanigful. Profitable, yes, but not meaningful.
>
> > And meaningful to them.
>
> I would argue that even they know very well that they are not meaningful.
> :-)

Meaningful reflects the fact that they are used for making decisions,
not whether they are actually accurate. They are useful (and
therefore meaningful) for making decisions that would otherwise be
equally well decided by flipping a coin...maybe better decided. But
Nielsen (yes, you are correct about the spelling Pete) provides
numbers and "scientifical" looking stuff to justify the choices. We
do that in University admissions too with the ACT/SAT scores which we
pretty well know have little if anything to do with who will, or more
importantly won't, do well in college, but they're great for drawing
meaningless but necessary lines to reduce over-large pools of pretty
much equally qualified applicants...and that gives them meaning, at
least to the applicants for whom they can mean the difference between
getting into the school they want and not doing so. We live in a
really dumb world. :(

himiko

[Default] Thus spake "Stewart" <runner@tiscal.co.za>:

>
>"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
>news:040420080937180124%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>> In article <9dGdnSDpS-qRnmjanZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@saix.net>, "Stewart"
>> <runner@tiscal.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>> Just curious as to the number of viewers for the Stargate series'.
>>> I've checked on Wiki, but nothing. There are numbers for other shows like
>>> Heroes, Lost, etc.
>>>
>>> Anyone know?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Stewart
>>
>> Actual real figures? Nobody will ever know.
>>
>> Faked garbage figures from Neilsen and friends? Who cares, they're
>> meaningless guesswork.
>
>Don't they have reliable figures that are taken from the number of people
>watching?
>Thus they know when a show is not popular, advertsising and cancel, etc.
>
>Just curious, as SG-1 has ten seasons. Not many shows go past that.
>

Neilsens are only marginally useful for the big four, and totally
useless for cable/satellite/WETF.

Ten seasons? Try seven with three on life support.

The Simpsons longevity is due in part to its appeal to those kids who
are just now getting to the "sophisticated" potty humor stage and to
adults who grew up with it and just can't realize that Matt has run
out of original ideas for full length shows and is now running 3 or 4
mini shows in each episode.