The W
Views: 100774688
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.07 1542
The 7 - Site Bashing - Meltzer Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(527 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (22 total)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 102/1084
EXP: 2447771
For next: 14093

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 3019 days
Last activity: 3015 days
#1 Posted on 7.3.02 2000.02
Reposted on: 7.3.09 2002.17
I haven't bashed him as much as some, but what was the deal with that list of viewers lost and gained during certain wrestlers? It is completely without context, and, as anybody who has taken an introductory statistics class knows, correlations mean nothing. Very weird.
Promote this thread!
BDC
Chourico
Level: 37

Posts: 85/274
EXP: 310418
For next: 27838

Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4497 days
Last activity: 3953 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 8.3.02 0052.42
Reposted on: 8.3.09 0059.02

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    I haven't bashed him as much as some, but what was the deal with that list of viewers lost and gained during certain wrestlers? It is completely without context, and, as anybody who has taken an introductory statistics class knows, correlations mean nothing. Very weird.


Not so weird when you correlate in that he's a jackass.

BDC
Papercuts!
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 279/684
EXP: 1227348
For next: 6529

Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4497 days
Last activity: 4407 days
#3 Posted on 8.3.02 1138.36
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1142.33

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    what was the deal with that list of viewers lost and gained during certain wrestlers?
I guess it just boils down to a basic human interest feature. Because when you look closely, it doesn't further his "agenda" or whatever when it comes to showing who he likes and doesn't like. In other words, the results would be suspect if Stephanie DIDN'T reflect a viewer increase--which they do now.

Remember, the Wrestling Observer is more about analysis than anything else and those numbers he provided are pure analysis. I found them VERY interesting. I'll also remind you that I've been critical of Dave lately lest anyone thinks I'm a huge defender of the Meltzer.

That said, I was quite pleased when it indicated Rob Van Damn lost viewers, according to his research.
Busyman14
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 26/89
EXP: 57284
For next: 1067

Since: 24.2.02
From: Weston, Florida

Since last post: 4454 days
Last activity: 4438 days
#4 Posted on 8.3.02 1148.45
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1149.00
I was shocked, SHOCKED to see that viewers actually increased when Stephanie showed up. That scares me, since now the WWF will probably stick her in even MORE segments. Excuse me while I cry.

-Alex
Travis
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 13/385
EXP: 514798
For next: 6568

Since: 7.3.02
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 4569 days
Last activity: 4505 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#5 Posted on 8.3.02 1153.00
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1159.02
Those weren't the actual ratings, per se. Gawd knows if Vince's people even bother breaking things down that far.
Like it would matter. Ever since the long national nightmare that WAS the McMahon-Helmsley Era (or whatever), we've had that cow rammed down our throats (oh, the irony).

I sat through the Ministry of Dorkness.
I sat through the CORPORATE Ministry of Dorkness.
I sat through the eVasion. That includes the HEYMAN announcing.
But I've had it up to here with that ugly wench and her giant hands.
I can't watch anymore.

I guess it's indy wrestling for me. I got tapes of TURNBUCKLE coming in. It'll be DUSTY TASTIC.

Clubberin'!
LeechOfTheNight
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 90/317
EXP: 386679
For next: 18096

Since: 16.1.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 4210 days
Last activity: 3352 days
#6 Posted on 8.3.02 1201.58
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1227.15
Just out of curiousity, where is this list you're talking about? I remember seeing something similiar a while ago, but not lately. Can you point me to where I might find this?
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 105/1084
EXP: 2447771
For next: 14093

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 3019 days
Last activity: 3015 days
#7 Posted on 8.3.02 1203.01
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1229.01
it was in yesterday's news update.

LeechOfTheNight
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 91/317
EXP: 386679
For next: 18096

Since: 16.1.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 4210 days
Last activity: 3352 days
#8 Posted on 8.3.02 1237.52
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1249.35
Thanks!
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 132/5254
EXP: 26194671
For next: 230019

Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#9 Posted on 8.3.02 1323.34
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1329.01
>Remember, the Wrestling Observer is more about analysis
>than anything else and those numbers he provided are pure
>analysis.

Those number where stastics.

There was no talk about what they meant, no disclaimers about problems in the sampling (like, if it's the same way he did last time he was doing these, that the first quarter hour doesn't count), there's no speculation about trends based on past or future performance - there was NO analysis. None at all.

One thing that bugs me about the content of the website (there about a billion things that bug me on the design side, thanks for asking) is that Dave will throw a number on there - a rating, a buy rate, a gate - and put some extremely vague comment - "that's about what was expected" and have NO ANALYSIS. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? You'll never know.

You can say "hey, he's trying to sell the newsletter" but it's still a crappy website (that doesn't really sell the newsletter well at all.)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 268/5229
EXP: 25944680
For next: 480010

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on 8.3.02 1519.48
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1529.11
i've said it before, but you can't put tooo much stock in ratings because they reflect a VERY small pool of neilson viewers and like one neilson family is supposed to reflect a MILLION...so if one wwf neilson switches to friends during smackdown, then smackdown loses a MILLION viewers for that qtr hour...

unless the neilsons expand to have 1/3 of the population under their 'watch' then i won't put ANY stock into those numbers...

eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 106/1084
EXP: 2447771
For next: 14093

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 3019 days
Last activity: 3015 days
#11 Posted on 8.3.02 1649.06
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1652.02
I agree with you, but that;s just the way things go. I think the wrestling news sites would be better off ignoring all the ratings nonsense, but advertisers still are. Just reporting the numbers would be fine, but acting like they mean something is ridiculous, as Meltzer himself pointed out once, before going back to trying to make them mean something every week.
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 133/5254
EXP: 26194671
For next: 230019

Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#12 Posted on 8.3.02 1650.26
Reposted on: 8.3.09 1659.01
>like one neilson family is supposed to reflect a MILLION

I want to say "take a class in statistics" not to be mean (I try) but because I'm an quasi-hurry.

Edit: With probably better spelling and everything from Edit: on! Um, the first Edit:.

Anyway, as I was saying before I left, I remember takinga Stat course at one point at in my college life and I learned how, if you take "A" many random (and they must be random) people in a normal group, you can safely assume that "B" percent of the time, "C" many people of the total group watch the program, give or take "D" percent.

Problem is, of course, I have no idea what A B C D are. Since we're not actually doing the formula, A doesn't matter (but probably something 5-6 digit range, I'd assume - I figure you were undercutting to make the point, but if not there you go.) B's typically set by what A is, but people tend to try for AT LEAST a 95% there (kinda hope Neilsen would be better) and a 5% for D (again.)

Applying those (widly theoratically and surely understatements to the accurcary), that means the 3.5 we got today (it was a 3.5, right?) is really "no less than 3.325, no greater than 3.675, 95% of the team.

That's a .25 point spread, which makes over analyzing tenths of points differences kinda pointless (too close to call) and shows even more the banality (is that a word?) of Meltzer's quarter hour charts - he's basing it on the difference in teenths and the numbers aren't that consistently accurate.

(And if that doesn't work for you, how about "this doesn't even factor in someone being in a 15 minute period with commerical breaks, video packages, or less popular wrestlers involved in different matches and with the way certian wreslters are positioned for certian time blocks, it doesn't even out in the end.")

(edited by thecubsfan on 8.3.02 2330)
Net Hack Slasher
Banger
Level: 100

Posts: 60/2805
EXP: 10188992
For next: 165440

Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3621 days
Last activity: 2041 days
#13 Posted on 9.3.02 2328.24
Reposted on: 9.3.09 2329.01
I agree ratings mean nothing

Sincerely,
The Bob Patterson Show
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple
Level: 128

Posts: 375/4988
EXP: 24171590
For next: 210176

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 20 hours
#14 Posted on 10.3.02 0031.23
Reposted on: 10.3.09 0032.15

    That said, I was quite pleased when it indicated Rob Van Damn lost viewers, according to his research.


I find that very hard to believe.
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 134/5254
EXP: 26194671
For next: 230019

Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#15 Posted on 10.3.02 0136.31
Reposted on: 10.3.09 0158.41
I don't know, it sure sounds like he's really happy that RVD does draw ratings according to Dave.

(edited by thecubsfan on 10.3.02 0137)
J. Kyle
Boudin blanc
Level: 93

Posts: 41/2389
EXP: 7969407
For next: 83433

Since: 21.2.02
From: The Land of Aloha

Since last post: 113 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on 10.3.02 0713.09
Reposted on: 10.3.09 0717.21
As my MMPS pal Zak would say Meltzer
A.is a shit monkey
and
B.that photo on the site HAD to have been taken when he was on the can or very angry
Excalibur05
Knackwurst
Level: 102

Posts: 329/2929
EXP: 10856964
For next: 233041

Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
#17 Posted on 10.3.02 1300.58
Reposted on: 10.3.09 1306.12
What I hate, is that he quotes that the Smackdown ratings were really high (major markets) and then really low (entire country) and never explained WHY. Smackdown wasn't available in 22% of markets due to regional sports games on UPN, which from a regional standpoint is a HUGE number, but Meltzer STILL hasn't noted that.

So anyone who relies on him for WWF views, just thinks now that Smackdown had a shitty rating and that that was the be all and end all of it.

That's why I hate Dave Meltzer.
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple
Level: 128

Posts: 377/4988
EXP: 24171590
For next: 210176

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 20 hours
#18 Posted on 10.3.02 2114.43
Reposted on: 10.3.09 2118.52

    I don't know, it sure sounds like he's really happy that RVD does draw ratings according to Dave.


Huh? I know you are trying to be *smart*, but is that what you meant to say?
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 135/5254
EXP: 26194671
For next: 230019

Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#19 Posted on 10.3.02 2236.50
Reposted on: 10.3.09 2239.20
That's me trying to sound sarcastic AND trying to see if I can lure you into saying something more here that doesn't just boil down to "I like RVD and Meltzer is wrong if he thinks people don't watch him" but failing miserablely.

I'm hoping that instead of just saying "that's wrong", you'll come through with "that's wrong, and here's WHY I think that's wrong, with some reasoning and numbers to back it up" (like maybe pointing to the fact that RVD's been fighting the likes of Lance Storm and Big Show, neither who've been built into intersting personas by the WWF.)

Sorry 'bout that.
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 37/5257
EXP: 26210755
For next: 213935

Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 4 min.
#20 Posted on 13.3.02 0127.51
Reposted on: 13.3.09 0129.02
"So anyone who relies on him for WWF views just thinks now that Smackdown had a shitty rating and that that was the be all and end all of it."

Uh, it WAS a shitty rating. It was awful.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: ALVAREZ IS A THIEF!
Next thread: slash bashing
Previous thread: Fear
(527 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Site Bashing - MeltzerRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.235 seconds.