eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 65
   
Posts: 192/1084
EXP: 2300134
For next: 35506
Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan
Since last post: 2468 days
Last activity: 2465 days
|  #1 Posted on 8.5.02 1637.04
Reposted on: 8.5.09 1637.42 | This is from his last column: "RAW scored a 4.6, up a little bit from last week's rating, although anybody of statistics could question if it actually went up or down."
Now, I'm no math whiz, and I only took a semester of a class that taught very basic statistics, but isn't an increase an increase, no matter what? Oh well, at least he didn't bash Chris Daniels again for blowing one spot. | Promote this thread! |             | thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 122
Posts: 180/4593
EXP: 20126583
For next: 511489
Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL
Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 2 min.
| #2 Posted on 8.5.02 2203.27
Reposted on: 8.5.09 2203.49 | I took an English class once and I could tell you "anybody of statistics" makes even less sense.
I *think* he's implying "margin of error makes a .2 change irrelevant" but if you're making a case that isn't the typical way people look at, you probably need to spell it out. | eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 65
Posts: 194/1084
EXP: 2300134
For next: 35506
Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan
Since last post: 2468 days
Last activity: 2465 days
| #3 Posted on 9.5.02 0020.43
Reposted on: 9.5.09 0025.15 | | but isn't the margin of error related to the sample size and controls used? I would think the Nielsons have a fairly low margin of error. | chazworthington
Cotechino
Level: 22
Posts: 25/86
EXP: 50801
For next: 7550
Since: 12.4.02
From: Joisey
Since last post: 1841 days
Last activity: 1819 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #4 Posted on 9.5.02 2124.30
Reposted on: 9.5.09 2126.07 | it's not a question of a margin of error. The idea is that a show isn't going to get the exact same rating week after week after week. When you look at ratings, you need to look at the long term data available. If a show is consistantly doing a mid 4.? rating, then a 4.6 may or may not be significant, because it could be part of the overall pattern.
Think of it as plotting this ratings onto a "best-fit" line. A rating that goes on that line is not significant. A rating that is off the line is | eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 65
Posts: 202/1084
EXP: 2300134
For next: 35506
Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan
Since last post: 2468 days
Last activity: 2465 days
| #5 Posted on 9.5.02 2135.42
Reposted on: 9.5.09 2136.00 | that's what I thought, but wasn't exactly sure how the Nielsons worked.
In other Tito news, today's column is another gem of nonsense. "Remember folks, spread the word about chanting "GOLDBERG" at WWF events. It would force the WWF to listen to their fans and sign the man who has gone on record as saying he wouldn't join the WWF, ever. Money talks and bullshit walks."
Does he want Goldberg in, or not? Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet, unless done very well, which he doesn't seem capable of. | DrewDewce
Bratwurst
Level: 71
Posts: 249/1327
EXP: 3117094
For next: 50035
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Derby City
Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 16 hours
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #6 Posted on 12.5.02 0843.33
Reposted on: 12.5.09 0843.36 | I gave up reading Mr. Tito a long time ago. Nothing against him personally, but sometimes it seemed like he was writing something just to say he doesn't miss days, whether it was rehashing something I'd read Keith or Scaia detail previously (and usually better), or giving out apples sent in by his readers. He just always came off as 2nd rate to me somehow.
Of course, Keith doesn't have as many non-show (history) rants anymore, and I just haven't found myself checking out Online Onslaught as much as I did Wrestleline so it's probably just that I'm lazy in not reading Tito. | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | |
