TSCC had nothing to do with DH ratings last season and especially this Season.

TSCC’s supposedly huge fanbase failed to support that show and certainly in it’s apparent permament “Terminated” status would be impossible to effect this season’s ratings.

It still amazes the “stretch” some will attempt in order to keep a cancelled show relevant.

~Lanie~

None of the above has anything to say about substantive significance, which is likely to matter more, which is to say that, even if DH’s live numbers were off by .1 (which is >10% off), does that make any difference to the networks or advertisers? In this particular case, I think it’s doubtful.

@buffywrestling
If the show has an ~50% increase, this means that ~1/3 and not ~2/3 are watching in alternative formats. If you look at the raw numbers, you can see this is the case 0.5/1.3

@hasu & readers
I don’t think anyone on this board has (yet) stated that the sample was *too* small, simply that it was small, and thus previous statements are consistent with what you have said. Even so, there can always be an argument of *too* small depending upon the level of significance you are looking for which, although traditionally assigned to something such as 5%, is an arbitrary measure. Moreover, claims that the sample belongs to a certain segment are valid, i.e., there may be justifiable reason to be worried about biased sampling with insufficient correction. These claims have been lobbied against more “loftier polling” such as presedential elections, etc. I believe Nielsen’s efforts in terms of accuracy are in good faith, but sample size, bias, etc. are all endemic to the act of sampling.

But, the DVR figures suggest that if the show WERE aired on another night when people are more inclined to watch TV, then a good portion of that 57% would watch the show live.

Are DVRs set more on Fridays that other nights? Seems likely but I don’t have any figures to say either way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

which scientifically defines a sample size which is “big enough”. Basically, even a HUGE sampling (even half the population!) will give results that deviate from the facts (i.e. the numbers you’d get by measuring everything) because there’s always a thing called “chance”, and this occurs no matter how “large” the sampling is. The deviation from fact that occurs with a “small” sampling is said to have “NO statistical significance” when it’s smaller than the one that would occur by pure chance. So there’s a mathematically set number for a “small” sampling which works exactly as well as any bigger sampling.

* I say “often” because statistics fraud does happen, but I doubt that’s the case with Nielsen. Advertisers employ analysts to check these things.

Thanks very much for the compliment on my analogy. Sorry to disappoint you with that phrase.

I wrote that bit about “a certain small segment of TV viewers” for three main reasons.

First, the Nielsen samples do seem very small to me and perhaps they still are very representative of the viewership of the shows that they are tracking, but I can’t help hoping that they aren’t. I’ve read about how they’re conducted, but will readily admit that I am very very far from an expert on them. So that dig was most likely influenced by my bias and hope that a greater proportion of people than are accurately tracked do watch the shows that I wish that they would and a lesser proportion watch some of the shows that cause me to fear for the future of the nation. lol.

Second, I’ve read more than a few articles about the people who opt out of the traditional viewing models and instead will watch via a method that is not tracked in these numbers. Perhaps those articles leave me with the impression that those practices are more widespread than they are. That may well be the case, but that impression contributed to that comment as well.

Third, “J” said that they were upset and I was hoping that that comment might help to cheer him or her up a bit. So the intended sentiment was “Nielsen has lots of flaws, try not to let it get you down too much” and I was attempting to lend some moral support.

This was probably a more thorough analysis of my thought processes than you were looking for, but I’m nothing if not thorough.

I very much understand what you’re saying but quality and performance are sometimes very different things. It’s the same reason that a favorite movie of mine “The Shawshank Redemption” didn’t do very well at the Box Office but was still nominated for 7 Oscars.

Many moviegoers of that year might have wondered why the Academy would nominate a movie like that instead of one that they were more familiar with and had higher grosses, such as maybe “The Flintstones”, “Time Cop”, “Beverly Hills Cop 3″, “Richie Rich”, or “Mighty Ducks 2″. But the people there were looking at quality, which had little effect on the Box Office grosses for at least some of the films that year.

These ratings give a sample of the popularity among a certain small segment of TV viewers and they are extremely important to whether or not a program will survive, but they absolutely are not synonymous with how “good” a show is or is not.

Yeah, I also like seeing these numbers despite having no bearing for renewal since it shows the reach of a show and the networks or showrunners I guess should try something to make these DVR peeps be compelled to watch their shows live.

Great to see these numbers:
TBBT – 6.2
HIMYM – 4.0
ModFam – 4.1

Good enough for #3 scripted of the week!

*sigh* If only a few more of them would watch live.

Ahh well, it won’t help when ABC decide to cancel the show

Still a very high likelihood that the show will be canceled (just like last year ).

But any good news is good.

You did have some of these 18-49 charts last year though, correct? I remember checking out the Lost ratings on them.

*Except a handful of sports shows, as is typical.

Not making fun of you two, Robert and Bill. You’ve stated repeatedly the raw numbers are what really matter.

Oh wait….

I’m getting a little tired of this… “game” some writers play with percentages, partly because I’m not sure if the term for this is a shell game or not. It’s not the % increase that matters, it’s the overall viewership that matters. And Dollhouse’s 0.5 increase in 18-49 viewers is the exact same it’s always had, even from season one. That amount hasn’t changed it all. The Live + SD ratings have, and they’ve tanked without….

….wait for it….

….TSCC as a lead in….