Antacular Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 No, Cristobal has obviously found a significant error in Nielson's data gathering. This point has, through some anonamly, eluded the Immelt's and Moonves of the world. Why these captains of industry continue to endorse this faulty methodology is beyond me. Next time my doctor prescribes me an antibiotic on my return trip from Vegas, I'll make sure it's been tested on others sharing my genetic coding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Whereas Antacular has clearly proven that it is impossible for any relevant datum to escape the vast net of a self-selected survey requiring constant updating via pencil and paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Again, absence of evidence can't be used to support your point. The burden is on you to prove that more people are actually watching than what's being claimed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooker Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 And now tell me what research they've done to account for the Nielsen households who decline to make their guests fill out tv watching surveys during their visit? They don't. The Nielsen family fills that out, and they're paid by Neilsen to do it. Look, the Nielsen ratings are the establishment course that American companies spend billions on advertising using their analysis as the basis of. They are one of the biggest statistic analysis companies in the world, and your complaints are relatively easy statistical problems to account for. Furthermore, you are claiming this is a problem with their model. The burden of proof is on you. I've even shown you one of the methods they use to account for your complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 You claim Nielsen is able to account for visitors, so it is on me to prove the negative. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Nobody is arguing that Nielsen ratings are flawless, but by all accounts they are a well put together statistical sample. The network will give WWE better numbers, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 And now tell me what research they've done to account for the Nielsen households who decline to make their guests fill out tv watching surveys during their visit?Look, the Nielsen ratings are the establishment course that American companies spend billions on advertising using their analysis as the basis of. And as we all know, the more money spent based on certain data, the more correct that data must be. They are one of the biggest statistic analysis companies in the world, and your complaints are relatively easy statistical problems to account for. They're not, because it relies on them quantifying the degree to which the data they receive is inaccurate. Furthermore, you are claiming this is a problem with their model. The burden of proof is on you. I've even shown you one of the methods they use to account for your complaint. I've got a statistical model that works better than Nielsen. Like Nielsen, I will not tell you precisely how my system works. The burden therefore lies with you to disprove my claims. That is how that works because logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubbymark Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Everyone talking about indie wrestling is ignoring the possibility, no matter how incredibly slim, that some indie is able to get shown on the app. WWE could even do a show showing highlights of certain promotions during each month. It would help the business and give them more programming. In the yammering thread and to the Beyond Wrestling Twitter account, I mentioned that some indies may want to become Single A or Double A affiliates to WWE, seeing as NXT is the Triple A affiliate for WWE, if we are to use the baseball model. Also, I'm pretty sure MLB offers a streaming service for their Triple A affiliates, so that may be another avenue to explore to become the real One Stop Shop for everything any everything pro wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Spanish Waiter Posted January 13, 2014 Author Share Posted January 13, 2014 Imagine we talked about how awesome this is and started planning our circlejerks instead of tattling in about boring shit? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greggulator Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 There are weaknesses in the Nielsen surveying practice. But they've been using this system for almost a century if you count radio. I'm pretty sure they've figured out ways to analyze any noise that will come into play because of things like "the time my three friends came over to Raw and I forgot to write their names." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 No, you're the one making the claim. We've gone from college statistics to 8th grade debate prep in less than 10 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Nobody is arguing that Nielsen ratings are flawless, but by all accounts they are a well put together statistical sample. Antacular and Hooker are essentially arguing just that, or at least arguing that if you want to stipulate that Nielsen ratings are NOT flawless, you must prove that to their satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 There are weaknesses in the Nielsen surveying practice. But they've been using this system for almost a century if you count radio. I'm pretty sure they've figured out ways to analyze any noise that will come into play because of things like "the time my three friends came over to Raw and I forgot to write their names." Cool. What is that? The best answer we've heard is that people filling out books should be penciling in VISITOR. Not sure how they do that with the boxes, but even if there is a way, "Nielsen's figured this out" is not an answer of the question. No, you're the one making the claim. We've gone from college statistics to 8th grade debate prep in less than 10 posts. Well since your argument has at this point devolved to "NO YOU ARE!" I'd suggest you've gone back quite a bit further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooker Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 And now tell me what research they've done to account for the Nielsen households who decline to make their guests fill out tv watching surveys during their visit?Look, the Nielsen ratings are the establishment course that American companies spend billions on advertising using their analysis as the basis of. And as we all know, the more money spent based on certain data, the more correct that data must be. They are one of the biggest statistic analysis companies in the world, and your complaints are relatively easy statistical problems to account for. They're not, because it relies on them quantifying the degree to which the data they receive is inaccurate. Furthermore, you are claiming this is a problem with their model. The burden of proof is on you. I've even shown you one of the methods they use to account for your complaint. I've got a statistical model that works better than Nielsen. Like Nielsen, I will not tell you precisely how my system works. The burden therefore lies with you to disprove my claims. That is how that works because logic. You should absolutely have a healthy skepticism. I am not saying you shouldn't. I have questions that I don't have answers to about how Nielsen collects and interprets data. However, I do not then go from my skepticism to say that something is meaningless because I, through whatever work I have or have not done to find or understand those answers, don't have the answers to that. To do so is to move from healthy skepticism to talking out of your ass. If you're not going to show me some reason besides your own ideas as to why you doubt the accuracy of the rating system is this regard, I'm not going to continue discussing this with you. You might be right that people shouldn't trust the numbers, but as far as I'm concerned, you have done a poor job of supporting your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 There's a difference between flawed and impercise. The way you're arguing it, you suspect their methodology is omitting between hundreds of thousands and millions of eyeballs, when it's in reality around ten thousands, a statistically insignficant amount given the sample size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool arrow Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Given Vince's SOP, won't he just make up numbers anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Nobody is arguing that Nielsen ratings are flawless, but by all accounts they are a well put together statistical sample. Antacular and Hooker are essentially arguing just that, or at least arguing that if you want to stipulate that Nielsen ratings are NOT flawless, you must prove that to their satisfaction. That is not what they are arguing at all, but I'm with FSW this shit is way more fun when we talk about getting to watch some old school wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooks Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I guess I accidentally clicked on the "Hatefully Bicker About The Technicalities of Nielsen Ratings" thread instead of the "Man, The Possibilities of A Lot Of Cool Content For a Great Price Rules" thread. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 You should absolutely have a healthy skepticism. I am not saying you shouldn't. I have questions that I don't have answers to about how Nielsen collects and interprets data. However, I do not then go from my skepticism to say that something is meaningless because I, through whatever work I have or have not done to find or understand those answers, don't have the answers to that. Who is arguing that Nielsen numbers are "meaningless"? I stated a specific premise, that sports programming, which includes WWE, is more valuable relative to its Nielsen numbers than other types of programming. What has followed has been the assertion that this cannot be, based on speculative interpretations of how Nielsen works, and simple faith. There's a difference between flawed and impercise. The way you're arguing it, you suspect their methodology is omitting between hundreds of thousands and millions of eyeballs, when it's in reality around ten thousands, a statistically insignficant amount given the sample size. Point to me where I claimed anything resembling specific numbers like this. And since you've now done so, please also support your assertion that it is only tens of thousands of people watching WWE programming at homes they do not live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooker Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I would like to apologise for participating in derailing the thread. I typically post on a lot of forums where this sort of bickering is the norm, not the exception, and I do really enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Bah. Anyone who wants to change the topic from Nielsens back to wrestling would be better served by TALKING ABOUT WRESTLING then bitching about the discussion they don't like. Thread creep is a feature of message boards, not a bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooker Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 You should absolutely have a healthy skepticism. I am not saying you shouldn't. I have questions that I don't have answers to about how Nielsen collects and interprets data. However, I do not then go from my skepticism to say that something is meaningless because I, through whatever work I have or have not done to find or understand those answers, don't have the answers to that. Who is arguing that Nielsen numbers are "meaningless"? I stated a specific premise, that sports programming, which includes WWE, is more valuable relative to its Nielsen numbers than other types of programming. What has followed has been the assertion that this cannot be, based on speculative interpretations of how Nielsen works, and simple faith. You said earlier, "The Nielsen boxes are a statistically significant sample, but all they tell is how many TVs are tuned to what channel, not how many eyeballs are actually watching those TVs," which I was using as the position you were arguing from. Am I misreading the "all they tell" and "not how many" parts there? It seems like you've changed your argument. If you didn't mean to say that, fine, but please don't change your argument and then act like we're idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Fresh Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 For fuck's sake, shut up! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.J. Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I really hope we get 24-7/Hard Knocks type a show for bigger matches. TNA tried it a few years back, and it was a pretty cool device to get a match over. I think it might work for some guys who aren't the best on the mic. I mean, if they gave Total Divas the greenlight, I don't see why not this type of show. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 The tens of thousands number comes from the "error rate." Look it up yourself. In this one thread I've covered accounting, financial theory, epistemology, and quantitative analysis. I think the professor is done here for the time being. Once the E releases the subscriber rates at their next quarterly earnings date, we can revisit my thesis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts