SP
Sput
tillyoshea posted:
Whilst increasing the number of measurements using the same system may make the results more
reliable
, it certainly won't make them more
accurate
. You can show that you get similar figures all the time, but you'll be none the wiser as to whether or not that figure is the correct one.
I could use a faulty ruler to measure something - the more times I measure it, the more of my experimental error is eliminated, and so the more reliable the results become. But the results won't become any more accurate , because the ruler will still be faulty. Or similarly, a fixed gun pointing at a target - the more times you fire it, the more sure you are that it will hit a particular point, because other factors like the wind will slowly become less significant and average out. The gun will become more reliable , but it won't suddenly start hitting the middle of the target if it's been way off.
Or in this case, over time we'll get a better idea of what the twenty-odd people in the sample usually do, but this tells us absolutely nothing about the accuracy of the extrapolation from that. No matter how many times you ask 20 people, there is no significant increase in the logic of extrapolating that to represent the habits of millions. (Though in reality, of course, you're not just considering 20 people, because there's a whole lot more in your sample who aren't watching, and you're actually considering the habits of the group as a whole. But let's not even go there.)
I could use a faulty ruler to measure something - the more times I measure it, the more of my experimental error is eliminated, and so the more reliable the results become. But the results won't become any more accurate , because the ruler will still be faulty. Or similarly, a fixed gun pointing at a target - the more times you fire it, the more sure you are that it will hit a particular point, because other factors like the wind will slowly become less significant and average out. The gun will become more reliable , but it won't suddenly start hitting the middle of the target if it's been way off.
Or in this case, over time we'll get a better idea of what the twenty-odd people in the sample usually do, but this tells us absolutely nothing about the accuracy of the extrapolation from that. No matter how many times you ask 20 people, there is no significant increase in the logic of extrapolating that to represent the habits of millions. (Though in reality, of course, you're not just considering 20 people, because there's a whole lot more in your sample who aren't watching, and you're actually considering the habits of the group as a whole. But let's not even go there.)
Yeh. What you said! T'was a bad choice of words on my part.
Incidentally does posting that twice make it more accurate?
CA
The BARB figures are a load of tosh anyway, though, aren't they?
Not just because of the small sampling, but because they don't take account of how many people watch channels outside of the home or on another TV set.
So, those watching in the gym or their office are not taking into consideration at all. MacKenzie employed a technology that automatically worked out what people were listening and watching, and the results were drastically different.
To quote from the Guardian a while ago: "GfK also measured television audiences using the system and found that those channels that are often watched in the office or in bars and clubs enjoyed a huge boost in viewing figures.
Sky News and Sky Sports 2 more than doubled the size of their weekly audiences to 16.5 million people and 8.9 million people respectively, according to the new figures. "
Not just because of the small sampling, but because they don't take account of how many people watch channels outside of the home or on another TV set.
So, those watching in the gym or their office are not taking into consideration at all. MacKenzie employed a technology that automatically worked out what people were listening and watching, and the results were drastically different.
To quote from the Guardian a while ago: "GfK also measured television audiences using the system and found that those channels that are often watched in the office or in bars and clubs enjoyed a huge boost in viewing figures.
Sky News and Sky Sports 2 more than doubled the size of their weekly audiences to 16.5 million people and 8.9 million people respectively, according to the new figures. "
SC
scottishtv
Founding member
RO
No its just in front of the main newsdesk in the news center, its been used in the Sky Report.
With Sunday Live coming from Osterley, what exactly is the westminster studio going to be used for? Just interviews?
Dunedin posted:
The place where they did the Sunday Live Sport discussion (with Alistair Campbell and the annoying sports reporter)- is that a previously unseen studio position or was that the new Millbank studio?
No its just in front of the main newsdesk in the news center, its been used in the Sky Report.
With Sunday Live coming from Osterley, what exactly is the westminster studio going to be used for? Just interviews?
CA
Could they not bring themselves to write ''Sky NEWS''?
Unless they have plans for it, hard to see the point of having the big desk and plasmas in the Westminster studio any longer. Seems a shame given that it's only been in full use like that for a couple of years.
I'd much prefer it if there were a daily political show in the schedules. Something like:
7pm: Sky Report
8pm: Political hour programme
9pm: News roundup
9.05pm: World News Tonight
10pm: News at Ten
10.30pm: Sportsline
11pm: Sky News Tonight
Going from the Sky Report straight into World News Tonight is a bit too much of a leap really.
scottishtv posted:
Could they not bring themselves to write ''Sky NEWS''?
Unless they have plans for it, hard to see the point of having the big desk and plasmas in the Westminster studio any longer. Seems a shame given that it's only been in full use like that for a couple of years.
I'd much prefer it if there were a daily political show in the schedules. Something like:
7pm: Sky Report
8pm: Political hour programme
9pm: News roundup
9.05pm: World News Tonight
10pm: News at Ten
10.30pm: Sportsline
11pm: Sky News Tonight
Going from the Sky Report straight into World News Tonight is a bit too much of a leap really.
DE
Why don't they put the 'active' first and then the red dot, then 4:3 viewers would just see the red dot and not any text.
Spencer For Hire posted:
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, they now appear to be displaying
only
the 'Active' graphic in the bottom-left corner, and no longer cycling between the web and email addresses.
Presumably this is to address the issue of the URL/email being cut off on some TVs, as was promised on Jeremy's blog. It's still not ideal though, as if I switch to 4:3, I can still see '...ve' in the bottom left corner.
Presumably this is to address the issue of the URL/email being cut off on some TVs, as was promised on Jeremy's blog. It's still not ideal though, as if I switch to 4:3, I can still see '...ve' in the bottom left corner.
Why don't they put the 'active' first and then the red dot, then 4:3 viewers would just see the red dot and not any text.
HA
Why don't they put the 'active' first and then the red dot, then 4:3 viewers would just see the red dot and not any text.
It makes you wonder why Sky put the active graphic there in the first place, they must think all of us have 16:9 sets or something.
harshy
Founding member
derek500 posted:
Spencer For Hire posted:
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, they now appear to be displaying
only
the 'Active' graphic in the bottom-left corner, and no longer cycling between the web and email addresses.
Presumably this is to address the issue of the URL/email being cut off on some TVs, as was promised on Jeremy's blog. It's still not ideal though, as if I switch to 4:3, I can still see '...ve' in the bottom left corner.
Presumably this is to address the issue of the URL/email being cut off on some TVs, as was promised on Jeremy's blog. It's still not ideal though, as if I switch to 4:3, I can still see '...ve' in the bottom left corner.
Why don't they put the 'active' first and then the red dot, then 4:3 viewers would just see the red dot and not any text.
It makes you wonder why Sky put the active graphic there in the first place, they must think all of us have 16:9 sets or something.