But Bombyx Mori hasn't said we have a permanent net gain of Who. He has simply pointed out that at present we are about 10% ahead. Neither has Bombyx Mori predicted that the current trend will continue. Without been rude, did you actually read the first post? This is quite basic statistical analysis, although I do find a pivot table coming on .
To sum it up, we have a current net gain of 10% This figure may go up or it may go down. This would depend on the future broadcasts which have not been included in this figure.
The numbers in my first post show that so far we have received more Doctor Who per day with the 11th Doctor than we did over the 10th Doctor's time.
The projection you requested showed that this average may increase when the episodes that have been announced are shown.
I agree that if I used different dates, then the results would be different, however I have chosen to use all data available at this time.
I hope that helps you.
I know why you've done it. I understand it. It's a "so far". Arbitrarily choosing to use the tenth against the eleventh and arbitrarily choosing not to wait until Eleventh has had the same duration in the job.
People don't consume the show in "minutes per day". They watch episodes that are grouped into series. The tenth Doctor got his first three series out much more efficiently than the Eleventh. What I've been doing is showing alternative ways of framing the questions, answers and conclusions.
However, when thinking about how much Doctor Who people have seen recently, they are far more likely to compare it with how much they got last year than an arbitrarily chosen number of minutes per day.
How many "minutes per day" of Who are we getting in 2012? That's the pont here (if there is a point to this absurd discussion!) We are getting LESS WHO in 2012 than in any year since 2005 bar the specials year. Period. It's like saying we are getting more Who than we did in 1962, so we should be happy and not say that we're getting less than we've grown used to. LUDICROUS! :rolleyes:
But Bombyx Mori hasn't said we have a permanent net gain of Who. He has simply pointed out that at present we are about 10% ahead. Neither has Bombyx Mori predicted that the current trend will continue. Without been rude, did you actually read the first post? This is quite basic statistical analysis, although I do find a pivot table coming on .
To sum it up, we have a current net gain of 10% This figure may go up or it may go down. This would depend on the future broadcasts which have not been included in this figure.
Yes, i did read and understand the opening post and the ones following it. Trumpeting a ten percent "gain" so far is a bit odd when you know full well that your gain is almost certainly going to be wiped out by the time the two points of conplarison (duration in role) level out.
I didn't question the maths. I questioned the conclusion we were invited to draw from it. And showed other ways of comparing.
In other words, the timing of the announcement has been carefully chosen.
It's a bit like the chancellor showing off that in his first day in office he has spent a billion pounds on hospitals. His predecessor didn't spend an average of a bilion pounds per day on hospitals. So what a fantastic state everything is in. But he chose to make his speech on day one, knowing full well he wasn't going to spend like that again for the foreseeable.
How many "minutes per day" of Who are we getting in 2012? That's the pont here (if there is a point to this absurd discussion!) We are getting LESS WHO in 2012 than in any year since 2005 bar the specials year. Period. It's like saying we are getting more Who than we did in 1962, so we should be happy and not say that we're getting less than we've grown used to. LUDICROUS! :rolleyes:
Yes. The number of qualifiers you have had to use show why using calendar years is not a fair method of comparison, due to the large variance.
In other words, the timing of the announcement has been carefully chosen.
It's a bit like the chancellor showing off that in his first day in office he has spent a billion pounds on hospitals. His predecessor didn't spend an average of a bilion pounds per day on hospitals. So what a fantastic state everything is in. But he chose to make his speech on day two, knowing full well he wasn't going to spend like that again for the foreseeable.
That would not be an average. It is only one data point.
That would not be an average. It is only one data point.
*sigh*
then he spends a billion pounds on day one and day two. And says his government manages an average of a billion pounds a day. knowing full well he won't be spending at that rate beyond this.
FFS cant we stop the b**ching and moaning and see that both sides of the argument are 100% correct in this instance? Yes, we are getting more Who by the day than we did under Tennant -- at the moment.
Let's remember that all statistics can be manipulated and changed, but they exist nonetheless and are still relevant to the factors that were used/ considered.
At the same time, we are getting less Who by year alone.
FFS cant we stop the b**ching and moaning and see that both sides of the argument are 100% correct in this instance? Yes, we are getting more Who by the day than we did under Tennant -- at the moment.
Let's remember that all statistics can be manipulated and changed, but they exist nonetheless and are still relevant to the factors that were used/ considered.
At the same time, we are getting less Who by year alone.
Both sides are right, let's stop it at that
Fair enough but who averages out their Who intake into minutes per day?
David Tennant is 6'1" but Matt Smith is only 5'11" therefore we got more Doctor on screen during the Tenth Doctor years.
As I say, people don't watch in minutes per day. After three years, the audience had seen more of the tenth Doctor than they have after three years of the eleventh Doctor. By the time eleventh has had four it seems things will balance out. So what? other than just for fun.
FFS cant we stop the b**ching and moaning and see that both sides of the argument are 100% correct in this instance? Yes, we are getting more Who by the day than we did under Tennant -- at the moment.
Let's remember that all statistics can be manipulated and changed, but they exist nonetheless and are still relevant to the factors that were used/ considered.
At the same time, we are getting less Who by year alone.
Both sides are right, let's stop it at that
I'm not looking at it as a biitch about which doctor is doing better (or production team). I'm just interested in whether the use of that particular statistic has any meaning at all. It seems the answer is "very little".
Yes. The number of qualifiers you have had to use show why using calendar years is not a fair method of comparison, due to the large variance.
We are getting less Who this year than normal. But not if you're going from the Creation. That's 100%, unavoidably, unarguably true. Take your minutes-per-day and your silly argument and get a life - which is what I should be doing instead of getting drawn into this cavalcade of absurdity.
lol, this thread is so funny, there's so many people getting angry and I'm not sure why.
Thanks to the OP for taking the time to calculate all of that, it's all nonsense of course, but thanks anyway
I'm a simple man and I judge whether I am seeing more or less of something by what has actually been broadcast on any given year, (which for arguments sake I take to start on January 1st and end on December 31st).
For example in 2010, there were 15 episodes of Doctor Who, five of which were over 45 minutes! Not to mention Doctor Who confidential, The Sarah Jane Adventures and probably a load of tardisodes and other related programs.
This year we had Pond Life, 5 regular episodes and a Christmas special to come. That's it! No amount of mind boggling maths can cover that up.
I would hope that we get more in 2013, but I seriously doubt it will be enough to make up for what we lost this year.
The poor old tenth Doctor has also been penalised for having turned up early to take the first Christmas Special. After which he was forced into clocking up four months of no show days for no fault of his own. By happenchance the eleventh Doctor had his first story a mere seven days before his second. Result.
I suppose no matter how you dress it up we will still only have had 6 new episodes this calendar year.
It's better than none - don't get me wrong. Also I always felt 13 was too many. I don't know why they felt the need to make that many - especially when the cast and crew were getting so exhausted. Why not just make 9 and always have a steady run i.e. no breaks in transmission?
I remember I was pleasantly surprised when it was announced that Doctor Who would be returning with a 13 episode run in 2005. I assumed that they would start off with a much smaller number but then I read that it is easier to sell 13 episodes overseas than smaller series.
A lot of people compare UK series to US series in these threads, which is about as much use as comparing a grape to an apple. I don't know how many episodes are usually produced for other drama series because the only other UK drama that I really watch is Sherlock and I know we get precious little of that as well. It's funny that we only get six half hour episodes of comedies each year if we're lucky and people just accept that. I guess we've just been spoilt in the past few years
Comments
Thank you, ukgome, that is exactly what I meant.
I do not get on with pivot tables, though.
I know why you've done it. I understand it. It's a "so far". Arbitrarily choosing to use the tenth against the eleventh and arbitrarily choosing not to wait until Eleventh has had the same duration in the job.
People don't consume the show in "minutes per day". They watch episodes that are grouped into series. The tenth Doctor got his first three series out much more efficiently than the Eleventh. What I've been doing is showing alternative ways of framing the questions, answers and conclusions.
However, when thinking about how much Doctor Who people have seen recently, they are far more likely to compare it with how much they got last year than an arbitrarily chosen number of minutes per day.
How many "minutes per day" of Who are we getting in 2012? That's the pont here (if there is a point to this absurd discussion!) We are getting LESS WHO in 2012 than in any year since 2005 bar the specials year. Period. It's like saying we are getting more Who than we did in 1962, so we should be happy and not say that we're getting less than we've grown used to. LUDICROUS! :rolleyes:
Yes, i did read and understand the opening post and the ones following it. Trumpeting a ten percent "gain" so far is a bit odd when you know full well that your gain is almost certainly going to be wiped out by the time the two points of conplarison (duration in role) level out.
I didn't question the maths. I questioned the conclusion we were invited to draw from it. And showed other ways of comparing.
It's a bit like the chancellor showing off that in his first day in office he has spent a billion pounds on hospitals. His predecessor didn't spend an average of a bilion pounds per day on hospitals. So what a fantastic state everything is in. But he chose to make his speech on day one, knowing full well he wasn't going to spend like that again for the foreseeable.
Yes. The number of qualifiers you have had to use show why using calendar years is not a fair method of comparison, due to the large variance.
That would not be an average. It is only one data point.
*sigh*
then he spends a billion pounds on day one and day two. And says his government manages an average of a billion pounds a day. knowing full well he won't be spending at that rate beyond this.
Let's remember that all statistics can be manipulated and changed, but they exist nonetheless and are still relevant to the factors that were used/ considered.
At the same time, we are getting less Who by year alone.
Both sides are right, let's stop it at that
Fair enough but who averages out their Who intake into minutes per day?
David Tennant is 6'1" but Matt Smith is only 5'11" therefore we got more Doctor on screen during the Tenth Doctor years.
I'm not looking at it as a biitch about which doctor is doing better (or production team). I'm just interested in whether the use of that particular statistic has any meaning at all. It seems the answer is "very little".
In that case we got 114.494 inches of Doctor per minute per day during the 10th Doctor's time, and 122.750 during the 11th Doctor's time.
We are getting less Who this year than normal. But not if you're going from the Creation. That's 100%, unavoidably, unarguably true. Take your minutes-per-day and your silly argument and get a life - which is what I should be doing instead of getting drawn into this cavalcade of absurdity.
What does "FFS" mean?
But trying to make it look like there hasn't been a bit of a muddle with the scheduling is always going to attract interest.
"So far".
FFS =/= a personal insult to another member of the forum. "Get a life" does.
Thanks to the OP for taking the time to calculate all of that, it's all nonsense of course, but thanks anyway
I'm a simple man and I judge whether I am seeing more or less of something by what has actually been broadcast on any given year, (which for arguments sake I take to start on January 1st and end on December 31st).
For example in 2010, there were 15 episodes of Doctor Who, five of which were over 45 minutes! Not to mention Doctor Who confidential, The Sarah Jane Adventures and probably a load of tardisodes and other related programs.
This year we had Pond Life, 5 regular episodes and a Christmas special to come. That's it! No amount of mind boggling maths can cover that up.
I would hope that we get more in 2013, but I seriously doubt it will be enough to make up for what we lost this year.
I remember I was pleasantly surprised when it was announced that Doctor Who would be returning with a 13 episode run in 2005. I assumed that they would start off with a much smaller number but then I read that it is easier to sell 13 episodes overseas than smaller series.
A lot of people compare UK series to US series in these threads, which is about as much use as comparing a grape to an apple. I don't know how many episodes are usually produced for other drama series because the only other UK drama that I really watch is Sherlock and I know we get precious little of that as well. It's funny that we only get six half hour episodes of comedies each year if we're lucky and people just accept that. I guess we've just been spoilt in the past few years