In the 24 months following the end of Series 6 there'll have been one series broadcast. Dress it up any way you like, but that's the reality.
I am confused. 24 months after The Wedding of River Song is 01/10/2013. We have not reached that date, so we can not say how much Doctor Who will have been shown by then?
You said "If you pick and choose your points of comparison you can prove anything you want."
You can also do this if you assume things that help your arguement.
Tell you what Bombyx, a really fair way to do this so no one can argue, is to look at how many minutes the tenth Doctor had on screen vs Matt Smith -- but with the same number of days.
i.e you say MS has had something like 900+ days so far? That would be a good number for comparison
You said nothings changed when it quite cleary has.
Historically Doctor Who has 13 episodes a year starting in March/April. This was the case up until 2009 when it was just specials, and true again until this year when the series was put back to the September, and also split into 2, the latter half screening, when series 8 should historically have been starting. Yes we are getting the same number of episodes per series filming wise, but moving it to September and splitting it into 2 is a change.
It could also easily be viewed as series 7 being only 5 episodes long and late, and series 8 only having 8 episodes, as series 7-b is airing when series 8 should be. Obviously it was all filmed at the same time so it's series 7 but the fact remains, we were about 6 months behind when series 7 started, and will be a whole year out of date by the time it finishes. Maybe Series 8 will have an entire 13 episode run in September 2013, but I doubt it.
If you look at next year then, yes, the whole "we are living in fantastic times for fans who add up all the minutes Who is on screen" rather falls apart. They've still been producing the same amount of episodes (do I have to qualify that by mentioning the 2009 gap year?) which is what I was pointing out.
The broadcast schedule is a mess, I agree, so neither of you have any need to assume I'm defending the BBC on this. However, feel free to make up in your head what you think I'm saying - I couldn't care less.
I am confused. 24 months after The Wedding of River Song is 01/10/2013. We have not reached that date, so we can not say how much Doctor Who will have been shown by then?
It's been confimed by Caroline Skinner that the second half of Series 7 won't air until next Spring, so that'll be sometime between March and May going by the BBC's definition of the seasons.
It's been confimed by Matt Smith that the next thing they shoot will be the Anniversary Special and that that won't happen until (once again) next Spring.
So where exactly would these additional episodes that would air between the end of Series 7 and the Anniversary be coming from, unless in a tribute to the series origins they're going to record them "as live" a week or two before transmission?
I think we should ask Tim Harford at More or Less (radio 4) to judge. . Awesome use of maths, or statistical sleight of hand to reach a predetermined conclusion?
Tell you what Bombyx, a really fair way to do this so no one can argue, is to look at how many minutes the tenth Doctor had on screen vs Matt Smith -- but with the same number of days.
i.e you say MS has had something like 900+ days so far? That would be a good number for comparison
There is no fair way of doing it, as the entire concept is flawed. The thread is about if we are getting less Doctor Who, but is then comparing 2 different actors when they both played the same role.
To find the answer all you need to do is list the years, then the episodes shown in that year, put it into minutes if it makes you feel more geeky. However it really isn't needed, it's quite clear than 5 episodes in 2012 is 9 short of the 14 we've had in 2010 and 2011 and therefore we are getting less Doctor Who, so no it isn't wrong to say that we are getting less.
So the current Doctor might just possibly squeze ahead in average minutes per day compared with a Doctor who had a handful of specials instead of a final series. But this marginal lead might realistically be lost by the time we get to November?
I'm not quite sure what has been shown. Are we saying that its lucky for the current producers that Tennant didn't make a full last series? That in future all they need do is make 181 minutes per year to satisfy the audience?
No, If they did that then the average would be very low.
If you are doing average minutes a day, probably best to do from 2006 series two episode one to 2008 Christmas special.
Compare that with 2010 series 5 episode one up to 2012 Christmas special. What does that look like?
New Earth to The Next Doctor is 986 days and 1,989 minutes for an average of 2.017 minutes per day.
The Eleventh Hour to Christmas 2012 could be 998 days and 1635 minutes for an average of 1.638 minutes per day.
The big difference is because you have eliminated every large gap in the 10th Doctor's time for no reason, and none in the 11th Doctor's. Therefore the numbers do not reflect what actually happened and do not really mean anything.
Tell you what Bombyx, a really fair way to do this so no one can argue, is to look at how many minutes the tenth Doctor had on screen vs Matt Smith -- but with the same number of days.
i.e you say MS has had something like 900+ days so far? That would be a good number for comparison
I think that the problem with that is that it depends where you start measuring the 10th Doctor's time.
From The Eleventh Hour to The Angels Take Manhattan is 911 days.
911 days after The Christmas Invasion would be just after Turn Left. There were 1,879 minutes of the 10th Doctor in that period, for an average of 2.063 minutes per day.
911 days before The End of Time, Part Two was just after Last of the Time Lords. There were 1,007 minutes of the 10th Doctor in that period, for an average of 1.105 minutes per day.
I don't see how you are making assessments of whether my suggested point of comparison is less fair than yours? It's all arbitrary and should only be done for fun.
My suggestion showed that given two equal timeframes in which to present three series, the tenth Doctor showed us much more. This doesn't seem to be a palatable answer for you, so you've added the next year - where the tenth Doctor ran out of puff and damaged his per day average. Hurray! This helps the eleventh Doctor storm into a marginal lead. If you squint the right way.
There is no fair way of doing it, as the entire concept is flawed. The thread is about if we are getting less Doctor Who, but is then comparing 2 different actors when they both played the same role.
To find the answer all you need to do is list the years, then the episodes shown in that year, put it into minutes if it makes you feel more geeky. However it really isn't needed, it's quite clear than 5 episodes in 2012 is 9 short of the 14 we've had in 2010 and 2011 and therefore we are getting less Doctor Who, so no it isn't wrong to say that we are getting less.
Hello
We are getting 6 episodes in 2012 and got 15 in 2010.
I am not saying that 6 is more than 14 or 15. I am showing that so far we have had more Doctor Who per day in the 11th Doctor's time than in the 10th Doctor's time.
There is too much variation in the amount per calendar year to use it for meaningful comparison.
At what point did all the fun of being a Whovian get sucked away?:(
I like examples of the use and misuse of statistics. I think it can be fun. But these kind of numbers shouldn't be used to tell people they are wrong about things.
Far better to accept we've had five good episodes and that's that. Roll on next year (I won't say roll on Christmas in case Lach doch mal starts squeeing again.
I don't see how you are making assessments of whether my suggested point of comparison is less fair than yours? It's all arbitrary and should only be done for fun.
My suggestion showed that given two equal timeframes in which to present three series, the tenth Doctor showed us much more. This doesn't seem to be a palatable answer for you, so you've added the next year - where the tenth Doctor ran out of puff and damaged his per day average. Hurray! This helps the eleventh Doctor storm into a marginal lead. If you squint the right way.
This sort of thing should be done for fun only.
I am afraid that I do not understand your point.
I have not picked any arbitrary limits. My figures show what was actually broadcast, up to the most recent episode.
We are getting 6 episodes in 2012 and got 15 in 2010.
I am not saying that 6 is more than 14 or 15. I am showing that so far we have had more Doctor Who per day in the 11th Doctor's time than in the 10th Doctor's time.
There is too much variation in the amount per calendar year to use it for meaningful comparison.
Two days is not that much over three years. Heck, add or remove those two days from one or the other if you want to balance it.
What you have shown is that side by side in terms of "ability to put out full series", the tenth Doctor was way ahead of the Eleventh doctor at equal points on their career. By the time the Eleventh catches up with the Eleventh Doctor he will have needed about five more months to get there. Tortoise and the Hare.
Luckily for Eleven, Ten ran out of steam in his fourth year and gives Eleven time to catch up. But.....bit in doubt because Eleven might be taking a holiday until November.
I have not picked any arbitrary limits. My figures show what was actually broadcast, up to the most recent episode.
In choosing to use the full four and a bit year career of the Tenth Doctor to compare
with the first three years of the Eleventh you have adopted an arbitrary cut off.
As you saw, when you project the likely outcome of 2013 (based on not unreasonable assumptions) things turn on their heads.
If you are interested in fairness and don't want to project, you are too early to make the calculations.
Well considering Dr Who took about a year and a half break after David Tennant quit, it's hardly surprising the averages look like that. We only got about 4 episodes that year.
What an absurd post! Clearly we have lost a season - had the series continued to premier in March as it did for the first 6 seasons, and had we not had this ridiculous gap in this season, then season 7 would have been done and dusted, series 8 would be well into production, and we'd be looking forward to seeing that in Spring 2013. As it is, series 7 will not end until early summer 2013. The only way to catch up is if there is a full season autumn 2013, and I suspect that's unlikely - I have a terrible feeling that this glorious 50th celebration will comprise of one special and a Xmas special for 2013. :-(
I like examples of the use and misuse of statistics. I think it can be fun. But these kind of numbers shouldn't be used to tell people they are wrong about things.
Far better to accept we've had five good episodes and that's that. Roll on next year (I won't say roll on Christmas in case Lach doch mal starts squeeing again.
*shrugs* Maybe. I guess I'm just from that era when we watched the lifeblood being drained from our favourite escape, when rolling a die was as good a predictor of what time you could catch the show as any (without the benefit of iPlayer etc), when instead of making sweets out the aliens (Dalek Death Rays) they made the aliens out of sweets...
Besides, there's LOADS more Dr. Who on TV now than ever. If you include the inordinate number, length and complexity of the trailers, sneakers and previews. Except Confidential's not on anymore...
In choosing to use the full four and a bit year career of the Tenth Doctor to compare
with the first three years of the Eleventh you have adopted an arbitrary cut off.
As you saw, when you project the likely outcome of 2013 (based on not unreasonable assumptions) things turn on their heads.
If you are interested in fairness and don't want to project, you are too early to make the calculations.
The present is not an arbritray cut off. It is the current end of the data.
Numbers based on actual data will always be more valid than numbers based on projections.
The present is not an arbritray cut off. It is the current end of the data.
Numbers based on actual data will always be more valid than numbers based on projections.
Your choice to USE the present as at this date is arbitrary. As Chairman Mao said "it is too early to tell".
If you want to see how well the Eleventh Doctor does in four calendar years compared with the tenth Doctors four calendar years, do your calculations on 2nd January 2014.
The tenth Doctor was at full steam after three years. Poor old Eleven has taken his holiday early.
*shrugs* Maybe. I guess I'm just from that era when we watched the lifeblood being drained from our favourite escape, when rolling a die was as good a predictor of what time you could catch the show as any (without the benefit of iPlayer etc), when instead of making sweets out the aliens (Dalek Death Rays) they made the aliens out of sweets...
Besides, there's LOADS more Dr. Who on TV now than ever. If you include the inordinate number, length and complexity of the trailers, sneakers and previews. Except Confidential's not on anymore...
I certaiinly agree with that. They'll have series 8 back to a full unbroken run showing in 2014. My prediction. This year is just a blip like 2009 was.
Your choice to USE the present as at this date is arbitrary. As Chairman Mao said "it is too early to tell".
If you want to see how well the Eleventh Doctor does in four calendar years compared with the tenth Doctors four calendar years, do your calculations on 2nd January 2014.
The tenth Doctor was at full steam after three years. Poor old Eleven has taken his holiday early.
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.
Your choice to USE the present as at this date is arbitrary. As Chairman Mao said "it is too early to tell".
If you want to see how well the Eleventh Doctor does in four calendar years compared with the tenth Doctors four calendar years, do your calculations on 2nd January 2014.
The tenth Doctor was at full steam after three years. Poor old Eleven has taken his holiday early.
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.
Comments
I am confused. 24 months after The Wedding of River Song is 01/10/2013. We have not reached that date, so we can not say how much Doctor Who will have been shown by then?
You said "If you pick and choose your points of comparison you can prove anything you want."
You can also do this if you assume things that help your arguement.
I hope I have avoided this by only using facts.
i.e you say MS has had something like 900+ days so far? That would be a good number for comparison
If you look at next year then, yes, the whole "we are living in fantastic times for fans who add up all the minutes Who is on screen" rather falls apart. They've still been producing the same amount of episodes (do I have to qualify that by mentioning the 2009 gap year?) which is what I was pointing out.
The broadcast schedule is a mess, I agree, so neither of you have any need to assume I'm defending the BBC on this. However, feel free to make up in your head what you think I'm saying - I couldn't care less.
It's been confimed by Caroline Skinner that the second half of Series 7 won't air until next Spring, so that'll be sometime between March and May going by the BBC's definition of the seasons.
It's been confimed by Matt Smith that the next thing they shoot will be the Anniversary Special and that that won't happen until (once again) next Spring.
So where exactly would these additional episodes that would air between the end of Series 7 and the Anniversary be coming from, unless in a tribute to the series origins they're going to record them "as live" a week or two before transmission?
I think we should ask Tim Harford at More or Less (radio 4) to judge.
There is no fair way of doing it, as the entire concept is flawed. The thread is about if we are getting less Doctor Who, but is then comparing 2 different actors when they both played the same role.
To find the answer all you need to do is list the years, then the episodes shown in that year, put it into minutes if it makes you feel more geeky. However it really isn't needed, it's quite clear than 5 episodes in 2012 is 9 short of the 14 we've had in 2010 and 2011 and therefore we are getting less Doctor Who, so no it isn't wrong to say that we are getting less.
I agree with Davros. (not the mass murder stuff, just the statistics).
If you don't want to include 2013 speculations then you should use a better like for like comparison. For example the above.
No, If they did that then the average would be very low.
New Earth to The Next Doctor is 986 days and 1,989 minutes for an average of 2.017 minutes per day.
The Eleventh Hour to Christmas 2012 could be 998 days and 1635 minutes for an average of 1.638 minutes per day.
The big difference is because you have eliminated every large gap in the 10th Doctor's time for no reason, and none in the 11th Doctor's. Therefore the numbers do not reflect what actually happened and do not really mean anything.
Hello and thank you both.
I think that the problem with that is that it depends where you start measuring the 10th Doctor's time.
From The Eleventh Hour to The Angels Take Manhattan is 911 days.
911 days after The Christmas Invasion would be just after Turn Left. There were 1,879 minutes of the 10th Doctor in that period, for an average of 2.063 minutes per day.
911 days before The End of Time, Part Two was just after Last of the Time Lords. There were 1,007 minutes of the 10th Doctor in that period, for an average of 1.105 minutes per day.
So I think an average over total time is fairer.
My suggestion showed that given two equal timeframes in which to present three series, the tenth Doctor showed us much more. This doesn't seem to be a palatable answer for you, so you've added the next year - where the tenth Doctor ran out of puff and damaged his per day average. Hurray! This helps the eleventh Doctor storm into a marginal lead. If you squint the right way.
This sort of thing should be done for fun only.
Hello
We are getting 6 episodes in 2012 and got 15 in 2010.
I am not saying that 6 is more than 14 or 15. I am showing that so far we have had more Doctor Who per day in the 11th Doctor's time than in the 10th Doctor's time.
There is too much variation in the amount per calendar year to use it for meaningful comparison.
I like examples of the use and misuse of statistics. I think it can be fun. But these kind of numbers shouldn't be used to tell people they are wrong about things.
Far better to accept we've had five good episodes and that's that. Roll on next year (I won't say roll on Christmas in case Lach doch mal starts squeeing again.
I am afraid that I do not understand your point.
I have not picked any arbitrary limits. My figures show what was actually broadcast, up to the most recent episode.
Two days is not that much over three years. Heck, add or remove those two days from one or the other if you want to balance it.
What you have shown is that side by side in terms of "ability to put out full series", the tenth Doctor was way ahead of the Eleventh doctor at equal points on their career. By the time the Eleventh catches up with the Eleventh Doctor he will have needed about five more months to get there. Tortoise and the Hare.
Luckily for Eleven, Ten ran out of steam in his fourth year and gives Eleven time to catch up. But.....bit in doubt because Eleven might be taking a holiday until November.
In choosing to use the full four and a bit year career of the Tenth Doctor to compare
with the first three years of the Eleventh you have adopted an arbitrary cut off.
As you saw, when you project the likely outcome of 2013 (based on not unreasonable assumptions) things turn on their heads.
If you are interested in fairness and don't want to project, you are too early to make the calculations.
*shrugs* Maybe. I guess I'm just from that era when we watched the lifeblood being drained from our favourite escape, when rolling a die was as good a predictor of what time you could catch the show as any (without the benefit of iPlayer etc), when instead of making sweets out the aliens (Dalek Death Rays) they made the aliens out of sweets...
Besides, there's LOADS more Dr. Who on TV now than ever. If you include the inordinate number, length and complexity of the trailers, sneakers and previews. Except Confidential's not on anymore...
The present is not an arbritray cut off. It is the current end of the data.
Numbers based on actual data will always be more valid than numbers based on projections.
Your choice to USE the present as at this date is arbitrary. As Chairman Mao said "it is too early to tell".
If you want to see how well the Eleventh Doctor does in four calendar years compared with the tenth Doctors four calendar years, do your calculations on 2nd January 2014.
The tenth Doctor was at full steam after three years. Poor old Eleven has taken his holiday early.
I certaiinly agree with that. They'll have series 8 back to a full unbroken run showing in 2014. My prediction. This year is just a blip like 2009 was.
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.
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.