You'll find them under this week's scripts which are in a box marked 'Crap'.

Is it the weekend already?

I was thinking exactly the same thing. It like a revolving door of poor excuses and differing opinions that just keeps on turning.

In other news the BBQ's planned for the 8pm to 10pm block are off due to the rain.

Maybe just say for XF... 6.4m (not good), 6.7m (OK), 7m (happy). Clearly if it hits 8m peak then that's a positive too.
It should be around 35% share after SCD finishes.

2015 'doesn't count'...? So let's just exclude a year because of it's completely terrible performance...

I honestly don't know who's worse on this thread, those who say X Factor is performing "very poorly" or those who just ignore certain facts to religiously defend the show.

If one year's format was completely different to the other ones, we can't really use it to accurately judge the popularity of judges' houses. That's like comparing the sales of normal potatoes to the sales of sweet potatoes - not really the same thing.

Well yes, you can. Last year, the show was called 'The X Factor'. This year, it has the same name. 2015 had some changes, but it was clearly the same show.

Well that's similar to saying "this desktop PC and mobile phone are both made by Microsoft, therefore we can use one to predict the sales of another".

It's the same TV show though, mobiles and computers are not the same. That comparison is not in the slightest bit similar to X Factor from one year to the next. Had 2015 performed spectacularly well, you would of course want the figures excluded wouldn't you?

It's like saying this iPhone 8s is an update of iPhone 8 and so we can expect the sales to be similar. If you're discounting a show because it went live then you might as well discount shows because the judges were different or the auditions were in arenas.

I suppose that's life! Drama after drama after drama has never been realistic and actually loses its punch if its relentless-its like watching a poster campaign for the BBC action line sometimes(Waterloo Road was the world record holder in that respect). The problem with soaps is how to fill the small talk time engagingly. Eastenders problem is that there is so much backstory woe that its hard to introduce much light. I would imagine we all know someone who is good with words, makes people laugh with observations and gentle ribbing and who don't have dreadful histories bringing them constantly down. Id would rather have a few well written characters without skeletons in closets to bring a bit of light relief.

Judge Rinder on second to last on SCD? I wonder why?

He isn't on last.

The Our Girl re-commision discussion is interesting.

It must be at least as expensive as Our Zoo and yet doing much the same ratings wise.

That, as we know, was axed, prematurely in my view with the argument about cost and making way for new shows excuse. Whilst its AIs were excellent.

I suspect Our Girl will not be axed so quickly at this level. And I think series 2 has been a step up from series 1 even if the AIs are not as good.

But it rather shows how decisions about scheduling and cancellation are not as easy as they look and how dependent they might be on whether the person making them is a fan of the show or not.

I don't think Our Girl will get a recommission. To BBC1 it will be a weak drama that will not deliver the ratings for them in a competitive slot for a 3rd series. If it had competition on ITV it would likely be around 3.5m.

No, it really isn't the same thing.

You can't discount a year of TXF just because the facts of it don't suit your agenda. By that measure, lets discount SCD's 2009 series because that was a duff one.

What an outlandish, pathetic argument.

Having a completely different format for a stage in the competition is clearly going to affect its popularity. Surprised nobody sees this on here.

Oh....landed in the XF Forum by mistake, can someone redirect me to The Ratings Thread.

I find it strange people posting about a show they like, when it is on? I didn't post on these forums for two hours whilst watching and enjoying SCD.

But that doesn't mean that comparisons can't be made with last year. If anything, the slightly different format makes the comparison even more valid.

Next you'll be saying that we can't compare an episode with a corresponding one from another year because that started at 8:05pm, whereas this one started at 8:00pm.

Completely bonkers!

Adverts?
Pausing live TV?
Recording it to watch later?
Liking the show but not being so in to it that you can't do two things at once?

I find it strange when people relentlessly talk about a show they supposedly hate.

Actually third to last. Daisy Lowe and Danny Mac after him

Judge Rinder on third to last. I wonder why.

True but that's the whole success story of X Factor and Simon Cowell isn't it? Love it or hate it, at its very best it just couldn't be ignored.

If the point was to observe how cunning and sneaky the BBC are at organising the Strictly line-up so that the most talked-about dances overlap with The X Factor, it would have just been simpler to say that Judge Rinder's dance was on between 20:00-20:05.

And since when was Judge Rinder a superstar anyway?