OORick
You and what army? 
Posts 2098
Registered 12-27-2001 Location - The Birthplace of Aviation Member Is Offline Mood: Foo'd
|
| posted on 6-19-2009 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
OOfficial Guidelines for TV Ratings/Discussion Threads
Want to help declare a weekly winner in an informal "Battle of the Brands" (among RAW, ECW, TNA, and SmackDown)? Then dig in and let your voice be
heard in our OOfficial Ratings/Discussion threads.
To play along, you should find the official thread of the show you want to discuss (pinned at the top of this forum for the entirety of the week of
its airing), and then give us your numerical rating for the show (from a low of 0.0 to a high of 5.0, with any increment of one-tenth of a
point being valid), along with all the standard back-and-forth discussion of the show's highlights and lowlights. These ratings will be
collected and averaged every Sunday afternoon to determine a winner in the revived "Battle of the Brands" (see OO Main Page, left hand column).
Ratings Guidance. The 0.0-5.0 ratings spectrum was conceived of as a faux Nielsen Ratings system, just measuring show quality, rather than
viewership. It was devised when RAW and SD were the only two shows on TV, and were roughly equal in the ratings (where over a 4.0 was really good, low
3's were "expected," and anything outside that range a reason to perk up and take notice one way or the other). Think about this as giving the
rating the show "deserves" to get according to that scale. Think about this when making your ratings:
- Consider a 5.0 to be an almost unattainable "perfect storm" of awesome (not just a well-put-together show, but almost certainly
requiring something special/unique in the form of "stunt booking"). If it happens, it'll be remembered fondly and with clarity for years to
come.
- A 4.0 should be considered "as good as we can reasonably hope for"; this is an excellent show in the "Sustainable Episodic Television" mold,
with nothing special or fancy. A lot of fun in and of itself, and also with enough juice to get you pumped for tuning in again next time.
- A 3.0 is where cracks begin to appear, and is more of a show in the vein of "the sort of episode we've come to expect"; this sort of show
does what it needs to, but without any real sizzle; it isn't counter-productive at all, but it will also be forgotten very quickly.
- A 2.0 is a show that has more misses than hits, and falls below any fair expectations; this is a show that will still have SOME redeeming
qualities, although it's also a show that you'd prefer to watch on DVR with a fast-forward button at your command.
- A 1.0 is a genuinely poor show that whiffs in pretty much every possible category (limited in-ring displays of skill, clunky and possibly counter
productive promo/storyline work); this is a show that genuinely makes you feel like you wasted your time by tuning in.
- And of course, a 0.0 is the polar opposite "perfect storm" of suck; this would be an almost unattainable level of poorness where a show actually
seems to be trying to antagonize you rather than entertain you. If it happens, it, too, is the sort of show that will be talked about for
years.
Though all seriously-proffered ratings will count in our calculations, please know that the stance of OO is that you're a tard if you go all
"Torch Wanker" and start handing out 0.8 ratings to a show that did not, objectively, do anything to antagonize you. The same thing applies at the
high end of the ratings scale. Shows outside of the 1.0-to-4.0 range are, by the definitions supplied above, uncommon freaks of nature that will not
be soon forgotten and which should inspire record levels of discussion and debate, and NOT inspire the eleventy-billionth half-assed indictment of
John Cena's superman act or other wankery complaints that are often heard on a weekly basis.
So please: this is Online Onslaught, and not Dipshit Sportstalk Radio. Here, spouting ill-informed hyperbole and trying to do it more frequently and
in a louder voice than anybody who disagrees with you will NOT result in you "winning" the argument. You'll just look kind of stupid, and I
might even point you out in a Main Page column or blurb as a particularly impressive example of an asshat. Keep this in mind.
And threats of mocking aside: I do hope you'll enjoy playing along and engaging in some of the intarwebs most-level-headed discourse on whats
working and not working these four nights per week on RAW, ECW, Impact, and SmackDown.
Discuss, debate, and rate, OO Nation!
Rick
"He's from Mars, Officer; whiskey does not affect alien beings."
-- Venus Flytrap speaking on The Rick
|
|
|
doctorb
 
Posts 1265
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline Mood: need coffee
|
| posted on 6-19-2009 at 10:28 PM |
|
|
My expectations of TNA are higher than of Raw. I'm genuinely not sure if and average TNA show should get a 3.0 and an average Raw also get a
3.0, or if Raw should get closer to a 2 simply because I don't enjoy it as much, both of them being exactly what I expect, of course.
To put it another way, I expect Raw to have more misses than hits and wish I had it on dvr to fast forward through. Since that's my expectation,
is that a 2 or a 3?
Or am I making a game too complicated?
The "B" is for Bargain!
|
|
|
OORick
You and what army?
Posts 2098
Registered 12-27-2001 Location - The Birthplace of Aviation Member Is Offline Mood: Foo'd
|
| posted on 6-22-2009 at 03:48 AM |
|
|
I'd like the brand ratings to have meaning when compared to each other, so some kind of relativistic thing based on your expectations that RAW
will suck or TNA will be wankerrific or whatever is bad.
If I took out "type of show that you've come to expect" and replaced it with "type of show that you were perfectly happy to invest your time
in," would that get us part of the way towards clearing things up?
I don't mean for this to be too complicated, but I *do* like the idea of people thinking about their ratings and sticking to some of the
guidelines I've set out. So if you promise to take things seriously (and respect the over-4.0/under-1.0 ratings as freaks of nature that require
copious discussion/explanation), I promise to try to re-write and clarify these guidelines until we're all on the same page.
Rick
"He's from Mars, Officer; whiskey does not affect alien beings."
-- Venus Flytrap speaking on The Rick
|
|
|
doctorb
Posts 1265
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline Mood: need coffee
|
| posted on 6-22-2009 at 03:15 PM |
|
|
That change would make it perfectly clear for me. Or just the knowledge that my "expectations" should be a constant across all brands is good enough
- since you answered my question I don't need to see the change, and since I'm the only 1) anal retentive nitpicker or 2) dipwit that
can't see what the goal is supposed to be; then the matter might be settled.
Thanks!
The "B" is for Bargain!
|
|
|
|
