Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 4]
Discussion
Shakermaker said:
You are suggesting they don't record the "No, I don't listen to the radio" answers?
But if BBC R2 gets c. 9 million listeners, at peak, and its leagues ahead of anything else, the numbers don't add up to 66 million however you count them, it must account for the "no" people in the model?
Some of them, certainly. Figures will be adjusted to make them look favourable.But if BBC R2 gets c. 9 million listeners, at peak, and its leagues ahead of anything else, the numbers don't add up to 66 million however you count them, it must account for the "no" people in the model?
When your job relies on getting people to buy something, you're going to lie or get beaten by someone else who's willing to lie.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
As a side note, this is why Sky always used to insist that you connected a phone line to your Sky box - it allowed it to (literally) phone home with your viewing figures.
Does more than that!The ads you see on Sky are unique to your demographic. Someone else watching the same ad break will see a completely different set of adverts unless they’re in the same target demographic as you.
When a new advert is to be aired, that advert is uploaded, via broadband, to your box (technically, it’s Sky’s box so they can do this as it’s their property). Because you have subscribed, it knows your demographic so knows the box to send the ad to. When an ad break starts, a code is transmitted via the dish to instruct the box to play the adverts that are stored on it. It then tells Sky (via the broadband link) whether you skipped, paused or let the advert play, data which is then used to inform the advertiser of their stats.
(I’m on a roll today! I’ll keep it going!)….
captain_cynic said:
Hence I consider listener (and veiwership) numbers to be highly suspect. You lead with "do you listen to the radio" before giving them the survey so you can reduce the number of negative answers and have a larger number of people with which to extrapolate total numbers. Any statistic gleaned by survey and extrapolation is far too easy to game to be considered reliable. Especially when marketing professionals are involved.
Figures may not lie, but liars figure as the old adage goes.
(I used to run a radio station)Figures may not lie, but liars figure as the old adage goes.
RAJAR is the organisation that collects the data.
captain_cynic said:
When your job relies on getting people to buy something, you're going to lie or get beaten by someone else who's willing to lie.
RAJAR is an independent organisation authorised by the government to collect listener information and the only source from which stations can obtain listener numbers officially – so the only ones that count. RAJAR collect their fees regardless of whether a station has 10 listeners or 10 million. The results are also subject to verification by OfCOM. There is no benefit to RAJAR whatsoever to fudge the figures.
Stations might choose to but they are subject massive fines if they are caught. Some have but is very rare as its very easy to spot.
The figures themselves are remarkably accurate.
Providing the sampling is sound, the margin of error is exceptionally small.
Without getting into the technicals and maths, this means is that if you ask 100 40 year old men earning £50k a year with university education living in the South East a set of questions, their answers will be representative of 99% of all 40 year old men earning £50k a year with university education living in the South East. The formulae that prevail over this have been proven robust many times.
As more and more people listen online, it’s easier to get the numbers. Shoutcast and other platforms show the number of people that have opened and are using the listen-live panel and various apps provide numbers to the station.
StevieBee said:
There is no benefit to RAJAR whatsoever to fudge the figures.
Except their jobs. As always, who is paying for it? You mentioned that the radio stations have to pay fees to them.
Any statistic based on extrapolation is going to be suspect. You cannot simply take a sample of 100 40 yr olds and expect that to scale out to a million... You couldn't even do that with a sample size of 1000 as there are too many unknown variables when you're only counting 1 in 1000. One of the biggest problems you have in survey based data... is that it relies on the kind of people who volunteer to do surveys. That alone reduces the variables you can count and control.
It reminds me of the time they tried to figure out what the average Briton was like. They took thousands of points of data from across the country, physical data, socio-economic data, so on and so forth to determine what the most average person was... the problem is that once they determined this average person they found practically no-one matched it.
Don't worry, you don't need to go into the specifics, I already understand how this kind of extrapolation works and why it is inherently inaccurate. Nielsen has the same problem. It gets used because doing a more reliable form of data collection is too expensive.
captain_cynic said:
It reminds me of the time they tried to figure out what the average Briton was like. They took thousands of points of data from across the country, physical data, socio-economic data, so on and so forth to determine what the most average person was... the problem is that once they determined this average person they found practically no-one matched it.
Interestingly, the US Air Force did something similar once (1950's? Maybe 1960's?) where they took data from all their pilots and created a mock-up cockpit that should fit the average pilot and were rather surprised that it didn't fit anyone. Not one person. 
captain_cynic said:
Except their jobs.
As always, who is paying for it? You mentioned that the radio stations have to pay fees to them.
Stations have to subscribe to the service. The lowest fee level was £8k a year which only got you limited data insight. RAJAR people keep their jobs regardless of statistics they provide. The rate isn't performance related.As always, who is paying for it? You mentioned that the radio stations have to pay fees to them.
If CynicFM got their annual RAJAR figures that showed only 10 listeners, you'd still have to pay them and what that would amount to is the same if it had 1million listeners.
Now CynicFM may choose to fudge the figures, but that's the radio station doing so, not the originators of the data. And as I mentioned, it is very difficult to do this without getting found out.
Research originated data is never 100% but the art is getting it to the point where it is meaningful and useful. The risks to companies and institutions in using deliberately skewed data for commercial gain is normally greater than the commercial gain that could be achieved.
If CynicFM convinced a company to run an ad on the basis of it having 1million listeners and that company did so only to have no additional website visitors, enquiries or whatever, that company may be inclined to question the station's claim on having 1million listeners and find that it only had 10.
For this reason, it's very much a self-regulating endeavour.....but is also heavily regulated just to be safe.
Where your cynicism is just is where people use selective data. This is very common, particularly in politics. There was a case recently of a UKIP chap on the TV stating that only 9% of Scottish exports are to the EU. That was drawn from stats that showed 9% of Scottish companies export to the EU but those exports represented 70% of total Scottish exports by value. (I may be guilty of my own cynicism as I can't remember the exact stats but you get the gist - one data set is completely meaningless but useful if presented in a particular way).
StevieBee said:
(I may be guilty of my own cynicism as I can't remember the exact stats but you get the gist - one data set is completely meaningless but useful if presented in a particular way).
As the old saying goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."Clockwork Cupcake said:
StevieBee said:
(I may be guilty of my own cynicism as I can't remember the exact stats but you get the gist - one data set is completely meaningless but useful if presented in a particular way).
As the old saying goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Something about cheques being posted and not arriving in a partner's mouth as well, I believe!gothatway said:
How do Barclays PINSentry and similar card readers from other banks work ? I know I can use my card in readers from several banks, so assume that there is nothing account-(or bank-)specific within the card reader. I also assume that the reader reads and updates data on the card's chip but have read that there is no clock involved so codes generated do not time-expire. If I generated several eight-digit codes in succession without signing on to my account, could I then use any of them to get in, or only the latest ? How does the online system know which one is valid ?
Ive read the whole thread and no answer to this yet. Would be interested to know myself too!CopperBolt said:
gothatway said:
How do Barclays PINSentry and similar card readers from other banks work ? I know I can use my card in readers from several banks, so assume that there is nothing account-(or bank-)specific within the card reader. I also assume that the reader reads and updates data on the card's chip but have read that there is no clock involved so codes generated do not time-expire. If I generated several eight-digit codes in succession without signing on to my account, could I then use any of them to get in, or only the latest ? How does the online system know which one is valid ?
Ive read the whole thread and no answer to this yet. Would be interested to know myself too!They give you a code to enter, which sets off an algorithm, and gives you an answer to put in which is verified as the correct answer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Authentication_...
How many coachbuilders does the UK have for fitting out Ambulances? Browsing classifieds I often see the same "box" on the back, and also note that you don"t see the same shapes tgat you used to.
Is the whole luton-esque box part bought in from China tgese days or are they still coachbuilt specials?
Is the whole luton-esque box part bought in from China tgese days or are they still coachbuilt specials?
glazbagun said:
How many coachbuilders does the UK have for fitting out Ambulances? Browsing classifieds I often see the same "box" on the back, and also note that you don"t see the same shapes tgat you used to.
Is the whole luton-esque box part bought in from China tgese days or are they still coachbuilt specials?
I dont know the answer but they have a cat flap in them for the bin. An actual branded cat flap.Is the whole luton-esque box part bought in from China tgese days or are they still coachbuilt specials?
vonuber said:
How much of how someone looks is inheritable?
I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
Related question. How many generations can you go back and still expect to have more genes in common with the ancestor than to the general population?I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
vonuber said:
How much of how someone looks is inheritable?
I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
I know it can skip generations. One of my best school friends was Asian looking but both her parents were white Brits. It wasn't until we saw her grandfather that we realised where she got the looks from. Grandfather was Asian and had met and married a white British woman during the war, friends mum didn't inherit any of his looks.I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
Either that or having affairs is hereditary.
poing said:
vonuber said:
How much of how someone looks is inheritable?
I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
I know it can skip generations. One of my best school friends was Asian looking but both her parents were white Brits. It wasn't until we saw her grandfather that we realised where she got the looks from. Grandfather was Asian and had met and married a white British woman during the war, friends mum didn't inherit any of his looks.I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
Either that or having affairs is hereditary.
I've been asked before if I have an either Mediterranean or Asian background; I tan very easily and generally am darker all year round than the average Brit; my dad had a look of Muhammed Al Fayed about him, his dad was white English as was his mum but we have heard rumours of an Indian background on my grandads side from a few generations back. My dad has 2 sisters, one is as white as can be, the other looks "foreign"; very dark and when she gave birth to my cousin, the midwife asked her "when are you going back?"
My sister is pale and ginger and just recently at my nieces end of school production that I attended, one of the mums mentioned to my sister about how tanned I was compared to her.
Shakermaker said:
Centre Court and Number 1 Court are generally only used for the 2 weeks a year of the Wimbledon tournament, though they were used for the Olympics as well of course.
but the other courts are used throughout the season for other events and tournaments, plus of course I'm sure you can pay for a tour of the park which will do a bit for the cost of upkeep but I'm sure they make that cost back in ticket sales for the main event.
Yep, the cheapest price for one ticket to this year's mens' final was £3'000 so that's a tidy sum multiplied by the 15'000 people in the actual arena. General grounds admission is £25- and think how many were sitting on Henman Hill during the tournament let alone watching matches elsewhere. Total attendance this year was 473'000!but the other courts are used throughout the season for other events and tournaments, plus of course I'm sure you can pay for a tour of the park which will do a bit for the cost of upkeep but I'm sure they make that cost back in ticket sales for the main event.
However, I think a huge part of their revenue comes from the BBC for not only to showing matches live but from a share of the assured foreign television rights that their coverage generates. Add in membership fees catering franchises and other retail etc. The Lawn Tennis Association must surely be raking it in as they have just payed out £34m in prize money this week.
Someone asked about the quality of the centre court lawn. It's actually all killed off after the tournament by sterilizing steam reaching 70 degrees and thereafter completely regrown from seed ready for next summer.
Nobody I've asked remembers this; in the late 70s/early 80s Natwest gave me a card. It was the size of a credit card and from memory had nothing but Natwest written on it.
The idea was you put it in a machine outside the bank, entered a pre-registered number, and a single £10 note came out. The note was in a plastic carrier which you put through the bank letter box. A few days later your card returned in the post ready for re-use. This was definitely before the ATMs that we use today and of course was a time when £10 would actually buy something.
I'm not imagining this , am I?
The idea was you put it in a machine outside the bank, entered a pre-registered number, and a single £10 note came out. The note was in a plastic carrier which you put through the bank letter box. A few days later your card returned in the post ready for re-use. This was definitely before the ATMs that we use today and of course was a time when £10 would actually buy something.
I'm not imagining this , am I?
Johnspex said:
Nobody I've asked remembers this; in the late 70s/early 80s Natwest gave me a card. It was the size of a credit card and from memory had nothing but Natwest written on it.
The idea was you put it in a machine outside the bank, entered a pre-registered number, and a single £10 note came out. The note was in a plastic carrier which you put through the bank letter box. A few days later your card returned in the post ready for re-use. This was definitely before the ATMs that we use today and of course was a time when £10 would actually buy something.
I'm not imagining this , am I?
No, I remember something very similar. Not the card coming back in the post but certainly the plastic carrier though the ones I knew had to be put back in the machine, a relative of mine dithered so much before inserting it that the slot closed and he was left with it.The idea was you put it in a machine outside the bank, entered a pre-registered number, and a single £10 note came out. The note was in a plastic carrier which you put through the bank letter box. A few days later your card returned in the post ready for re-use. This was definitely before the ATMs that we use today and of course was a time when £10 would actually buy something.
I'm not imagining this , am I?
HTP99 said:
poing said:
vonuber said:
How much of how someone looks is inheritable?
I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
I know it can skip generations. One of my best school friends was Asian looking but both her parents were white Brits. It wasn't until we saw her grandfather that we realised where she got the looks from. Grandfather was Asian and had met and married a white British woman during the war, friends mum didn't inherit any of his looks.I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
Either that or having affairs is hereditary.
I've been asked before if I have an either Mediterranean or Asian background; I tan very easily and generally am darker all year round than the average Brit; my dad had a look of Muhammed Al Fayed about him, his dad was white English as was his mum but we have heard rumours of an Indian background on my grandads side from a few generations back. My dad has 2 sisters, one is as white as can be, the other looks "foreign"; very dark and when she gave birth to my cousin, the midwife asked her "when are you going back?"
My sister is pale and ginger and just recently at my nieces end of school production that I attended, one of the mums mentioned to my sister about how tanned I was compared to her.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff