Do you ever wonder if people are watching the same show?

[SEAN CARLESS]

Nov 5, 2013 19:40:44 GMT -5 @spindoc said:

I don't want to single anyone out here (expect for THAT poster, they suck) but I was just perusing another thread and was reminded of a startling trend that comes and goes on these boards where people claim to see and hear things that aren't actually happening. For example I saw a post claiming that the audience was quiet for the Big Show last night and that's just bullcorn.

I used to, for the simple fact that certain people I've read literally have no concept of narratives and storytelling, and spout off things that make no sense or flat out didn't happen. But then I realized that a good percentage of people base their view of the show (or any show) off of their own personal preferences and even prejudices. So, if they don't like Cena, no one likes Cena. Or if they don't want Bryan as top babyface, then he can't draw and Big Show deserves it more. Its annoying, but that's how narrow minds usually work.

[mizerable]

This thread title reminds me of one reason why I'm glad that the brand extension is all but dead. Because of the times when a Smackdown guy would show up on Raw and Cole or Lawler would say in mindnumbing stupidity "to not adjust our TV sets".

Seriously...that's easily one of the most retarded things WWE ever said on a consistent basis.

[wisdomwizard]

Nov 5, 2013 19:40:44 GMT -5 @spindoc said:

I don't want to single anyone out here (expect for THAT poster, they suck)

And just what exactly ARE you singling me out, for?!

[Sparkybob]

People see what they want to see. If they don't like Show they won't see him being as over as someone who likes Show. It's the nature of this board which can make it hard to have arguments when people can't agree on simple things like if Show came out to silence last night or not.

[mizerable]

Nov 5, 2013 21:05:56 GMT -5 wisdomwizard said:

Nov 5, 2013 19:40:44 GMT -5 @spindoc said:

I don't want to single anyone out here (expect for THAT poster, they suck)

And just what exactly ARE you singling me out, for?!

[wisdomwizard]

Nov 5, 2013 21:13:00 GMT -5 mizerable said:

Nov 5, 2013 21:05:56 GMT -5 wisdomwizard said:

And just what exactly ARE you singling me out, for?!

If you have something to say, say it.

[mizerable]

Nov 5, 2013 21:14:08 GMT -5 wisdomwizard said:

If you have something to say, say it.

*sigh*

Log out of your account, then click on the link again.

Your welcome.

[DiBiase is Good]

Nov 5, 2013 21:14:08 GMT -5 wisdomwizard said:

Nov 5, 2013 21:13:00 GMT -5 mizerable said:

If you have something to say, say it.

It's one of the oldest gags here. Whoever is logged on and clicks on that link will see their own profile show up. If I click it, I see my profile, if you click it, you see yours.

[Sparkybob]

Nov 5, 2013 21:19:05 GMT -5 mizerable said:

Nov 5, 2013 21:14:08 GMT -5 wisdomwizard said:

If you have something to say, say it.

*sigh*

Log out of your account, then click on the link again.

Your welcome.

[mizerable]

Looks like we both got pwned.

[wisdomwizard]

Nov 5, 2013 21:19:43 GMT -5 DiBiase is Good said:

Nov 5, 2013 21:14:08 GMT -5 wisdomwizard said:

If you have something to say, say it.

It's one of the oldest gags here. Whoever is logged on and clicks on that link will see their own profile show up. If I click it, I see my profile, if you click it, you see yours.

I might have known if those other two pictures in Mizerable's posts showed up. Without it, it made that one Cena picture seem like I was being taunted.

[rybackrulez]

Nov 5, 2013 19:40:44 GMT -5 @spindoc said:

I don't want to single anyone out here (expect for THAT poster, they suck) but I was just perusing another thread and was reminded of a startling trend that comes and goes on these boards where people claim to see and hear things that aren't actually happening. For example I saw a post claiming that the audience was quiet for the Big Show last night and that's just bullcorn.

Big show, orton, cena, and bryan not being over

How quiet a crowd is.

Just seems like they have bad selective hearing

[sybaku]

Nov 5, 2013 19:53:46 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

Nov 5, 2013 19:40:44 GMT -5 @spindoc said:

I don't want to single anyone out here (expect for THAT poster, they suck) but I was just perusing another thread and was reminded of a startling trend that comes and goes on these boards where people claim to see and hear things that aren't actually happening. For example I saw a post claiming that the audience was quiet for the Big Show last night and that's just bullcorn.

I used to, for the simple fact that certain people I've read literally have no concept of narratives and storytelling, and spout off things that make no sense or flat out didn't happen. But then I realized that a good percentage of people base their view of the show (or any show) off of their own personal preferences and even prejudices. So, if they don't like Cena, no one likes Cena. Or if they don't want Bryan as top babyface, then he can't draw and Big Show deserves it more. Its annoying, but that's how narrow minds usually work.

Pretty much this, my favorite is "Everyone hates X and wishes they were fired" where X is normally Miz/Big Show/ or the IWC flavor of the month

[saintpat]

I know for a fact that they have to pipe in cheers for everyone I don't like.

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

I read a report that claimed that Last night's Raw was.....and I quote "Worst Raw of the Year" and that the people "Hated Big E Langston" and cheered for Orton winning.


I...don't know what they were watching.

[angryfan]

There seems to be a misinterpreted correlation (or at least a statistical non-absolute) that live crowd reaction=good ratings=a draw.

I've never quite figured it out myself, and I've been trying to. Someone gets a substantial pop but people tune out, and it's either because "the crowd is being smarky" or "ratings don't mean anything". It's like there's a school of thought for both sides that have some truth to them, and I can't figure out which way it goes.

Doe pops in more places count as being a bigger draw, or does it matter more if you get the reaction in the big cities while Podunkton gives you Japanese Heat the entire time you're out there? If you get crazy reactions but the house is 8,000 paying are you a main eventer even though a house of 17,000 takes a collective bathroom break when you come out?

We hear often about crowds "that just want to get themselves over" and yet I find myself asking, honestly, how do we tell that? If a crowd gets really loud and cheers for the faces and boos the heels, but only for those who are "main eventers", is that crowd "doing it right"? Or is the crowd that is loud the whole night, but absolutely brutalizes the faces and cheers the heels more correct since they were more responsive throughout the show meaning they were more emotionally invested in the whole card?

They draw the same money, same size house, and see the same matches, but react completely differently. Does that mean that the midcarder who got zero heat from one crowd is "OMGBURIEZ" because he "obviously can't make the crowd care", or does his reaction in the other city prove he can draw, or merely that "that crowd just watned to get themselves over and be bizzarroworld"?

Not singling anyone out, nor do I want to see it go to that of course, but these are genuine questions.

[saintpat]

Nov 5, 2013 22:35:41 GMT -5 angryfan said:

There seems to be a misinterpreted correlation (or at least a statistical non-absolute) that live crowd reaction=good ratings=a draw.

I've never quite figured it out myself, and I've been trying to. Someone gets a substantial pop but people tune out, and it's either because "the crowd is being smarky" or "ratings don't mean anything". It's like there's a school of thought for both sides that have some truth to them, and I can't figure out which way it goes.

Doe pops in more places count as being a bigger draw, or does it matter more if you get the reaction in the big cities while Podunkton gives you Japanese Heat the entire time you're out there? If you get crazy reactions but the house is 8,000 paying are you a main eventer even though a house of 17,000 takes a collective bathroom break when you come out?

We hear often about crowds "that just want to get themselves over" and yet I find myself asking, honestly, how do we tell that? If a crowd gets really loud and cheers for the faces and boos the heels, but only for those who are "main eventers", is that crowd "doing it right"? Or is the crowd that is loud the whole night, but absolutely brutalizes the faces and cheers the heels more correct since they were more responsive throughout the show meaning they were more emotionally invested in the whole card?

They draw the same money, same size house, and see the same matches, but react completely differently. Does that mean that the midcarder who got zero heat from one crowd is "OMGBURIEZ" because he "obviously can't make the crowd care", or does his reaction in the other city prove he can draw, or merely that "that crowd just watned to get themselves over and be bizzarroworld"?

Not singling anyone out, nor do I want to see it go to that of course, but these are genuine questions.

The thing I can never wrap my mind around: 75 percent of a crowd (give or take) will cheer when Cena comes out and 25 percent will boo (or it might be 85-15 or 60-40 depending on the town) and there will be posts about Cena getting booed -- that never mention the fact that the majority of fans were cheering him. As if having some people booing him is an indictment that proves something or other.

Then a heel (Orton, HHH, Punk whoever) will come out and get a big pop and a lot of boos (maybe 50-50, maybe 70-30 either way) and no one posts about how what that means -- or they interpret that mixed reaction to mean the guy is insanely popular.

I'm confuzzled.

[bootytea]

I can not believe you do not like my posts, you jealous jobber.

It shocks me that people just accept the crap being put out. When you can reference much better shows from a few yeara ago, it perplexes me how people can defend it.

I relate a lot of the viewers who ignore how bad things are as being addicted.

It may not be the nicest statement to make, but my inability to comprehend how people get excited for these shows has led me to that conclusion.

[SEAN CARLESS]

Nov 5, 2013 22:35:41 GMT -5 angryfan said:

There seems to be a misinterpreted correlation (or at least a statistical non-absolute) that live crowd reaction=good ratings=a draw.

I've never quite figured it out myself, and I've been trying to. Someone gets a substantial pop but people tune out, and it's either because "the crowd is being smarky" or "ratings don't mean anything". It's like there's a school of thought for both sides that have some truth to them, and I can't figure out which way it goes.

Doe pops in more places count as being a bigger draw, or does it matter more if you get the reaction in the big cities while Podunkton gives you Japanese Heat the entire time you're out there? If you get crazy reactions but the house is 8,000 paying are you a main eventer even though a house of 17,000 takes a collective bathroom break when you come out?

We hear often about crowds "that just want to get themselves over" and yet I find myself asking, honestly, how do we tell that? If a crowd gets really loud and cheers for the faces and boos the heels, but only for those who are "main eventers", is that crowd "doing it right"? Or is the crowd that is loud the whole night, but absolutely brutalizes the faces and cheers the heels more correct since they were more responsive throughout the show meaning they were more emotionally invested in the whole card?

They draw the same money, same size house, and see the same matches, but react completely differently. Does that mean that the midcarder who got zero heat from one crowd is "OMGBURIEZ" because he "obviously can't make the crowd care", or does his reaction in the other city prove he can draw, or merely that "that crowd just watned to get themselves over and be bizzarroworld"?

Not singling anyone out, nor do I want to see it go to that of course, but these are genuine questions.

I've never put much stock into ratings as any sort of business indicator because, let's face it, 4 and a half million people are watching the show for free. And on average, only about 250,000 people worldwide buy PPVS. So roughly only 5% of WWE's viewing home audience PAYS for their product. That, to me, means that 95% of their audience is not invested as true fans. They're just casual watchers. And WWE only benefits from those viewers if they can properly renegotiate their USA contract soon to get deserved ad revenue. But still, that's your breakdown. So, if a Punk or a Bryan or an Orton, is hypothetically doing well on PPV, but not in TV ratings, that means nothing. Because the true barometer for appeal is if people are willing to pay for a certain act.

[angryfan]

Nov 5, 2013 22:46:42 GMT -5 saintpat said:

Nov 5, 2013 22:35:41 GMT -5 angryfan said:

There seems to be a misinterpreted correlation (or at least a statistical non-absolute) that live crowd reaction=good ratings=a draw.

I've never quite figured it out myself, and I've been trying to. Someone gets a substantial pop but people tune out, and it's either because "the crowd is being smarky" or "ratings don't mean anything". It's like there's a school of thought for both sides that have some truth to them, and I can't figure out which way it goes.

Doe pops in more places count as being a bigger draw, or does it matter more if you get the reaction in the big cities while Podunkton gives you Japanese Heat the entire time you're out there? If you get crazy reactions but the house is 8,000 paying are you a main eventer even though a house of 17,000 takes a collective bathroom break when you come out?

We hear often about crowds "that just want to get themselves over" and yet I find myself asking, honestly, how do we tell that? If a crowd gets really loud and cheers for the faces and boos the heels, but only for those who are "main eventers", is that crowd "doing it right"? Or is the crowd that is loud the whole night, but absolutely brutalizes the faces and cheers the heels more correct since they were more responsive throughout the show meaning they were more emotionally invested in the whole card?

They draw the same money, same size house, and see the same matches, but react completely differently. Does that mean that the midcarder who got zero heat from one crowd is "OMGBURIEZ" because he "obviously can't make the crowd care", or does his reaction in the other city prove he can draw, or merely that "that crowd just watned to get themselves over and be bizzarroworld"?

Not singling anyone out, nor do I want to see it go to that of course, but these are genuine questions.

The thing I can never wrap my mind around: 75 percent of a crowd (give or take) will cheer when Cena comes out and 25 percent will boo (or it might be 85-15 or 60-40 depending on the town) and there will be posts about Cena getting booed -- that never mention the fact that the majority of fans were cheering him. As if having some people booing him is an indictment that proves something or other.

Then a heel (Orton, HHH, Punk whoever) will come out and get a big pop and a lot of boos (maybe 50-50, maybe 70-30 either way) and no one posts about how what that means -- or they interpret that mixed reaction to mean the guy is insanely popular.

I'm confuzzled.

Eh, I've taken to accept that the main event has a lot of "mixed reaction" stuff for a myriad of reasons. If we are to be technical and we want to be "purists" then it would have to be this. Cena gets a mixed reaction, and he's doing it wrong and isn't a good babyface since an audible portion of the crowd hate him. Punk when he was a heel and getting pops, was a horrid heel since no one should cheer him if he's doing it right.

I blame THAT aspect on The Kliq, and specifically Hall and Nash in the nWo. Before that, did we get a lot of cool heels, or were they just assholes who you wanted to see destroyed. I LOVED watching Jake, I was fascinated by him, but I WANTED him to lose when he was a heel. It didn't mean I didn't love to watch him wrestle, but I knew the outcome I wanted.

I am more confused by the midcarders. How can a crowd at MSG absolutely piss themselves with joy over Ziggy, then South Carolina sits and stares like they've never heard of him, and it not be confusing?

If the "home crowd" loves someone, should that carry more weight, or do reactiosn at "away games" show universal support? I get that some chracters work better in some markets, but if we're determining draws, and particularly who to elevate, how does one do it?

For YEARS SD crowds were notorious. They'd pop for the main event, but be dead silent for everyone else.