Jump to content

Days: February 2023 Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Here is their "about" page:
https://televisionstats.com/about

Quote: Since direct viewer data isn't available, we look at audience activity across the Internet. By seeing how engaged and active an audience is, we can get a clear look into the popularity and success of individual TV shows. We can then compare those shows across networks and streamers. End quote.

It doesn't say how they gather their data.
Are there scientific methods to measure "audience activity across the Internet"?
What is that? The number of times things are mentioned on google, in blogs, on social media?  in comments replying to articles? 
I don't mind reading data, but I just want to know its source.

Regardless, what viewers say online is does not reflect the vast majority of viewers ... who don't talk about their shows online.

Edited by janea4old
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 708
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Absolutely. I think restricting itself to online viewers only is an automatic limitation. But, it is possible to gather data on online viewers where there's no tools for a barometer of, say, the real world "water cooler". And streaming has said all along that the buzz that is created by shows is something that they are interested in, so there is an element of consistency. I wish, as do many, that we had more & better metrics available, but we simply do not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As you should, of course. You'll be pleased to know that I place no value on any of your words since I know so many of them to be bald-faced lies. As to topicality, I could only reiterate my fond wish that we should ignore each other. That way we would be in a permanent state of ON TOPIC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Right?

Please register in order to view this content

The way the ladies reacted I expected to see CGI Stefano there. Or Daniel Jonas.

I wish someone other than Jordan was there to "judge" Kate in purgatory. Maybe Franco or Curtis. I just don't care about Jordan.

These glowing devil eyes look dumb (same with the contacts they used last year -- I miss the pale ghostly eyes they used in '94/'95, Marlena looked HAUNTING!) and Ron's "devil" is petty but it'll be fun to see Nick again. I just don't understand why it's him and not a more prolific villain.

Edited by KLN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The one idea that has stuck with me during the mildly entertaining purgatory story is that without including some discussion about Abigail in the after-life, this plot seems incomplete.  I mean once Kayla returns from the dead, shouldn't Jack and Chad be pissed that she didn't bring Abby with her?  And shouldn't the ladies have some moral quandary about returning from the dead when a mother of two young children remains behind?

In that universe, perhaps Abby is in heaven, so they won't run into her.  But, we need some exposition about why certain recent deaths are reversible and others are not.  Otherwise, the co-existing story about Chad moving on with Stephanie seems odd.

Also, I know we probably won't see this degree of insight, but imagine how a doctor like Kayla would function after she knew that death was reversible?  That would be a interesting twist, if Kayla becomes either more callous or more risky  knowing that there are no vital consequences to illnesses or accidents in the hospital.  However, we all know that by spring she'll have completely forgotten that she was ever dead.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Kenny mentioned how quickly they all got sick and died. How about Kayla? She was doing her rounds and they wanted to do blood work. She resisted saying she was fine but finally agreed. A few moments later she's told her numbers had dropped. She's like I'm fine and boom she collapsed.

Please register in order to view this content

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it is perfectly usual for any soap fan of any age to have any characters or couples they like as part of their fandom. And, it is certainly acceptable to be interested in Doug & Julie and Challie and any age in between. Me & DOOL I am high on Doug & Julie, Challie, Steve & Kayla, John & Marlena, Cady McClain as Jennifer Rose, Abe & Paulina, Chad, even more. Of course, I think it is particularly usual & definitely acceptable for a lesbian to be into Challie, regardless of age! I would never think of chastising someone for who they were fans of. That's as bad as calling names. Who set you up as judge & jury of who someone can be fans of? I must've missed that memo. Topically speaking I'm a fan of about 90% of Salem & not a fan of about 4 characters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That’s part of the problem too lol 

Ron admitted in interviews that he sees the devil just like any other villain. That’s why I’m afraid that the devil’s now just gonna pop up once a year for a little while to be a pain in the ass, just like Orpheus, Clyde and Jan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy