Introducing the Rating Wars.

[APostingGod]

Yes. you heard right. From the guy who brought you gay Trent James, and for some reason a Brock Goodman push, comes the Munson Ratings System (MRS). The ratings work much like the Nielson ratings, and they are in place to see which show is doing a better job of running feuds, booking matches, and giving a better show. Yes, it's official, it's a competition to have the better show. What's on the line? Bragging rights and big egos. (i.e. Judge and APG)

It's really quite simple. Both shows will start off with a 0.00 rating. (zero viewers). When a new show is posted there will be a poll for reviewers where you can rate the show 1-10. The average the show gets for that week is added to the shows rating. So if EWE averages a 7 that week, and WPW averages a 6. The first ratings will be EWE 0.07 and WPW 0.06. Making the EWE winning the ratings war. Let's say the week after WPW scores a 8 and EWE scores a 6. The new ratings will be EWE 0.13 and WPW 0.14, making WPW the current rating's war winners. Two basic rules are:

1. Only people who do full reviews get to vote on the poll.
2. Judge and APG, the Main Bookers, vote counts twice towards the average for each show.

We are working on adding previews, but here is the the basic system that will start this week.

Any questions or thoughts?

[Gunnar Brian]

Interesting concept here, how will we go about cross brand shows? I suspect we might have one/two of those at some points (eg draft week)

[APostingGod]

Simply count the rating for both shows, or not at all. Because dual shows wouldn't really be a competition.

[Scorch]

The starting concept sounds good, but I do think there are tweaks you should consider making to make this as effective as possible.

A few things to consider. If this is meant to be an evaluation and reflection of who runs the better show, making you and Judge, head bookers respectively automatically have more important opinions than everyone else, partly defeats the purpose of evaluating the quality of the shows you two run. It would be like having a focus group and then telling the participants their opinions are wrong.

As far as needing full reviews to have a vote count, I get what the intent is, but I think it can be altered to encourage full reviews but also increase the odds of larger numbers of people rating the shows. Neilsen gives you two numbers, the ratings, and the share. The ratings reflects the number of TV available tuned into a program. The share is the number of TVs turned on at the time that are tuned to a particular program. So if you have 20 TVs and 10 are turned on and 5 are on a particular show then your rating is a 25, and your share is a 50. So say each poster represented 5 house holds. A score they give means that 1 house hold was tuned in out of their five, a short review and say 2 or 3 houses, a full review and all 5 houses were tuned in. It involves a little more math but could make the numbers more accurate and reflective of people's views. So this would mean that you would take the score of a non reviewer and either divide it by 5, or take full reviews and multiply them by 5, whichever you prefered.

Minor realism note, if we are meant to be running major arenas, a TV show pulling in .07 ratings would put your company under by the end of the month. I know you may want to try to have realistic numbers, but thought that could be pointed out.

Certainly other people might have ideas to make this even more effective. Those are just some thoughts based on years of study of this type of thing.

[APostingGod]

Noted on the owner things. Might change that.

However, we are using the neilson as reference, not stragety. As you can see the munson system is not based on realism but a fun extra for both Feds. Simplicity is key for the munson system and complicating takes away from it. This is a way to end a friendly competition between the Feds. However I'm happy someone gets the neilson system!

[Scorch]

I get not wanting it to be too complex. I figure if you count a review backed rating more, it lets you get more ratings, and still largely encourages people to review. Instead of running the risk of people just not bothering to do either at all after a short time period. And encourages both feds to increase the number of reviews. Should be fun either way. And obviously I am just tossing out ideas here.

[APostingGod]

I'm glad someone is, but like the good book says, math is for suckers.