<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The numbers still don&#8217;t add up</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.duncanriley.com/2006/10/18/the-numbers-still-dont-add-up/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.duncanriley.com/2006/10/18/the-numbers-still-dont-add-up/</link>
	<description>blogging is not a spectator sport</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:19:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mr Angry</title>
		<link>http://www.duncanriley.com/2006/10/18/the-numbers-still-dont-add-up/comment-page-1/#comment-36967</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr Angry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 04:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://duncanriley.com/2006/10/18/the-numbers-still-dont-add-up/#comment-36967</guid>
		<description>All ratings systems are bogus.  The most polite description I can think of is that ratings are a consensual hallucination.  Any rational person knows they?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢re meaningless but everybody pretends to believe them because people desperately want a frame of reference.  TV ratings use far too small a sample to extrapolate the figures they use.  Radio ratings are an intelligence insulting joke.  Pretty much any web rating system is more accurate but they all fail because of the ambiguity of what they?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢re measuring.  When there?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢s ten different ways to argue what make s a ?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?Ö‚Äúhit?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?Ç¬ù, ?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?Ö‚Äúview?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?Ç¬ù or whatever, you don?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢t stand a chance of knowing what?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢s truly meaningful.  May as well spill some chicken entrails then make a call based on faith.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All ratings systems are bogus.  The most polite description I can think of is that ratings are a consensual hallucination.  Any rational person knows they?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢re meaningless but everybody pretends to believe them because people desperately want a frame of reference.  TV ratings use far too small a sample to extrapolate the figures they use.  Radio ratings are an intelligence insulting joke.  Pretty much any web rating system is more accurate but they all fail because of the ambiguity of what they?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢re measuring.  When there?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢s ten different ways to argue what make s a ?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?Ö‚Äúhit?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?Ç¬ù, ?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?Ö‚Äúview?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?Ç¬ù or whatever, you don?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢t stand a chance of knowing what?É¬¢?¢‚Äö¬¨?¢‚Äû¬¢s truly meaningful.  May as well spill some chicken entrails then make a call based on faith.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
