Its meant to say, you can do what you like. But I understand how it was condescending and patronising, and I apologise.So "if it helps you sleep at night" wasn't meant to come across as rude? And if I believe it did than you are going with another "if it helps you"?
I'll give you a hint, if you are responding with "if it helps you sleep at night" where somebody makes a very non-personal critique of something you say - you are the one being rude and personal.
Unfortunately my legal obligations supersede my requirements to keep my posts on this forum.Sure. And that post also included your rude response to my reasonable critique of your post.
Ah no. thats not what that was, and more to the point you know that. Its always about the perception that some people give me more credit than you think I deserve. And to be fair, Ive thought the same."If it helps you sleep at night" that you get negative response sometimes because people are jealous that others "like and respect you" than good for you!
No you really dont. Anyone inferring anything about anyones expertise about almost anything on a football forum doesnt have that.Yes I do. I have inferred that using my expertise and I have enough information to make that judgement.
I disagree. Having information and knowing how its collected and collated are all well and good, but there are a great many others who know more than I do. And I mean a great many.Deep knowledge of ratings data and processes in a certain area exceeding all but perhaps a dozen people = genuine (albeit niche) subject expertise by any stringent measure
Nolt agreeing with you or not doing something on a public forum, or on twitter - and I dont consider anything i wrote today to be analysis. No commentary other than the fact the ratings had dropped from the 2016 mark - a statement born out by the raw data - was supplied, no context given, no additional explanation was added.Not knowing basic logic and principles of conceptual and quantitative analysis = no analytical expertise by the most lenient measure
Where i have a hard average from the source, I will still use the hard average for overall ratings tabulation. That has not changed. That the given ratings per game on the previous table were not accurate per game was indicative of atable that wasnt created for the purpose i posted it here for. That was an error, and I was out of line in my responses to that. Again, I apologise for that.BTW I notice you've belatedly changed to using known streaming shares to estimate streaming ratings after your ridiculous intransigence earlier this year!
We've used percentages to estimate regional ratings for a decade in the absence of data, this isnt a new thing.
Thats a hard disagree. The data is worded the way it is, due to the tables being forbidden. Its not that I dont get your position, I just dont agree with it.If you said one data point was "lower" than another data point you would just have been making an observation. If you had just done that you are still engaging in analysis. As soon as you go to the effort of putting two data points next to each-other to "compare" them you are engaging in analysis.
While it could have been worded better, and my response may have been more tempered, your literally arguing over a semantic difference that IMO doesnt change the facts.It's because you have such lack of awareness of the technical implications of the language you use but are arguing anyway like you couldn't possibly be wrong. You wouldn't be doing that if you were aware of your own inexpertise
Now if Id written the article for season end, which hasnt been done yet, then that analysis would have been supplied.
In any case. Ill say no more here. We're going in circiles and people dont need to see this.