[001]
OldManHoOh
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes, I\'m late, having long-since re-deleted this, but it\'s not \
to:
Yes, I\\\'m late, having long-since re-deleted this, but it\\\'s not \\\"no reason\\\". There\\\'s an extremely long reason stated connected to a user name; i.e. mine. How did you miss this?
\\\"The correlation is bunk, but the \\\"rapidly decling\\\" bit about only dedicated fans is ABSOLUTE bunk. The ratings are definitely lower than the 2009 one-offs, but they have NOT substantially declined since series 3 and 4, unless you\\\'re comparing series 6\\\'s overnights to the earlier series\\\' final figures including recordings and BBC iPlayer. That\\\'s the mistake all the tabloids are constantly making, to the chagrin of Moffat as well as Doctor Who Magazine\\\'s editor.\\\"
And also, from my second deletion:
\\\"one-off episodes skew a lot higher than the regular series\\\", i.e., the Christmas specials, and other one-offs like Planet of the Dead and The Waters of Mars has millions more tuning in than the 13 weekly episodes.
\\\"The correlation is bunk, but the \\\"rapidly decling\\\" bit about only dedicated fans is ABSOLUTE bunk. The ratings are definitely lower than the 2009 one-offs, but they have NOT substantially declined since series 3 and 4, unless you\\\'re comparing series 6\\\'s overnights to the earlier series\\\' final figures including recordings and BBC iPlayer. That\\\'s the mistake all the tabloids are constantly making, to the chagrin of Moffat as well as Doctor Who Magazine\\\'s editor.\\\"
And also, from my second deletion:
\\\"one-off episodes skew a lot higher than the regular series\\\", i.e., the Christmas specials, and other one-offs like Planet of the Dead and The Waters of Mars has millions more tuning in than the 13 weekly episodes.
