Talk:1965/66 United States network television schedule

How WAPI-TV (now WVTM) may have handled it

Note: On this station, prime time was 6:30-11 p.m. (CST)

Sunday: Lassie, Disney, Branded, Bonanza, Candid Camera, What's My Line?, Wackiest Ship in the Army.

Monday: To Tell the Truth, I've Got a Secret, The Lucy Show, Andy Griffith, Hazel, Andy Williams, Run for Your Life.

Tuesday: My Mother the Car (yes, that one), Please Don't Eat the Daisies, Red Skelton, Petticoat Junction, movies.

Wednesday: The Virginian, Green Acres, Dick Van Dyke, Bob Hope Chrysler Theatre, Danny Kaye.

Thursday: Daniel Boone, The Munsters, Gilligan's Island, I Dream of Jeannie, movies.

Friday: Wild Wild West, Hogan's Heroes, Gomer Pyle USMC, Mr. Roberts, Man From UNCLE, Of Lands and Seas (syndicated).

Saturday: Jackie Gleason, Get Smart, movies, Gunsmoke. 198.236.192.210 (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, this referred to channel 13 in Birmingham, Alabama, which shared affiliations with both CBS and NBC in the 1960s. Its "prime time" was extended one hour later in the evening, mimicking the Eastern time zone in that regard. 73.174.36.17 (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Idiosyncracies of ranking a tie

(Sorry, my article edit explanation may be confusing -- I didn't mean that "not only is it your opinion that the system is bad, it's also a fact that it's bad"; I meant that the ranking SYSTEM is a fact, which came about because it really ISN'T bad...)

When "scores" are tied, it's perfectly common practice in scoring to say that all those who have a certain score have a certain "highest" rank shared among them, and the next RANK down is greater by the number of people tied -- because that accurately reflects how many are above them in rank. For example, if a golf match has these "top" resulting scores (negative numbers):

• -7 Arnold Palmtree
• -6 Sam Snood
• -5 Tiger Forest
• -5 Jake Nicholas
• -5 Lee Torino
• -4 Phil Nickelson

then they are ranked like this:

• #1 -7 Arnold Palmtree
• #2 -6 Sam Snood
• #3 -5 Tiger Forest
• #3 -5 Jake Nicholas
• #3 -5 Lee Torino
• #6 -4 Phil Nickelson

It's perfectly straightforward that Arnold Palmtree is #1 and Sam Snood is #2, of course. Then Tiger Forest, Jake Nicholas and Lee Torino are all "#3" because all of them were bested by two other players (Palmtree and Snood). Then Phil Nickelson is #6 because there were five players who scored better than he did. He's not "#4" for the simple reason that he's clearly the SIXTH best player -- there were FIVE better players. (And that would be his RANK as long as his was the next best score achieved in the match, whether the score itself was -4, -2, +1, or whatever.) It's not "ridiculous"; it's perfectly reasonable. And it is how it is always done. That is why Hogan's Heroes is #9: because there were EIGHT shows ABOVE it in the ranking. And anyway, the change as it was made failed to place any show at #9 -- why would that be? Unless a tie occurs on the "boundary" of "Top Ten" (a tie for #10 itself), the Top Ten should consist of TEN shows, from #1 to #10 (or a tie for #9). In this case, they were:

• #1 Bonanza
• #2 Gomer Pyle
• #3 The Lucy Show
• #4 The Red Skelton Hour
• #5 Batman-on-Thursday
• #6 The Andy Griffith Show
• #7 The Beverly Hillbillies (tie)
• #7 Bewitched (tie)
• #9 Hogan's Heroes
• #10 Batman-on-Wednesday

So a workable definition of "rank" is "number of items above given item, plus one". And that's a fact. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:C528:B963:BBE3:9789 (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

♠This sort of thing is increasingly common. It's also idiotic. Two things with the same value being ranked as if they are unequal is a nonsensical approach, no matter how common it is. "Then Phil Nickelson is #6 because there were five players who scored better than he did." No, he's #3, because his score was third best. 1+2=2+1=3: there are not 3 values for 3, there is one; scoring is not an exercise in permutations & combinations, & the fact the PGA, or anyone else, uses an absurd system is no reason to import it. (BTW, you'll also forgive me if I don't see how "Batman" somehow becomes a different show just because it's on another night, which is, if anything, even more preposterous. Does that mean that "Wiseguy" gets two rankings when it moves to a new night? If so, why didn't it?)

♠Let me put it another way. If you tie for second, are you third? Why not? One person came ahead of you, & one person has the same score as you. Why aren't you third? By your argument, because there's another person in the scoring, a tie means an unequal result somewhere. Why isn't it yours?

♠I've got an even better question. If six people run a race, & five tie behind the guy that wins, why aren't they tied for sixth? Five other people entered; don't they all count? Or is it because nobody wants to be tied for sixth? Or is it an absurd system? Oh, wait... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:26 & 18:30 & 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, sorry, you're wrong in just about everything you said (foremost with the way you characterize "my argument"). The PGA, and just about any other organization, use the system they do because they recognize that is is not "absurd"; and the system that is the standard is the one that is going to be "imported" to this site. Anyway, taking each thing you said:

• "Two things with the same value being ranked as if they are unequal is a nonsensical approach".

Well, that's certainly true, but it does NOT describe the system I was explaining, which is just the opposite. In the golf example, Tiger Forest, Jake Nicholas, and Lee Torino all had the same score, so they are all ranked "#3". They could be displayed in any order among them, and all 3 would be considered equal to each other in every case. Likewise, as The Beverly Hillbillies and Bewitched both had equal viewership (as accurately as it was measured), they were BOTH "#7".

• " 'Then Phil Nickelson is #6 because there were five players who scored better than he did.' No, he's #3, because his score was third best. 1+2=2+1=3..."

I think you meant fourth because above him were first (Palmtree), second (Snood) and third (3 players) rankings; but anyway, you have to understand WHAT is being ranked. It is true that his score is the fourth-best distinct number that came up as someone's score:

• #1: -7 for Arnold Palmtree
• #2: -6 for Sam Snood
• #3: -5 for Tiger Forest, Jake Nicholas and Lee Torino
• #4: -4 for Phil Nickelson

...but you have to remember that what is really being ranked are the people, not simply the numbers. And it still remains: How many people scored BETTER than Phil Nickelson? FIVE. So Phil Nickelson is #6 among people. That is the long and short of that. Likewise, EIGHT shows had higher viewership than Hogan's Heroes; therefore, it ranks #9.

• "Let me put it another way. If you tie for second, are you third? Why not? One person came ahead of you, & one person has the same score as you. Why aren't you third? By your argument, because there's another person in the scoring, a tie means an unequal result somewhere. Why isn't it yours?"

No, that's not what my argument is saying -- AT ALL. OK, the difference that disrupts your counter-argument is between having a score that is "at least as good" and one that is distinctly better. The fact that "one person has the same score as you" does not denigrate YOUR ranking; it's only those with scores that are better that matter. You'll be next-ranked after the number of people who scored better than you. And so will anyone else with the same score as you (that is, they'll get the same rank as you). So when you said:

• "I've got an even better question. If six people run a race, & five tie behind the guy that wins, why aren't they tied for sixth? Five other people entered; don't they all count? Or is it because nobody wants to be tied for sixth? Or is it an absurd system? Oh, wait.."

No, it's NOT a better question. Carefully follow what I have been saying all along: How many people did better than each one of the "five who tied"? You didn't challenge the notion that both Beverly Hillbillies and Bewitched were #7, did you? So these five runners are all ranked number....... (Hint: it's 2.)

• "BTW, you'll also forgive me if I don't see how "Batman" somehow becomes a different show just because it's on another night, which is, if anything, even more preposterous. Does that mean that "Wiseguy" gets two rankings when it moves to a new night? If so, why didn't it?"

Admittedly this may seem bizarre, but then there are so few examples like it that it's going to be an unfamiliar concept, for sure. It is, in fact, somewhat of an anomaly. Somewhat. It's not the same thing as when a show changes its timeslot in subsequent weeks, in order to rank a show overall for the combined periods (several months, for example) of both its first and second schedulings. But a show's ratings will very likely change when it is moved (as has been the downfall of numerous shows over the years), and an "overall" ranking requires an aggregation of its performance in each of its two timeslots, if a "ranking for the whole year" is what you're trying to compile, for a chart like this article. Apparently that was the kind of "historical" data that was recently available from Nielsen ratings. (There are no examples with numbers in this season's chart; no show that experienced a CHANGE of timeslot was in the Top 30. There is the example of Bewitched the following year, which shows the same numbers for both before and after the move -- again tied with Beverly Hillbillies at #7 -- but whether the unchanging numbers for Bewitched are an aggregation of the two timeslots, or it's simply that the numbers did not change with the move, there's no way to tell. But I'd put my money on the former.) More likely, a network at the time would just look at a show's performance in the most recent weeks prior to when the network wants to evaluate the property.

But anyway, it's a different question to evaluate two broadcasts of a show that occur every week. As was the case with Batman, different numbers of people tuned in to it on Wednesaday vs. Thursday. This matters to the network, because it would matter to advertisers, to know when their commercials would be seen by the most viewers within a given week. That's the information they wanted from the Nielsen service. If more people watched Batman on Thursday than on Wednesday, they wanted to know. That year, BTW, the same multiple-airing situation existed with Peyton Place, which had three broadcasts during each week. During the season, there was one change of timeslot, from Friday at 9:30 to Monday at 9:30. Doubtless the viewership numbers of the two scheduled times of the move were not the same, just as the three times during all given weeks were not the same. What ended up happening to Batman was that at the end of its second season ABC canceled the one of the two weekly broadcasts that was getting the lower numbers (neither airing was still in the Top 30), leaving just one half-hour broadcast per week for its third (and final, as it would turn out) season. So yes, they reckoned different broadcasts during a given week separately, for reasons that mattered very much to them. If that's "preposterous", well, you're entitled to your opinion, but we go by what they actually DID. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:C528:B963:BBE3:9789 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)