David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
Most of the debate has to do with politics and the status quo.
Politicians, who would have to initiate a change, do not want one as they
are going to be concerned about redistriting and changes in Federal
funds. The debate has very little to do with accuracy and a lot to do
with insuring reelection.
On BOTH sides.

Exactly! And it has very little to do with statistics, margins of error and
sample frames, none of which the average politician is likely to understand.

Yeah, the ability to poll did not really exist when that part of the
constitution was written... and a census was simpler with a population
that had limited mobility and lower population densities.

Not exactly the point I was trying to make, no.

Yes, but that is the reason we have the obligation to do a census... it was
the only thing available.
You can't do a head count more accurately by statistical sampling than
you can by counting heads. One has a margin of error, one does not. And
that's the point. Whether or not the ability to manipulate numbers was
advanced enough at the time of the Constitution is not the point. The
point is, you can't get more accurate than a direct count.

But there is no way to do an accurate census in the US today. It's a 6 month
process with follow up. In that time, a huge percentage of Americans move,
people become homeless, people become ex-pats and live abroad (which, by the
way, is an area filled with error... nobody really knows how many Americans
live abroad) and so on.

A poll can project bases on small samples, done quickly, and be far more
accurate than a census.


No, I don't believe that for a second. And even my statistics
professors, back then, or today, believe that's possible. A good
estimation, perhaps. But more accurate than a head count. Highly debatable.

As we appear to have proven today


Now, whether or not the count is actually taking place...that would be
a good discussion left for a time when the beer flows freely and neither
of us is sober enough to do any damage.

I can imagine that. Probably more fun than this discussion, too. ;-)


LOL! Apparently.


And you do understand that the Cenus is not without considerable error. Our
society is just too complex to count without embedding a chip in everyone
(just kidding, of course).


That's not a thought that's originated with you. You may be
joking. There are those who are discussing that point far more seriously.




The programming is the mixing of the songs. The frequency of play is in
proportion to popularity. There really is no other way. The music itself
is picked by the listeners. the way it is blended together is the
programming function.

Yes, I believe I just said that. Or am I in a different room.

LOL! David, there are times I believe you're on a different
planet.



But that does not change the implementation based purely on test score as
texturizing an hour does not change songs, just their position in the hour
next to other songs for a better blend.


But that's the definition of "Programming." And its something
the listeners do not do.


In the sense that listeners are involved, yes, you're point is valid.
But the statement is incomplete.
I don't think so. As long as play is in proportion to popularity (which
is the entire purpose of a test... to tell how much each song is wanted),
it is totally responsive to the listeners' picks. The programmer decides
how the songs should flow together...
Exactly my point.

But doing that is a question of moving songs by a few positions in an hour,
not changing the rotation. Rotations change not a wit by massaging each hour
a bit for the best flow from song to song. All that is is flipping position
on a few songs, not discarding them.


But moving the songs positions in the hour is part of the
programming process. Something the listeners do not do.

And determining rotations are also something the listeners do not
to. They may pick the songs, and they may help in determining rank, but
rotation, category...that's not what they do, that's what YOU do. And
that's the programming. They help pick the songs. YOU do the programming.



The only possible area of "incompleteness " would be sample size. But
testing has shown that doubling or tripling has not effect on the
results. Going any further would be beyond the economics of radio, so it
is not really incomplete but, rather, impossible.

Wow. You're amazing. You've debated every point that wasn't at issue,
here. Are you SURE you're not Michael Bryant?

I don't think so...


We may have to move to the DNA to verify that.


To review....the point I was trying to make, which apparently got lost
in a lot more things than I had intended to say....


Your original statement was that you don't program the music, the
listeners program the music.

My rebuttal, which need not be repeated here in it's detail for the
fifth time, is that, Your listeners DON"T program the music. But that
rather a sample of your listeners have influence in the songs you play.
But the Programming of the Music, is still based on decisions of PD's and
Consultants.

But it isn't. The music plays in exact proportion to how much it is liked.
There are no changes made there...


Again, they may pick the songs. They may even rank them, but
categories, mix, rotations...that's all PROGRAMMING, and they do not do
that. YOU do.



Or for those in Rio Linda....a group of your listeners pick songs, YOU
PROGRAM the music based on them.

No, we shcedule the music in strict adherence with the amount they like the
songs. Programming is the glue that sticks them together.


Programming in it's catholic sense, yes. Music,
imaging/stationality, jocks, jingles...But programming of the music
alone is the matter under discussion. And YOU do that based on what you
get from your sample.


Damn, David... I love you like a brother, but ****....sometimes,
you're such a Consultant.

Thanks for the first part... and the second part is not an insult. There are
many good consultants...


LOL! NOW you want a fight.