On Jun 7, 8:41*am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Bart Bailey" wrote in message

...

In posted on Sat, 07 Jun
2008 01:47:18 -0700, Bart Bailey wrote: Begin

KNDC
KNSD
*correction before he throws a hissy

- Who cares?

d'eduardo, d'Eduardo. d'EDUADO !

The majority of the Readers on this Newsgroup 'care' -cause-
Call Letters are Part of the Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL)
and the AM/MW Radio DXing and Listening (BCL) Hobby.
-ps- Remember this is the "Rec.Radio.Shortwave" Newsgroup.

D'Oh ! -A Radio Broadcaster should 'know' his Listeners.
-and- a Newsgroup Poster should 'know' his Readers.
-ps- You are showing and 'insensitivity' to your Readers.

- We were not discussing TV and

We are 'discussing' What We Are Discussing.
{ it is -what- It Is }

- most people don't identify electronic media by call letters anyway

D'Oh ! d'Eduardo,

Maybe that is 'true' for that Half of the US Population who are
Under-the-Age of 35 -but- For Us'ems who are 55+ Years Old :
We Be Knowing Our KABCs and WXYZs !
{ We Know How To Think In Call Letters and a lot more. }

So for some one like me born and raised in the San Francisco
Bay Area : KGO is KGO; and KCBS is KCBS; while Right Wing
KSFO is on the Left-Side of the Dial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGO-AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCBS-AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSFO

Hell FM Radio Got-it-Right they put KQED-FM 88.5 MHz on the
Left-Side of the Dial with all the 'other' Public Non-Profit
Stations.
-but- As to 'why' KPFA is to the Right of KQED ? - I Don't Know !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPFA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KQED-FM

Now it is "True" that most TV Watchers Identify their TV Channels
by TV Channel Numbers and 'not' the Call Letters of the TV Station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tv_channel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...on_frequencies

yes - i said "the left-side of the dial"
i b suffering from 'pre-digital' thinking ~ RHF

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal
strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey
periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries.

You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from
it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect
extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down.

The listening data is from over 100,000 Arbitron diaries over the last 10
years. listening locations taken from Arbiton's Maximiser and plotted on
MapMaker, another Arbitron application. Then, contours of stations are laid
over the maps, using one of the engineering applications to create multiple
contours.

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no
interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for home
or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal
strength.

Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to determine
how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based.

Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions
and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process
you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your
position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to
fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method
is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete
charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this
explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except
it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Frackelton Gleason, whilst posing as 'Eduardo', spit out some more
pedantic BS when he wrote:

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Sat, 07 Jun
2008 01:47:18 -0700, Bart Bailey wrote: Begin

KNDC
KNSD
*correction before he throws a hissy

Who cares? We were not discussing TV and most people don't identify
electronic media by call letters anyway-

Except for hobbyists, of which you are not one.

Of which DX clubs were you a founder or member of the board?

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Sat, 7
Jun 2008 08:34:11 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin


"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 23:42:49 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings.

Yep,
as accurate as whomever with free time to participate in the survey
faithfully keeps their diary.

You obviously don 't know that there are studies that show that
no-participants have essentially the same behabiour as participants?


Never mind the spelling flame,
just try and focus on the illogic of your comment.
hint - how is a non-participant studied?

Non-participants are often studied for all kinds of research. In a separate
study, a refuser or non-participant will be recontacted in a different
manner, often with a much higher incentive, to discuss non-participation.
This often concludes with a measure of the original behaviour originally
solicited. Usually, an explanation that "we are studying what kind of
dishwasher liquid people who normally don't participate in studies use, and
we are willing to send you a $100 gift card if you will just ask a few
questions" will get nearly full participation.

The study of nonregular participants as a verification of the willing
participants shows the behaviours to be pretty much the same.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Fri, 6
Jun 2008 23:42:49 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings.
Yep,
as accurate as whomever with free time to participate in the survey
faithfully keeps their diary.

You obviously don 't know that there are studies that show that
no-participants have essentially the same behabiour as participants?
If the diary methodology was so accurate, there would be no need to
encumber broadcasters with PPM.


The measurement is very accurate, but it takes three months per cycle to
measure and then 30 to 45 days to tabulate. The PPM delivers weekly results
10 days later. Advertisers want immediacy. The results of the PPM today are
less accurate than the diary, but they are faster.

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on Sat, 7
Jun 2008 08:36:39 -0700, David Eduardo wrote: Begin

In any case, tv copters would not be of any use
at night, and on a weekend it would likely take 90 minutes to become
airboren.


Even if it took til dawn's early light to get "airboren"
the scene would still be there and new worthy

II am sure that, to a turd like you, dyslexia is amazingly funny.

On that line, what is "new worth?" See, this is why spell flames are so
infantile.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
San Diego is one of the markets where listening location vs. signal
strength has been analyzed, going back to 1998 and covering 39 survey
periods and nearly 100,000 listener diaries.

You are full of it Eduardo. I don't care where you get your data from
it's either wrong, you have misinterpreted it or made incorrect
extrapolations. In any event you don't know up from down.

The listening data is from over 100,000 Arbitron diaries over the last 10
years. listening locations taken from Arbiton's Maximiser and plotted on
MapMaker, another Arbitron application. Then, contours of stations are
laid
over the maps, using one of the engineering applications to create
multiple
contours.

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no
interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for
home
or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal
strength.

Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to
determine
how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based.

Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions
and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process
you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your
position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to
fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method
is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete
charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this
explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except
it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no
interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for
home
or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal
strength.

Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to
determine
how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based.

Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions
and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process
you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your
position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to
fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method
is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete
charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this
explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except
it.


Such studies of listening areas are done by broadcasters to determine where
to do promotional activities. That includes van hits, street events,
location of billboards, In the case of an LA radio station, budgets for this
type of promotion might be in the millions of dollars a year.

That's why it is important to plot where the listening occurs, and in the
case of forward-looking growth situations, where there is a potential for
growth.

A key issue in all of this is "where can I expect to pick up listening?" as
opposed to areas where it would be next to impossible to do so. As part of
this, we study how much signal is needed to support efforts to increase
listening. If nearly nobody will listen below a certain signal level,
chances are that we could throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at a low
signal area and get no listening from it.

That is why all broadcasters look at the useful coverage areas (about 10
mv/m or greater on AM for metros and 64 dbu for FM) and don't attempt to get
listeners outside such areas as it is not going to happen.

Contrary to what YOU believe, about every broadcaster in the US uses the
same criteria.

"RHF" wrote in message
...

So for some one like me born and raised in the San Francisco
Bay Area : KGO is KGO; and KCBS is KCBS; while Right Wing
KSFO is on the Left-Side of the Dial.

Only about 10% of the population even use those stations.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The data is accurate... it is the Arbitron ratings. There is no
interpretation... just a view of where listening takes place either for
home
or work listening... and a determination of where it occurs vs. signal
strength.

Several broadcasters have done this, as well as Arbitron itself to
determine
how to do ascription which in many cases is totally signal based.

Let me explain to you what you have done. You had preconceived notions
and manipulated data to get what you wanted. Then you forget the process
you went through to pervert the data and declare it supports your
position. This is pathetic at best. Like I said you could continue to
fool yourself but nobody else is going to be fooled. This mental method
is very evident in most of your posts. You look like a complete
charlatan and a fake. Nobody is buying what you are selling. I hope this
explanation is clear to you but I expect you will not be able to except
it.


Such studies of listening areas are done by broadcasters to determine where
to do promotional activities. That includes van hits, street events,
location of billboards, In the case of an LA radio station, budgets for this
type of promotion might be in the millions of dollars a year.

That's why it is important to plot where the listening occurs, and in the
case of forward-looking growth situations, where there is a potential for
growth.

A key issue in all of this is "where can I expect to pick up listening?" as
opposed to areas where it would be next to impossible to do so. As part of
this, we study how much signal is needed to support efforts to increase
listening. If nearly nobody will listen below a certain signal level,
chances are that we could throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at a low
signal area and get no listening from it.

That is why all broadcasters look at the useful coverage areas (about 10
mv/m or greater on AM for metros and 64 dbu for FM) and don't attempt to get
listeners outside such areas as it is not going to happen.

Contrary to what YOU believe, about every broadcaster in the US uses the
same criteria.

The issue here is what YOU believe as opposed to reality.

I'm pointing out to YOU that YOU are the only only one that believes
what YOU spew.

I don't buy YOUR spin and neither does ANYONE else.

So go ahead and post YOUR crap again as none believe YOU faker.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California