If I really don't like someone, I call them a Tony Schiavone.---Ron Funches
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington D.C.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Re: The smarkiest comment you've ever read on WF
The crazy thing about using ratings is that the majority of people that use that in their argument don't realize how those ratings are compiled or the purpose.
For example, people bash Diesel's title reign for low ratings/buyrates, ignoring the fact that he rarely worked RAW and the overall shitness of the product. I may be in the minority but I was under the impression that it takes 2 to tango.
Another example is CM Punk's title reign. People bashed him for low ratings, ignoring the fact that Punk always had the highest rated segment of the show, the exception probably being the 6 man with Ryder & Bryan, which is understandable because of the holidays.
And people using ratings in their argument are selective with when they use it. If it supports them, it's fact. If it doesn't, THEN AND ONLY THEN is it irrelevant. They tell me that it's human nature.
I can't lie and say I don't talk about ratings but I'm probably one of the least biased users on this forum. And I don't use ratings, buyrates or drawing at all to support why I think my favorite is GOAT or anything similar. I just enter those kind of threads and tell it like it is: if you use ratings to toot this guys horn, look at the bigger picture and the breakdowns to see who really had the highest rated segment. If you use ratings to shit on this guy, again, look at the bigger picture and the breakdowns to see who really had the lowest rated segment.
Instead, those who get their dick hard about what a percentage of 25,000 other people like are selective, reach, don't understand how and what the ratings are compiled and used for and in all reality, want to sound smarter than others and ratings is the only thing that they have to attempt to back up their argument.