Admiral Shran wrote:
As for The Experiment - I like it, keep it up. It just needed to have the introduction of the baseball in it.
I was going to put the baseball in, but then I forgot.
I only remembered to add Nog and Opaka's death in at the last moment.
Oh, and - are you not doing the "What I Would Have Done Differently" for DS9?
I considered it, but I don't think I'd have much to say. I did that for Voyager and Enterprise because I had issues with the structures of those shows and the direction they went (except ENT season 4), whereas with DS9 I'm fairly happy with the direction the show took. All I'd be doing is complaining that the show didn't focus on Bajor enough in early years, or pointing out plot inconsistencies and dropped concepts. I felt like I'd be repeating myself if I did that.
Ln X wrote:
Dude I'm a mathematician and for one thing your graphs need there x- and y-axes labelled. Otherwise the numbers become a little meaningless.
Oh, this is more embarrassing for me than the time Mike Sussman showed up after I made all those jokes about him.
Yes, I should have labelled the axes, but that ruins the aesthetics of the graph, and it's not like as if people actually look at them, they're just there to make me look smart to the simpletons, like history majors. (
The histogram can be divided in two partitions; the left part being the poor and average episodes, which are slightly more numerous than the right part being the good and excellent episodes.
The bottom line: the spread is skewed to the average episodes, and the median (middle; half of the cumulative frequency 19) would be somewhere around the ranking 4.
Conclusion: from the histogram, and taking the median, the first season of DS9 is somewhat below average.
Wouldn't the median be 5? There's 19 values, the median would be the 10th, which would be 5. Or is there some more complicated method of getting the median that I don't know about?
Also, would the average not be more important than the median in this situation? Yes, there's more bad episodes than good, but the level of badness in the bad episodes isn't as much as the goodness in the good episodes. Or something like that.
Seven of Five wrote:
I remember Ira Steven Behr had his hand in a lot of the Ferengi episodes, so I think his ultimate score may not be as good as some of the other writers. He also teamed up with Rober Hewitt Wolfe and then Hans Beimler after Wolfe left, meaning that his solo scripts just sort of vanished like a Dominion fleet. Will he be represented on the graph like the Reeves-Stevens?
Nah, Behr gets judged as an individual because he did write a few episodes on his own, the only ones that will share a score are Thompson and Weddle as they always wrote together, from what I remember. Like I said, it's not fair or accurate, it's just a little fun.
As for Behr's score, while I imagine it will be above average overall, some of the "comedy" episodes will hold him back. He'll probably get a good score in the end, but Moore, Echevarria, and Fields don't have that sort of baggage and will likely top him. In fact, just glancing at Field's list of future episodes, he's in a very strong position to "win" this thing.