A controlled decent?
It's strange that no one in the field is able to interpret those ratings the way you did.
I knew that you couldn't give me one person involved in the series or a newspaper or magazine article from the time to back up you theory, because there aren't any. Sorry.
But for starting from a premise with no facts to back it up, you argued your proffered assumption well.
Rick Berman agrees with me, in the quote you supplied so poorly and referenced inaccurately. A shitty attempt at journalism which shot you in the foot. Rick agrees with me and must think that you are twisting his words inside out to justify your deformed convictions.
Berman said in the news article you referenced an annotation of that after the 60 percent bump that the ratings went down again, a little higher than before, but not 60 percent up. Of course that was 1999, and the ratings continued to go down.
6.5 is larger then 5 which is larger than 4 which is larger than 3.
If you think that 3 is larger than 6 Zameaze, you must be god awful at parallel parking.
This is interesting.
Greg Fuller at the Star Trek Nielsen Ratings Information Database just updated his site with a correction to the report that 'Voyager' caused Trek to have it first season-to-season ratings improvement since TNG ended, improving very slightly over season 5. Unfortunately, it seems a slight mathematical mistake was made in the calculations, meaning that Voyager's ratings actually went down by 4%, still a very much smaller decline than in previous years. Here is the full text of the correction:
The Season 6 statistics were indeed correct: 3.56. The mistake was in your average of Season 5. When adding all the first run episodes, you divided by 26. That is understandible considering there are 26 episodes a season. However, you failed to recognize that Dark Frontiers, a UPN telemovie, is counted as TWO episodes. When adding all the ratings and counting Dark Frontiers once, you get aseason rating of 3.55. But, you can see this math is wrong. The average is saying Dark Frontiers received a 4.7 divided in half, or two 2.35's. This would be considerably incorrect. You should instead either add all the ratings, counting Dark Frontiers as one episode, and divide by 25, getting a Season 5 average of 3.62, or count Dark Frontier's 4.7 average twice and divide by 26, getting a Season 5 average of 3.66. Both show a considerable DECREASE in viewership from Season 5 to Season 6, and not the increase you are reporting here. Greg's May ratings report has been updated with the new info. Of course, this is only a change of a few per cent, and it's due to last year's ratings turning out better than thought, but it's still unfortunate 'Voyager' wasn't able to break this seven-year ratings decline.
meanwhile there's this from IMDB
The introduction of Seven of Nine is sometimes credited with saving the series from possible cancellation after its first few seasons, as the sexy character sparked a revival of publicity in the show. In reality however, her arrival did little to increase ratings aside from the first few episodes in which she appeared, afterwards the show's ratings continued to drop below the levels of the previous season.
But who the hell knows who wrote that.
You're asking me to find evidence that a bunch of nice people are secretly assholes bitching and backstabbing their friends and work-family? I suppose there's Beltran, but everyone else is far too classy to say a bad word about their meal ticket to the press and the internet.
Voyager had a consistent rating of 3(ish) for most of it's final season.
Scorpion II scored a 6.5
Caretaker scored a 13.
No one needs an insider to tell us that there was a significant decline in the ratings because this is 13
and this is three
And one of them is larger than the other.
(It's 13. 13 is larger than 3.)