I belive how it works is 1.2 is the "share" or the "rating." And the 1.7 is the millions of households. I remember in the "old" days, they would talk about SG-1 being watched by over 2 million households, but I don't believe their ratings were ever quite that high.
You know, they are disappointed, but *I* think those ratings are exceptionally good, considering that they are going up against first-run episodes on the major networks. This is something that no Stargate has ever had to do on a regular basis before. If they had started in the summer, up against nothing, I'm sure they'd have done much better. I don't know if this is a case of Sci-Fi setting them up for failure, or if Sci-Fi actually wanted to really compete against the networks.
I know myself I had to have three recording devices going last week, what with Numbers and now Tom Selleck coming to Vegas. Vegas is a stupid show, and NOTHING like the real Vegas, but Tom Selleck! Needless to say, if I were a Nielsen person, I'd be watching SGA LIVE on BOTH feeds, but I'm not, so I recorded everything.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-04 06:14 pm (UTC)You know, they are disappointed, but *I* think those ratings are exceptionally good, considering that they are going up against first-run episodes on the major networks. This is something that no Stargate has ever had to do on a regular basis before. If they had started in the summer, up against nothing, I'm sure they'd have done much better. I don't know if this is a case of Sci-Fi setting them up for failure, or if Sci-Fi actually wanted to really compete against the networks.
I know myself I had to have three recording devices going last week, what with Numbers and now Tom Selleck coming to Vegas. Vegas is a stupid show, and NOTHING like the real Vegas, but Tom Selleck! Needless to say, if I were a Nielsen person, I'd be watching SGA LIVE on BOTH feeds, but I'm not, so I recorded everything.