"Family Feud" quadruple run?

[gamed121683]

Where I live, my My TV affiliate (yeah, that's still a thing) is pulling a GSN and is now airing "Family Feud" FOUR times a day back-to-back. I wonder if there are any other affiliates doing this?

[PYLdude]

Yes.

Assuming it's the same setup, a block of reruns airs on WWOR from 3-4 PM and then the normal double run airs from 6:30-7:30. Why such a strange time I don't know.

[SuperMatch93]

WPWR in Chicago (also a MyTV affiliate) has had a quadruple run this season from 5-7, and WFLD used to air it in the afternoons as well.

[colonial]

Here in Atlanta, FF airs weekdays from 8-9am, then again from 7-8pm.  The morning block was introduced this winter, replacing "Queen Latifah".

JD

[NickintheATL]

There are indeed four weekday runs.  The 3rd and 4th runs are mostly from either 2012-13 or 2013-14.

But airing them all back to back?  It probably is rare, more likely on a station that has a *lot* of time to fill.

/My station used to air the 3rd and 4th runs on our .2
//Until the plug got pulled on the .2 (another story)

[PYLdude]

Realistically? If our Feud station could air it for two consecutive hours they probably would.

WWOR hasn't paid a lot of attention to its early evening lineup for quite some time now. I'm convinced they only started airing Feud later because they needed a gap filler. No newscast either. Only station in the market that doesn't even have one, let alone one in the early evening.

/well, at least among commercial stations that you can get without cable
//our Ion station doesn't have one either
///can you even consider Ion a network anymore?

[gamed121683]

In a related story, some of these quadruple runs might explain this:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/06/23/syndicated-tv-ratings-family-feud-tops-households-wheel-of-fortune-wins-viewers-live-with-kelly-and-michael-dr-phil-lead-talkers-for-week-ending-june-14-2015/420812/

[brianhenke]

 When was the last time that WOF or J! was not the number one game show in syndication? The 1980s, I presume...

  Brian

[BrandonFG]

When was the last time that WOF or J! was not the number one game show in syndication? The 1980s, I presume...

For Wheel, I'm pretty sure it ended its first season as the #1 (game) show, so 1984 there. I imagine Jeopardy! shot near the top by 1986 or '87.

[johnnya2k3]

When was the last time that WOF or J! was not the number one game show in syndication? The 1980s, I presume...

For Wheel, I'm pretty sure it ended its first season as the #1 (game) show, so 1984 there. I imagine Jeopardy! shot near the top by 1986 or '87.

I remember reading that for a brief period, The $1,000,000 Chance Of A Lifetime out-rated Wheel.

[BrandonFG]

For Wheel, I'm pretty sure it ended its first season as the #1 (game) show, so 1984 there. I imagine Jeopardy! shot near the top by 1986 or '87.

I remember reading that for a brief period, The $1,000,000 Chance Of A Lifetime out-rated Wheel.

I forgot about that, but yes, I remember seeing that too. I think it was in Broadcasting Magazine.

[Thunder]

Buzzerblog never approved then deleted my comment that pointed out that the 95% confidence level margin of error on that Nielsen rating is +\- 0.3 rating points. That means there's no real "#1" consensus in those published ratings.

Davis seems to believe that a 6.1 rating is bigger than a 6.0 rating. It's not. A 6.1 rating is bigger than a 5.1 rating. I've pointed that out before to no avail.

[TLEberle]

It isn't? It would seem to be bigger by one tenth of a ratings point.

Given that the margin is three tenths of a point it seems unlikely that if the biggest slice of the pie is six parts per hundred that there would ever bee a number one because everything's squidged so close together.

[Thunder]

A 6.1 rating means Nielsen is statistically 95% confident that the true number is somewhere between 5.8 and 6.4.  A 6.0 rating means they're 95% confident it's truly between 5.7 and 6.3. There's too much overlap in those ranges to make a conclusive determination. At face value and in definite numbers, 6.1 > 6.0. In numbers subject to margin of error, that's a statistical dead heat.
 
Also, those numbers are rounded to the tenths place. 6.1 could be 6.05 & 6.0 could be 6.04.

Yeah, it's a lot of "could"s there, but that's how standard deviations, confidence levels and margin of errors work in statistics.

Statistics was my 2nd favorite mathematics class after probability.

[clemon79]

It isn't? It would seem to be bigger by one tenth of a ratings point.

Point is that it might also be anywhere from .2 to .5 behind that 6.0 program, which could itself actually have been anywhere between a 5.7 and 6.3.