@SimpleMike said:

@Lemuria said:

@paulj said:

Once again, very cool. The relatively small sample sizes, by day, of the non-U.S. shows and 2.0 era (in particular) make me wonder about statistical significance. I'm not sure we're seeing any cross-era differences. Future research?

There aren't any sample sizes, because they aren't any samples: These are populations. Statistical significance is typically a question of whether samples are large enough to make inferences *to* a population from which the sample was selected - but there's no such question here, because there's no such jump: The data include *all* known cases, and there are definitely cross-era differences.

I think paulj just meant that the surprising properties of the 2.0 and non-US charts may be mostly due to the small number of shows looked at. A small sample is less credible / more volatile.

EDIT: It's true they aren't samples so I suppose volatility is really what we're talking about.