Why would i list every little factor for the decline/increase in the ratings in this graph
Oh, I don't know, to be intellectually honest?
The very clear implication here is that the ratings trending downward are a bad thing, and I would assume, you're using that to make an indirect statement about the quality of the program. So when you're only using ratings to reflect direction of business, it is intellectually dishonest. That's why you would list the myriad of factors which have to do with, not only the ratings, but the business as well.
as it's not important as people can make their own assumptions why the in/decrease in the ratings for that year.
When you said, "it would look worse then it does now." that clearly is a judgment you're making. Thus, it's also important to present the other facts related to the situation.
2005 was the year cena was drafted to Raw, the "John Cena Era" was in it's peak at that time, cena injured himself and was out fourteen months in 2007 (2008?).
I think you mean 4 months. He relinquished his title in October 2007 due to his torn pec, and then made his surprise return at the Royal Rumble 2008.
From 2001 -2004, the yearly average declined from 4.64 - 3.67. Raw yearly average increased to 3.81 2005, to 3.9 in 2006. 2005 is when cena was drafted to raw, and IMHO for the increase in the yearly average for those years, was because of cena.
Yes, Cena was a major factor for that increase.
"Then in 2005, you actually see ratings tick upward until halfway through 2007."
We're not talking about individual ratings for each single raw.
Neither am I. I'm talking about trends, and until Chris Benoit committed his murder-suicide, the trend was holding steady at 3.9. After the murders in June, it began its downward trend.
Again, presenting all information is incredibly important when you provide commentary on your data.
I Can list every single rating for every single raw from 2001-2012 and the results would still be the same accept the graph would have more up and downs, but the results would still be the same.. RAW has been trending downward.
To get an idea of the direction RAW is heading, you need to look no further from 1999 - 2012 yearly average rating.
Why would we start at 1999? Why wouldn't we start with 1993, when Raw first started? Wouldn't that provide you a better look? Of course it would, but it would go against the argument you're insinuating which is that Raw is getting worse.
I'm not telling you that your data is inaccurate, I'm telling you that the idea you seem to be presenting does not come close to telling the entire picture.
