| Rank | Shows | R=Repeat S=Special P=Premiere | Net | # Viewers (LIVE+SD) (000) | HH RATING (LIVE+SD) | HH SHARE (LIVE+SD) |
| 1 | FLIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS(S) | S | CW | 1,844 | 1.0 | 2 |
| 2 | SUPERNATURAL-XMAS(S) | SR | CW | 1,600 | 1.0 | 2 |
| 3 | STORY OF SANTA CLAUS-XMEV(S) | SR | CW | 1,573 | 0.7 | 2 |
| 4 | CW SUNDAY MOVIE, THE | CW | 1,421 | 0.9 | 1 | |
| 5 | EV HATES CHRIS-12/26(S) | SR | CW | 1,398 | 0.9 | 2 |
| 6 | SMALLVILLE-XMAS(S) | SR | CW | 1,329 | 0.8 | 2 |
| 7 | GOSSIP GIRL-MON | R | CW | 1,258 | 0.9 | 1 |
| 8 | GAME, THE-12/26(S) | SR | CW | 1,256 | 0.8 | 1 |
| 9 | GAME, THE2-12/26(S) | SR | CW | 1,170 | 0.8 | 1 |
| 10 | EV HATES CHRIS2-12/26(S) | SR | CW | 1,156 | 0.8 | 1 |
| 11 | PRIVILEGED | R | CW | 1,110 | 0.8 | 1 |
| 12 | 90210 | R | CW | 1,056 | 0.8 | 1 |
| 13 | JERICHO | CW | 953 | 0.6 | 1 | |
| 14 | ONE TREE HILL-MON | R | CW | 834 | 0.7 | 1 |
Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2008 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.
Wow! Very surprised to see Supernatural on top considering it was on Christmas night.
Kathy, I had an error where I had households listed instead of viewers. SN was number one in households, but in viewers it dipped to number two…
I have some serious doubts that all the Viewers (LIVE+SD) (000) numbers (for ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW) for the week of Dec. 22-28, 2008 are indeed the Viewers (LIVE+SD) (000) numbers.
Normally, these numbers match the ones in the “viewers” column of zap2it.com weekly ratings chart. But this time, they match the numbers in the “audience” column of the chart.
Any explantion for this?
Greetings from Germany,
redlock
As I noted above, on 12/30, they were actually originally posted as you suggest, but fixed the morning of 12/31. So my explanation is you’re mistaken
the numbers for CBS, and NBC and Fox definitely align with the viewer numbers on Zap2it. No ABC or CW shows made Zap2its top 20, so there’s no way to compare, but the numbers above are definitely viewer numbers for the CW not households (or what Zap2it calls “audience”).
You are right. The numbers (including those for ABC and the CW) are definitely viewer numbers now.
I looked at those numbers on the morning of 12/31, but that was in the middle of the night in the USA, and before you had fixed it. And then I forgot to check the numbers before I made my posting.
TravisYanan had posted the final numbers for ABC and the CW for Monday and Tuesday (we know where that was
) and they match the ones here. So I guess the rest will do it too 
First of all
—I enjoy coming to and reading this highly informativ, interesring, useful and also entertaining website very much, and I visit it almot daily
—Neither do I want to pick a fit with anyone, embarrass anyone, nor question anyones truthfulness
HOWEVER
the five charts in this section for Dec. 22-28, 2008 were changed AFTER 10.30 Central European Time (that’s 4.30AM Eastern Standard Time) on January 2, 2009, and not anytime before that date.
Why am I so sure? Well, exactly at that time I made a print out of these five charts (five separate ones to be precise), and ALL of them still had the audience/viewers, households/viewers resp., mix up.
Another explanation could be that the fixes were made on Dec. 31, 2008 but appeared only after Jan. 2, 2009.
This post was last modified at 9:06am PT on 12/31. I’d chalk it up to caching, but my understanding of how our cache works is if comments are added (as I did on the morning of 12/31), the cached version is cleared. My understanding could be wrong, you could just be a pain in the ass, or both.
Wow, this guy really is a pain in the ass. Redlock, if you don’t want to pick a fight, embarrass someone, or question someone’s truthfulness, why would you bother posting that? What does it add to the discussion? Plus, YOU ARE WRONG!
There is no need to be rude or impolite.
I do stand by my comment, that the changes to the five charts for Dec. 22-28, 2008 appeared on the internet after Dec. 2, 2009 — 10.30 CET (Dec. 2, 2008 — 01.30AM Pacific Standard Time). I have five print outs that are proof of that.
I am sorry that you do not believe me.
And the point is simple: Something is obviously not properly working…
I did *not* change the time/date stamp of the posts when I corrected them on 12/31 (so they say 12/30 still), but I haven’t modified them since the morning of 12/31. I have proof of that, too and I’m sorry that *you* do not believe me.
I believe you — even though I know you meant January 2, 2009. It’s not our goal to make mistakes, but it certainly happens. When it happens and when we’re aware of it, we fix the mistakes and we do not involve ourselves in conspiratorial cover ups!
it’s definitely not unthinkable to me that there are issues with caching that caused you to see the original posting even after the changes were made. It’s not possible for us to know how your browser cache will work with our caching set up. At this point we have a good enough server where it’s probably reasonable for us to turn off caching altogether except in periods of high demand, but since this seems like such an isolated thing, I don’t know if that’s worthwhile. If we see more problems with caching manifest, it’s something we can consider.
This is a random question but does anyone know why TV guide has removed the CW from its TV listing grid in the weekly magazine? Does this mean they don’t consider the CW a real network?
I haven’t seen the weekly magazine in ages so I have no clue. http://www.tvguide.com still includes CW in its grid (along with PBS, MNT and ION!)
Do you happen to know what WWE SmackDown!’s HH rating was for friday, please?
Kyle, unfortunately we don’t have data for the week ending 1/4 yet and likely won’t until tomorrow.
That’s alright. Thanks for the response.
I thought I read somewhere that TVGUIDE.Com was no longer affiliated with the magazine. Kind of wierd, I know. I believe that’s why Matt Roush no longer writes for TVGUIDE.Com. I may be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Found this. Still think it’s odd.
http://www.tvguide.com/Roush/Where-Matt-Roush-1000790.aspx?imw=Y