I'm not so sure you can derive a general rule from a specific case like that. I'd guess no one stepping up for "Getting On" was a combo of it having such a low viewership (meaning the odds of a reviewer already watching would be lower than a network or even basic cable show), being a second-season show (meaning anyone…

Technically, it's readership rather than commenting that determines whether coverage continues — the latter is just a halfway useful approximation of the former, which isn't publicly available. And while I doubt we'd bother writing about either show you described (give or take the occasional open-minded experiment),…

I can't say for sure, but just looking at the comment numbers (which are inexactly but loosely correlated with readership numbers), I'm guessing Man Seeking Woman just didn't have nearly enough people reading to justify continuing coverage. It's not a zero-sum game where one show ending coverage frees up space for…

I'm looking forward to sometime in 2017, when a Monday WOT is literally just the words "Top pick: Fargo (FX, 10 p.m.)" repeated 300 times. Just the perfect conclusion to the Monday WOT saga.

Yeah, Outlander does pretty well too. Though that also brings in a pretty nice built-in fanbase, I believe, what with the books and all?

There's something very freeing about happily and repeatedly declaring oneself an idiot.

I'm not privy to the precise thinking behind whether to cover Black Sails, but I'm guessing the fact that it's a Starz show doesn't help. Unless a show comes with a huge built-in audience like Ash vs. Evil Dead, or it's Spartacus, Starz shows are notoriously hard to build readerships for, because so few people watch…

I like to think that the Tuesday WOTs depict an internally consistent story of one man's kinda boring descent into slight lunacy.

Yeah, that's H. Jon Benjamin. Bob's Burgers only credits its voice actors for their primary role in a given episode, so you can generally assume any uncredited role was taken by a voice actor pulling double-duty.

In past years, they've just held over a ton of episodes for the next season. I forget how the specific episode orders worked, but a bunch of season 2 episodes aired officially as part of season 3.

I think the best way to look at a given review is as a (hopefully analytically sound) recounting of one particular perspective on an episode, and as a conversation starter. There's no real way a review can be all things for all people, which is why the comments do (theoretically) serve a real purpose.

Yeah, that's part of the reason I said "LGBT" instead of gay to be more fully inclusive of the possibilities. And I think you're right that the case is stronger for Gene's gender-fluidity than something specifically to do with his sexuality. That said, the show hasn't really been consistent enough in its handling of…

Hey, I got into all this like three months ago, so now I won't shut up about it.

I would say that you've turned heel, but that would make me the babyface in our WOT Correspondent feud, and that doesn't sound right at all.

My latest theory is that at least some of us WOT correspondents have turned heel. It's got to be said, witholding the top pick from certain shows is a surefire way to generate heat.

Fox's sports programming doesn't help. I believe the MLB playoffs always mess with stuff in the fall, then the NFL playoffs and Super Bowl eat into Sunday programming. (The 7:30 slot is also vulnerable to football overruns, which I think happened at least once this year.) I don't know why Bob's was hurt quite so badly…

I generally don't get screeners for Bob's, so it all depends on how long it takes me to work out my perspective on the episode. Some nights are harder than others. So, sure, I'll try for a turnaround of roughly this sort of time or earlier, but it's hard to predict or promise that.

I dunno. I've certainly long felt Gene made a lot of sense as an LGBT character (and he totally still could be!), but it's probably also fair to say that on the fairly rare occasion he's shown any romantic interest in anybody, it's been directed at girls, not boys. So, maybe not outraged, but rather disappointed…

Yeah, I was like 95% sure that was the one, but I couldn't confirm it, and I figured it was best not to hold back publishing a review just to spend 15 extra minutes tracking this down. Thanks!

Sigh…fixing. Thanks!