Over the last couple of years, especially since the cancellation of such shows as "Farscape" and "Firefly," which have developed strong fan bases, there has been a considerable amount of talk about ratings.

Not that ratings talk is a new thing, of course. I think it probably became an issue with science-fiction fans since the early run of the original "Star Trek" series in the late 1960s. According to NBC, "Star Trek's" ratings were in the toilet. However, that was before Nielsen started to track demographics. If they had then as they do now, the original series probably would've went 10 seasons, as the original was a huge hit in key demographics, even if its overall ratings were lower.

Even more talk has come about "Star Trek: Enterprise," the fifth Star Trek series, and how it's faring against tough competition from The WB, namely "Smallville." But while "Enterprise" has been struggling in the ratings, almost from the start, fans should not be discouraged by the most recent ratings numbers.

Airlock Alpha only really talks about overnight ratings. Rarely do we get into final ratings, because overnights hit the target markets that most of the networks are into, and it's usually those markets that can judge what will happen to a show, despite its overall rating. And to be honest, while the show has dropped a little bit, it hasn't dropped as much as many critics expected it would once "Smallville" came on the air at the beginning of October.

What were the predictions? The worst case scenarios I heard were things like "Enterprise" would lose half its audience and things like that. That means that the 4.0 rating it was getting would drop to a 2.0 rating, similar to its failed leadout show, "Jake 2.0." But it hasn't. In fact, "Enterprise" has held its own, and is not suffering the audience erosion that "Smallville" has been experiencing since its premiere. Sure, both shows took a tremendous hit (around 10 percent dropoff) against the Major League Baseball playoffs on Fox, but overall, while "Smallville" continues to lead the ratings race, "Enterprise" has somehow defied expectations and stayed in the hunt.

I am a person that believes that we should be realistic about things. But at the same time, I am shocked that some Star Trek-centric sites seem devoted to trying to pound that last nail in "Enterprise's" coffin, as if taking a negative approach to the ratings would finally either shake things up on the show, or get rid of it so some new Star Trek series can take its place. I hate to say this, but there is no other Star Trek series in development at this time.

How are those sites doing it? They are constantly mentioning aspects of the ratings which really are not given in perspective. As you may already know, the rating is the percentage of televisions in the entire country that is tuned in to Star Trek. Now, mind you, it's not the number of television sets that are on, it's the number of television sets PERIOD. So, it even includes the television sets of families who are at the bowling alley and nowhere near their living room.

So, you see reports that "Only 3.9 percent of the television sets in the country were tuned in to Star Trek last night." Which seems bad, doesn't it? That means that 96.1 percent of the television sets were not. And technically, that's true. But on the average night, only about 30 percent of the television sets are on at the same time, anyway. Which means that really, only about 27 percent of the POTENTIAL television sets were not tuned in. Potential sets are the ones that people have turned on, and they are watching.

While that still seems kind of bad, when you compare then 3.9 percent market share with the 30 percent, you actually have a higher percentage of actual viewers tuning in ... that's why you see more than a rating in ratings. You see a share as well. That share indicates more important numbers ... like percentage of television sets that were actually on to begin with that tuned in to Star Trek.

Will "Enterprise" be a casualty after the third season? It's hard to say. So far, the show has exceeded network expectations, and even MediaWeek is hesitating before adding it to the nightly losers (although they did threaten to do it recently). While the network and fans SHOULD be concerned about "Enterprise's" ratings, at the same time, they need to at least realize that many of the numbers we have seen coming from the show is more positive than most people expected.

Since I am talking about ratings, I did want to point out that last night, I rented the "Best of Season 1" 3-disc set of "Farscape," and as I promised some Scapers not too long ago, I am going to watch my first episodes of "Farscape" ever to see what it was like.

I know a lot of Scapers are pissed about the fact that Sci-Fi Channel cancelled the show, despite the fact it was only halfway through a two-season commitment extension to the show. The cable channel pointed its finger at sagging ratings, even though the show was one of Sci-Fi Channel's highest-rated shows.

But you have to realize that there is more to ratings than just who is winning the overall race. The reason why ratings exist isn't just to see which network is better than everyone else. It also helps determine advertising dollars. Of course, those types of determinations only happen three times a year .. in November, February and May, known as "sweeps." That's when you see all the series kick out some of their best episodes, in order to grab viewers during those periods.

When networks and cable channels sell commercials, the price of those commercials are based on ratings. Obviously, because of ratings, an advertiser is going to pay more for 30 seconds of time during "The West Wing" on NBC, which gets something like 18 million viewers a week, than they would on UPN's "The Mullets," which only pulls in about 3 million viewers each week.

While "Farscape" had some of the best ratings on the Sci-Fi Channel, it also was the most expensive. And Vivendi, as evil as many people think they are, had to make money, too. It makes no sense to spend money and not make any back. Vivendi hardly was non-profit. However, the amount of money they were making on the series based on ratings just wasn't balancing with the amount the channel was spending.

I am not becoming an apologist for Sci-Fi Channel. It probably was a mistake to cut their losses when they did, especially without really giving "Farscape" a chance to wrap up its storylines. But at the same time, we have to be fair about their decision, too.

I do hope that once I watch these six episodes, I will understand even more why Scapers are so passionate about their show, even though it's been off the air for nearly a year.

Michael Hinman is co-founder and news editor of Airlock Alpha. He can be reached at michael@airlockalpha.com.

Talk about this story on the Airlock Alpha message boards. Click here!.