I really think there needs to be a sub-forum for visiting researchers with threads like this one at the forefront. There have been a number of publications the cite TRP as their source but misinterpret some of what we say, don't recognise non-sung range as valid, compare extremely incomplete threads with extensively researched etc. If we had a visitor's section to make their research very straightforward (a lot of the time they just want to know who have big ranges and how the household names compare) we could set the record straight on how our definition of range is meant to be interpreted and prevent publications that cite our work inaccurately.
I'm not sure it needs its own subforum and how many people would actually bother reading it if it existed, but I suppose something along those lines would kind of make sense. Maybe an information thread in Announcements with FAQs and links to other useful threads. Journalists may still choose to interpret information their own way anyhow, but at least we can explain roughly the definitions we use and stuff.
If it was clearly marked "Visitors Sub-Forum (Ideal for Research Purposes)" and placed in a prominent position then that would be the first place they'd go I'd imagine. But we do need to clear the air regarding our definitions to the general public. We on the forum are familiar with them now, but that's taken years to establish. Outsiders need a heads up regarding what we mean to convey in our threads when they are browsing.
We still have that Facebook page as well. Could be a good way to get the name out there. Maybe post updates when important threads are finished and whatnot.
It would certainly be helpful to explain ourselves more clearly both to new members and to visitors. The way we do things might make sense to (some) established members but it's not immediately clear to the rest of the world.