Good shows often have mediocre pilots — the nature of pilots usually makes them awkward (too much exposition and the characters aren’t developed, for example). So when you watch a pilot that isn’t any good, how do you decide how much of a chance to give it? — Joanna

The difference between a bad pilot with potential and a bad pilot without is often execution versus taste. Some jokes don’t land, some moments are overly broad, some characters a bit too reminiscent of an actor’s previous role — those all feel conquerable to me. Trafficking in bland stereotypes, demonstrating a lack of imagination or relying on anonymous, naked dead women as vague motivation all feel more urgently terrible. “They didn’t achieve what they were going for” is easier to look past than “the thing they are going for is bad.”

There are always going to be genre hiccups: Shows that have high-concept premises or unusual settings often suffer from pilot-itis, but as a viewer I know they won’t explain the world in every episode. Sitcoms often have “the day everything changed” pilots, but presumably the “new” character will be warmly subsumed into the rest of the ensemble in the second episode. Great pilots still exist in both of these formats — for example, “Battlestar Galactica” and “Cheers” — but I am more likely to forgive a familiar failure.

I also try to look at the world the show is set in, if I can imagine myself spending more time there. On the pilot of “Madam Secretary,” we’re meant to find drama in the protagonist agonizing over whether to become secretary of state. We know that she will do it, because that is what the show is going to be! Ugh. But I liked a lot of the characters, and I liked the vibe, and I like hopeful political stories and that turned out to be a show I enjoyed tremendously.