I don't think her removal had anything to do with the forums and like you say, there were only 3 or so people who posted there regularly and kept it bumped daily - with a random forum member adding a bit when it was bumped.
.
Only three regulars? Really? :rolleyes:
How curious then that I can very easily name a dozen just off the top of my head. Still, as I said, believe what you wish.
This is a non-argument, as you only have to take a glance at the George thread to see that you're completely incorrect, and that it's overwhelmingly positive, and has been so for much of its existence - and certainly for the past few weeks. You'll also see a great deal of affection for Zezi from the regulars in that thread too. There's no point in continuing this discussion if you're simply going to present the facts incorrectly, so believe what you wish. Were you to actually read the threads in question, I think you might be pleasantly surprised by what you'd find.
Only three regulars? Really? :rolleyes:
How curious then that I can very easily name a dozen just off the top of my head. Still, as I said, believe what you wish.
I did read them regularly and it was more a case of things along the line of oh she was ok today, her back was straight and she didn't mumble as much - and then the same scrutinisation and clinical anal insight on a daily basis.
You may have had people posting now and again to have a chat but there were only 3 or 4 who posted daily.
You may have had people posting now and again to have a chat but there were only 3 or 4 who posted daily.
Not true, I'm afraid. There were loads of us. At least a dozen regulars, most of whom posted daily. Still, this is off topic and a rather dull argument, easily verified by simply popping into either of the threads and taking a glance, which I know you're not going to do. It's a classic ploy - make the discussions about Zezi and George appear irrelevant by suggesting there were only three or four people posting in there. It's untrue, though, of course.
I know one of the producers of this year's show and call tell you for a fact that Zezi was demoted until the end of the series (and won't be returning) as a direct result of the negative response on this forum, and to a lesser degree the Channel 4 official BB message board. Most of the more vocal threads were removed from the C4 board until it got to the point that the media picked up on just how poor Zezi was.
It was such a shame that she tainted George Lamb, who as superb throughout, and a great replacement for Dermot. I understand that Zezi did not even want the job but was talked into doing it...the person who made that decision must have a very red face now.
I did read them regularly and it was more a case of things along the line of oh she was ok today, her back was straight and she didn't mumble as much - and then the same scrutinisation and clinical anal insight on a daily basis.
You may have had people posting now and again to have a chat but there were only 3 or 4 who posted daily.
I don't think her removal had anything to do with the forums and like you say, there were only 3 or so people who posted there regularly and kept it bumped daily - with a random forum member adding a bit when it was bumped.
It wasn't the most appropriate thread. How it can be justified to take somebody apart like that is beyond comprehension - then the belief that what you are saying makes an impact makes you wonder a bit more about how people justify such gross dissection.
I thought she was improving but as that thread was bumped regularly - she went from improving to getting more nervous.
It wasn't a question of taking someone apart - the simple fact is Zezi was totally out of her depth - it's a lot to ask a novice to present a show that goes out daily for 13 weeks -
99% of posters on the Zezi thread had a lot of sympathy for her but the fact is she's not suited to the job - speaking of facts - there were certainly regular posters, there are on any long running thread but I don't know where the 3 came from - just to clarify: -
It wasn't a question of taking someone apart - the simple fact is Zezi was totally out of her depth - it's a lot to ask a novice to present a show that goes out daily for 13 weeks -
99% of posters on the Zezi thread had a lot of sympathy for her but the fact if she's not suited to the job - speaking of facts - there were certainly regular posters, there are on any long running thread but I don't know where the 3 came from - just to clarify: -
Nicole reads them. She even has a spat in one article moaning about the people who criticised Rex's behaviour on the forums, saying they didn't understand him or realise that he is just an insecure guy.
Well if he's just "insecure" - I am not interested, that's his problem. What he can do is keep his big gob shut when he knows nastiness is going to pop out of it (which is nearly always).:mad:
I think Zezi was removed because she wasn't good. I don't think the forums have a look in.
The dislike for Zezi on the forums were more comical than analytical - I mean it was just a bunch of people being venomous to an individual en masse, which nobody would take seriously.
Question is, did all the nastiness that was written about Zezi on the forums affects her even more and more?
I thought she was quirky and rather charming - but I didn't watch BBLB that much (unless I remembered to record it to enable me to picture search through the dross - which is most of it).:o
As one of the regulars on both the aforementioned Zezi thread, and the subsequent thread about George, I can tell you that there was actually very little venom, mostly constructive criticism. We actually rather liked Zezi and had a lot of affection for her, we just thought she was a hopeless presenter (and she was). It also became quickly clear that at least some attention was being paid to what we said, as a number of our suggestions were taken on board, often within a day or two of them being mentioned. It could well have been coincidence, but it did happen a number of times. The George thread never had the same kind of influence, mainly as it quickly became a sort of slightly skewed and extended appreciation thread, with a little conversation thrown in.
Well if the BB producers are taking advice from outside FMs they can't be very good at their jobs. After all, suggestions aren't rocket science, are they!:rolleyes:
It wasn't a question of taking someone apart - the simple fact is Zezi was totally out of her depth - it's a lot to ask a novice to present a show that goes out daily for 13 weeks -
99% of posters on the Zezi thread had a lot of sympathy for her but the fact is she's not suited to the job - speaking of facts - there were certainly regular posters, there are on any long running thread but I don't know where the 3 came from - just to clarify: -
being sympathetic at all and to assume this is the case really doesn't add up to the thread title and as I have already said the continual never ending deep scrutinisation of her on a daily basis. Again, I say, this is not appropriate to be looking at somebody like this. Even in scientific studies this is unethical and immoral.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out that there was only one main poster rather than the 3 I commented on with 5 posters over 600 posts and that's about it. It backs up my claim for a massive thread that was dominated (as seen by myself and another posters here) by very few people on the forum.
Not true, I'm afraid. There were loads of us. At least a dozen regulars, most of whom posted daily. Still, this is off topic and a rather dull argument, easily verified by simply popping into either of the threads and taking a glance, which I know you're not going to do. It's a classic ploy - make the discussions about Zezi and George appear irrelevant by suggesting there were only three or four people posting in there. It's untrue, though, of course.
The link given indicates there were 3 regulars - 2 more with over 600 posters and the rest dwindled down to far less posts very very quickly.
And as indicated by myself, if it wasn't for the regular bumping the vast majority wouldn't have re-replied to the posts. It was not a popular thread. It was just regularly bumped to scrutinise an individual with gross clinical detail.
I distinctly remember, a day or two after the George thread was started that he was doing a link about the internet and he stopped and said "yes, we do read the forums, guys" to camera. I could be wrong, but I assumed that he was making reference to that thread. It certainly seemed that way.
The Daily Star certainly is. They take not only quotes but whole stories from threads on here. All the tabloids do to a greater or lesser degree.
I remember last year when something was going on (I really can't remember what) where a thread was being constantly updated. By a huge coincidence, the Daily StarBgi Brother blog was also being updated - usually about 5 minutes after the thread, with whatever information or theory was currnetly in the thread. Some of the people who were contributing to the thread started calling the journalist responsible lazy and saying that if he was going to steal other people's research that he should at least credit them with it.
The next blog update had a cheeky shout out to the members of Digital Spy at the end.
There's no question - the tabloid journalists do read this forum and it's not unheard of for them to print stories off unsubstantiated rumours as if they were factual.
That is because journos are a lazy bunch of ar*es and rarely get off them to actually do their job. They rely on other news outlets to do it for them, and do a snatch here and there.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
The link given indicates there were 3 regulars - 2 more with over 600 posters and the rest dwindled down to far less posts very very quickly.
And as indicated by myself, if it wasn't for the regular bumping the vast majority wouldn't have re-replied to the posts. It was not a popular thread. It was just regularly bumped to scrutinise an individual with gross clinical detail.
OK - we'll have to differ here - posting on an established thread at the time the show goes out isn't bumping - it's a discussion on the show in general - unfortunately the show was almost unwatchable because of the poor presentation - once Zezi was moved to a different slot George improved considerably - You're entitled to your opinion and so am I - Zezi might be the nicest soul to ever walk the planet but she's not a presenter - if she'd done a decent job do you think she'd have been removed - I should add it's not only DS who ran Zezi threads - there were plenty more, even on the highly censored C4 forum - I've no intention of carrying this on all night so I repeat - we'll have to agree to differ:)
The link given indicates there were 3 regulars - 2 more with over 600 posters and the rest dwindled down to far less posts very very quickly.
And as indicated by myself, if it wasn't for the regular bumping the vast majority wouldn't have re-replied to the posts. It was not a popular thread. It was just regularly bumped to scrutinise an individual with gross clinical detail.
But ask yourself one vital question - did Zezi last the course as a main co-presenter? No, she didn't. Sadly, gorgeous George looks like he will be a casualty as the producers seek a clean sweep now Big Brother 9 has concluded.
If only they had been sensible and entrusted Little Brother to an established and seasoned presenter such as Miquita Oliver or Konnie Huq.
Well if the BB producers are taking advice from outside FMs they can't be very good at their jobs. After all, suggestions aren't rocket science, are they!:rolleyes:
I'm sure the BB Producers ARE very good at their jobs thank you very much. If anything, they do their research very well. How do you research? I know I use the internet.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out that there was only one main poster rather than the 3 I commented on with 5 posters over 600 posts and that's about it. It backs up my claim for a massive thread that was dominated (as seen by myself and another posters here) by very few people on the forum.
Zezi was on the show for what... about the first half of the run? That's about 50 days. I'd say that anyone with around 200 posts on a thread that only ran for around 50 days to be not only a regular poster, but also probably a daily poster. I see around a dozen who qualify for that, as I previously stated.
Unless, of course, you think that someone who posts 200 times on a single thread isn't a regular poster in there? :rolleyes:
If that's what you're arguing, I think the statistics are against you.
It's also irrelevant - Blondedumbition has already stated that the thread was one of the factors directly responsible for Zezi being demoted. The point being that forum members here really can make a difference if they choose to, which is what this thread is all about.
I appreciate that you liked Zezi, but the central point here is that many didn't, and the thread was read by the producers, who clearly agreed. (For the record, I liked Zezi too, she just isn't cut out for live television - she was much better on the recorded inserts she did later).
Your point seems to be that only three people were active on the thread, and that therefore their opinions are invalid. As can be clearly seen, there were many, many more who were very active on the thread. I can count a dozen who had around 200 posts or more on that thread. Which is what I stated above, of course.
The link given indicates there were 3 regulars - 2 more with over 600 posters and the rest dwindled down to far less posts very very quickly.
Posting 600 times in a single thread doesn't make you a regular? Posting 200 times in a single thread is 'far less' and also doesn't make you a regular in that thread? Whatever. :rolleyes:
OK - we'll have to differ here - posting on an established thread at the time the show goes out isn't bumping - it's a discussion on the show in general
Yes, exactly. The thread was never 'bumped', we dropped in every day to talk about the show as it aired - for most of the BB run we were effectively the official BBLB commentary strand (as was the George one later). This only changed towards the last couple of weeks of the run. There was no artificial bumping, as Beer is incorrectly suggesting here. Something he would know if he were to read the threads, of course.
Comments
Only three regulars? Really? :rolleyes:
How curious then that I can very easily name a dozen just off the top of my head. Still, as I said, believe what you wish.
Bingo!
IMO its not 'tripe' or utter nonsense
IT's MY OPINION
dont dismiss other peoples opinions so easily
I did read them regularly and it was more a case of things along the line of oh she was ok today, her back was straight and she didn't mumble as much - and then the same scrutinisation and clinical anal insight on a daily basis.
You may have had people posting now and again to have a chat but there were only 3 or 4 who posted daily.
Not true, I'm afraid. There were loads of us. At least a dozen regulars, most of whom posted daily. Still, this is off topic and a rather dull argument, easily verified by simply popping into either of the threads and taking a glance, which I know you're not going to do. It's a classic ploy - make the discussions about Zezi and George appear irrelevant by suggesting there were only three or four people posting in there. It's untrue, though, of course.
It was such a shame that she tainted George Lamb, who as superb throughout, and a great replacement for Dermot. I understand that Zezi did not even want the job but was talked into doing it...the person who made that decision must have a very red face now.
So I didn't have to. Give them a medal I say!
It wasn't a question of taking someone apart - the simple fact is Zezi was totally out of her depth - it's a lot to ask a novice to present a show that goes out daily for 13 weeks -
99% of posters on the Zezi thread had a lot of sympathy for her but the fact is she's not suited to the job - speaking of facts - there were certainly regular posters, there are on any long running thread but I don't know where the 3 came from - just to clarify: -
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=812265
Oh bugger!
*trudges off to make more medals*
*sigh*
Well if he's just "insecure" - I am not interested, that's his problem. What he can do is keep his big gob shut when he knows nastiness is going to pop out of it (which is nearly always).:mad:
I thought she was quirky and rather charming - but I didn't watch BBLB that much (unless I remembered to record it to enable me to picture search through the dross - which is most of it).:o
Well if the BB producers are taking advice from outside FMs they can't be very good at their jobs. After all, suggestions aren't rocket science, are they!:rolleyes:
I wouldn't call posting in a thread called:
Zezi - has there ever been a worse UK presenter?
being sympathetic at all and to assume this is the case really doesn't add up to the thread title and as I have already said the continual never ending deep scrutinisation of her on a daily basis. Again, I say, this is not appropriate to be looking at somebody like this. Even in scientific studies this is unethical and immoral.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out that there was only one main poster rather than the 3 I commented on with 5 posters over 600 posts and that's about it. It backs up my claim for a massive thread that was dominated (as seen by myself and another posters here) by very few people on the forum.
The link given indicates there were 3 regulars - 2 more with over 600 posters and the rest dwindled down to far less posts very very quickly.
And as indicated by myself, if it wasn't for the regular bumping the vast majority wouldn't have re-replied to the posts. It was not a popular thread. It was just regularly bumped to scrutinise an individual with gross clinical detail.
That is because journos are a lazy bunch of ar*es and rarely get off them to actually do their job. They rely on other news outlets to do it for them, and do a snatch here and there.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
OK - we'll have to differ here - posting on an established thread at the time the show goes out isn't bumping - it's a discussion on the show in general - unfortunately the show was almost unwatchable because of the poor presentation - once Zezi was moved to a different slot George improved considerably - You're entitled to your opinion and so am I - Zezi might be the nicest soul to ever walk the planet but she's not a presenter - if she'd done a decent job do you think she'd have been removed - I should add it's not only DS who ran Zezi threads - there were plenty more, even on the highly censored C4 forum - I've no intention of carrying this on all night so I repeat - we'll have to agree to differ:)
Who have U (the public) evicted from the Big Brother House (including, presenters) U decide
But ask yourself one vital question - did Zezi last the course as a main co-presenter? No, she didn't. Sadly, gorgeous George looks like he will be a casualty as the producers seek a clean sweep now Big Brother 9 has concluded.
If only they had been sensible and entrusted Little Brother to an established and seasoned presenter such as Miquita Oliver or Konnie Huq.
I'm sure the BB Producers ARE very good at their jobs thank you very much. If anything, they do their research very well. How do you research? I know I use the internet.
Unless, of course, you think that someone who posts 200 times on a single thread isn't a regular poster in there? :rolleyes:
If that's what you're arguing, I think the statistics are against you.
It's also irrelevant - Blondedumbition has already stated that the thread was one of the factors directly responsible for Zezi being demoted. The point being that forum members here really can make a difference if they choose to, which is what this thread is all about.
I appreciate that you liked Zezi, but the central point here is that many didn't, and the thread was read by the producers, who clearly agreed. (For the record, I liked Zezi too, she just isn't cut out for live television - she was much better on the recorded inserts she did later).
Your point seems to be that only three people were active on the thread, and that therefore their opinions are invalid. As can be clearly seen, there were many, many more who were very active on the thread. I can count a dozen who had around 200 posts or more on that thread. Which is what I stated above, of course.
Posting 600 times in a single thread doesn't make you a regular? Posting 200 times in a single thread is 'far less' and also doesn't make you a regular in that thread? Whatever. :rolleyes:
Yes, exactly. The thread was never 'bumped', we dropped in every day to talk about the show as it aired - for most of the BB run we were effectively the official BBLB commentary strand (as was the George one later). This only changed towards the last couple of weeks of the run. There was no artificial bumping, as Beer is incorrectly suggesting here. Something he would know if he were to read the threads, of course.
Welcome to the fun world of trying to have a sensible conversation with Beer.
Oh, the poor girl.
It's called saving money by not having to employ real journalists when you can plagiarise an internet forum for free copy instead.