It needs to be a mixture of the 2 and I feel that is what it has been doing. the judges judge on the dance we the audience seem to judge on entertainment value

Option 2, without a doubt because, at heart, I'm a dancer. I find anything that distracts from the dancing unnecessary ...

For me, I like that it isn't so serious about the dancing. I don't think that would be right. People watch the show to be entertained, and that is exactly what it does, with twists and turns, unexpected results, little dramas and so on. If people wanted to watch pure dancing they wouldn't be looking to the BBC to find that, and if the BBC was looking to provide that, I'm sure that they wouldn't succeed. For me, it's an entertainment show with a dancing theme. The entertainment outweighs the dancing.

An important element for me is to see people learning something new. Some will work hard and achieve their potential and some will turn out to have hitherto unknown dance talent - like Mark Ramprakash. Generally, a surprisingly high level of skill has been reached each year by a few.

Seeing celebs work hard is an important element too - that tends to show their character. Some turn out to be lazy, or unpleasant, or charming, or hopeless.

I have great respect for the professional dancers. They have toiled for years and got little recognition. Now they can showcase their talents to a large audience. Teaching ability and choreography are additional skills that get tested.
I think they were probably grinding their teeth when listening to Craig, Arlene and Bruno saying how ballroom dancing should be done (although to be fair, they did try to minimise those comments), so I guess they aren't happy at Alesha judging them. To me it demeans the dancing skill element of the show.

There is a place for the not good dancers.
Ola realised Kenny couldn't last as a dancer, and they went for entertainment. She also entertained with the catsuit and the head-banging Tango.
John Sargeant had some dance talent, but no fitness, and Kristina produced some excellent comedy routines.

The big plus for me, over most other reality shows, is the effort those competing put into it. Even if they are hopeless - like Mark Foster - he went outside his comfort zone and that got my respect.

Hi Katie (thanks for defending me on the other thread! ) I voted for a mix of the two, although I admit I'm not so keen on the modern pop when used for dances like the tango, but I can live with it. I think that some of the not so good celebs have provided some memorable moments (especially in the paso ) and I enjoy their performances as much as the technically good ones. However I still like to hear some serious comment about how the dancing measured up, but accept that there is a limit on how much the public want to hear.

( It would be nice if some of the proper dance competitions were also televised on a mainstream channel, but accept that that is not likely to happen.)

This is precisely what Len says: the judges should judge the quality and technique of the dance, while the viewing public are at liberty to vote with their "hearts".

Trouble is, apart from Len, and to a much lesser degree Craig (who has danced some ballroom), the judges do not understand or know the technique of ballroom dancing, which is why there is frequently huge differences of opinion among the judges.

I chose option 3 because I think that's what SCD has always been and should continue to be - I don't think it is changing direction.

It is a dance show and I am entertained by the people involved with the show - the celebs, the pros, the judges, the band, the singers, Bruce and Tess. I know a lot of people won't agree with me, but for me they make up the whole SCD package with dancing at the centre. If I just wanted to see couples dancing I would go and watch dancing competitions.

I absolutely agree with you Buddy Theres not much I dont like about Strictly although, I dont like changes in general....I usually get used to them fairly quickly and move on.
I liked the whole show as it was and personally would have left it, but like everything else it will always be getting 'updated' and I'll probably always continue to watch it regardless!

The celebs stand in the middle of the dance floor, bringing in viewers who are interested in celebs whatever they do.

On one side the pro dancers try to pull celebs towards dance.

On the other side the 4 judges in SCD6 pulled the celebs towards punch and judy while pushing themselves centre stage.

As for presenters, the schoolmarms Rosemary Ford, Angela Rippon, Terry Wogan and David Jacobs, neither doddery nor self-promoting, compered viewers to sleep and Come Dancing into extinction.

With Alesha is Jay Hunt trying to rebrand Strictly X Factor? Not completely, not when world class dancer Darcey comes onboard.

The direction I would like the show to go in is backwards - to its original format. Fewer couples, fewer weeks with no all-girl/all-boy weeks, no dance-off - viewers to decide between the bottom two, no Sunday results show, and finally - no Alesha!

I voted for the second option - as the principal reason I watch the show, and am a fan, is because of the Dancing, first and foremost.

I liked the part about "giving the pros more respect and more money". Amen to that. I can't believe the BBC still underestimates how important they are to the success of the show, and how much of a following they have. Extraordinary that they still don't get that.

I do appreciate the entertainment side, the comedy, the light hearted nature, and also respect the effort and improvement of the celebs during a series, especially the sportspeople. But if they weren't dancing, I wouldn't bother watching. I'm not interested in celebs per se. And regarding ITT, I enjoy the show when Claudia has features enlightening us about technical aspects of dancing, aswell as interviews and behind the scenes footage, and getting to know you features, rather than the latest hip comedian pretending to be a fan of the show, and Claudia wasting time chatting to them, whilst they plug their gigs.

What I absolutely loathe is the manipulative editing by the BBC to create fake controversy and tabloid headlines during the series. The show doesn't need it, and it's deeply annoying and offputting. I heard Brian Conley say in an interview on LBC last weekend that he'd been asked to take part several times but has always declined "because I don't want to be edited by the producers" to look a certain way when the truth is the opposite. The endless James & Camilla romance inuendo was a case in point. They never were, it never happened, but the BBC editors/producers kept referring to it as if it was.

What I like about Strictly is it hasn't drastically changed its format in all its series, a bit like Dancing On Ice. I think it is fine how it is, and the "celebrities" they have on the show make it entertaining. Still the best reality show by far for me. X Factor is SO staged.