Just wondering if people have opinions on the new scoring system.

I'm not a fan. Yes, it helps with the problems of last year's semi-final (though that could also have been avoided by not having a dance-off so late in the competition, or ensuring we had a three-couple final some other way). However, at this stage, it's giving a big boost to those at the bottom of the leaderboard.

Take this weekend: the top couple (Laila/Anton) got 13 points. Because of several ties, Joe/Kristina and Jo/Brendan got 6 points each, making it much easier for them to avoid the dance-off. In the old system, they would only have got 2 points from the judges.

If the couples at the bottom of the leaderboard need saving, it should be down to the public. They shouldn't be receiving this extra boost from the new scoring system. Ah well. Thoughts?

It's the law of unintended consequences following the "Tom" fiasco last year. If the judges give a lot of ties then the bottom ranked pair are effectively much closer to the top than the judges most likely intended. Thus, the phone vote counts for relatively more, as there are more combinations by which a couple ranked low by the judges can be saved.

The 13 to 6 on the judges scores is the same as 8 to 1 (i.e. everyone losing 5 points), whereas the phone vote scores go from 13 to 1.

If the judges used their full range of scores, rather than starting at 5 (other than Craig) then ties would be less likely, and this new scoring system will have less of an impact.

Yes, we noticed this.. although no explanantion was given. Not sure its good sport to suddenly change the system without mentioning it. And yes, it does make the difference between top and bottom significantly less. IE the top rated couple could leave mathematically (if the viewers rate them bottom)- although in reality doubt this would happen because the dance off would save them. Its not the normal way of applying tied scores, but I suppose anything to avoid a repeat of last year.

Doubtless the new system will throw up a new fiasco later this year, resulting in another change for next year...

I'm not very good at posting links but the BBC website has a detailed explanation of the new votng system. In some ways I prefer the system used in the Christmas special when four couples tied for the lead and the judges had to decide on first, second, third and fourth place between them. However I imagine in a live show which already has a tendency to overrun(!) there could be problems with sorting this out and leaving enough time for voting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/strictlycomedan...t/voting.shtml

It's a good point - of course, one fundamental problem which exacerbates this is the fact that everyone-but-Craig seems to score exactly the same way, so increasing the number of ties.

(Interestingly, that also means Craig has disproportionate influence as a judge - his marks are the "balance of power" differences).

This system also gives more effective power to the public vote:

If you're at the bottom and have 6 points, you're only 7 points adrift from the top, and you can make it up quite easily with 13 points from the public vote - so you have a healthy total of 19 out of a possible maximum 26.

Whereas if you're at the top with 13 points, but no-one votes for you, you only have a total of 14 points.

So the public has more influence, earlier on in the competition.

imagine a Zoe/Ricky W dance off. Mahahahahahahahah!!!

I think it makes it more interesting if absolutely anyone on the leaderboard could be in the dance off.

I remember Tess mentioning in one of the earlier shows after the judges' scoreboard was finalised (possibly the first Saturday show) that for a full breakdown of how the scoring system works viewers could go to the SCD website where it would all be explained.

I figured it out for myself though, so haven't bothered! In the wake of what happened in last year's semi-final there had to be some sort of change made; the Christmas amendment worked fine, because it was pre-recorded but I can't see how it would work in a live show due to time constraints. What I like about the new system is that it means no-one really is safe; the phone votes can pretty much save anyone from the dance-off (although obviously more effort is required to save those at the bottom of the board).

I've gone from being a supporter of the simple but beautifully elegant original (pre dance-off) system to not liking the current messy compromise very much at all now. Clearly something had to be done after the fiasco last year but I don't believe this is the best answer. Unfortunately it's difficult to offer firm alternatives without having access to voting data.

I know a lot of people support the dance-off as a 'safety measure'...but it's the root of all 'evil' in this case for me. I think it creates more problems than it solves and I suspect there are better ways to address the potential unfairnesses of the public vote e.g. positive AND negative voting.

I really don't know why they don't do what X Factor do and following a dance off (or sing off) - if there is a tie let the couple (person) with the lowest phone vote go home. And for them to say that Len has the deciding vote is just not correct - you can only have the deciding vote when there has already been an even split - e.g. two votes for one couple and two for the other

It's more unpredictable, yes.

On the other hand, it means there's more chance of two good dancers being in the dance-off.

Well, Len has a vote, and the casting vote. So, basically, he has two votes.

They should let the judges rank the tied couples, as they did at Christmas. It'd take all of about 5 seconds. If they worry about there being too much disagreement, just let Head Judge Len do it.

I'm all for the new system.

If the judges want to have less influence over who stays or goes, they can just use the 5 to 8 scores. If they want to do their job properly, they can use 1 to 10 like Craig used to do. Its up to them, and their loss if they dont do their job properly.

Still thinking it though but why change now? The problem came in the SF - the rule only needed to be applied when it was a possibility that the problem would occur. It can't happen now because its always possible for the person last on the judges leaderboard to survive by coming high enough in the public vote. It was only a problem in the SF because there was no one within one point to jump over and one of the two tied for first place was bound to be the safe one. Obviously the more points Joe gets from the judges the more difficult it will be to ever get rid of him and the more likely someone better in the middle 60% will go instead .

Maybe the judges haven't cottoned to the change yet?

If they keep producing draws, they make it more likely that Joe and Jo could make the final.

If the voting system was changed half way through then it would throw up its own anomolies, so by the standards of the BBC, changing the system at the outset makes sense, even if the change itself simply creates as many problems as it solves.

It occurred to me that what they could have done is look at the individual scores given within the overall score, but I can't remember how frequently, for example, two couples getting, say, 27 both got them by getting three 7s and one 6 - if if this happened at all then it would throw that system out. Alternatively they could look at where each judge places a couple relative to the others by virtue of the score they have given them - OR they could simply ask each judge to place each couple relatively until all have been judged?

Although they mention the fact that the judges ranking scores have changed, in typical BBC fashion, they don't explain it on the show but make a very brief and rushed description of where to find it on the net.
In a 2 hour show last week they could have spent a few minutes explaining it but instead preferred to "pad" the show with repeats and Bruce's gags.
I understand how it works but many out in TV land don't.

When scoring systems and the BBC are mentioned in the same sentence I begin to wonder.

( BTW they refuse to announce the combined scores so how does the public know what goes on behind the scenes)

Yes I agree but it is the will of the vote I suppose and you have to weigh up that against the judges favourites will always be saved in the dance off even if it might not be the will of the public.

I think all the judges except Craig are incapable of giving marks below 5.

So basically just turning up will get you 16 points.

5 seconds? Last Christmas it took well over an hour and a lot of the audience had gone home by the time they worked out a ranking and got the audience to vote again. According to reports, originally Alesha and Matthew were top but by the time they got the audience to vote again, it changed to Jill & Darren because so many had had to rush off to get their last trains home.

They had no plan in place for the Christmas Special though. If they worked it out as a part of the system then it'd be much quicker, especially if they just gave the power to one judge. The judges have to rank dancers in the dance-offevery week - no reason this should be any different.

Firstly, the obvious way to avoid last year's fiasco is, when there is a tie, you add up the points the tied couples would have got for those positions and divide by the number of tied couples. So, say there are ten couples and there is a tie for 2nd. 2nd and 3rd would have got 9 and 8 respectively. So you add 9+8 and divide by two - so the tied couples get 8.5 each and the next couple down get 7 - as they would have done. Problem solved.

Now the really interesting point is Craig's power! Craig is a marginal constituency in a general election! Len is a safe seat. Nobody cares what happens in my constituency (2nd safest Tory seat in the country) but the handful of voters in key marginals decide who rules the country. Craig effectively decides the ranking, he has a huge amount of power when it comes to the Judges' Leaderboard. And I say LONG MAY IT CONTINUE - I don't always agree with him - but for Len to give Lynda 7 and Ali 8 on Saurday just proves the point. You've got ten paddles judges - use 'em.