|
||||||||
There is one simple way to make the voting system fair |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 52
|
There is one simple way to make the voting system fair
Vote for who goes rather than who stays.
Then you get the end of farces like last night's result. Simple. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,226
|
Quote:
Vote for who goes rather than who stays.
Then you get the end of farces like last night's result. Simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,469
|
How will that make it fairer then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,179
|
How about going back to the old system of scoring but getting rid of dance off at quarter final stage so public have more influence towards the end of the competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
|
Quote:
How will that make it fairer then?
![]() All those who wish their chosen couple to stay (especially if that couple is at the bottom of the leaderboard) will simply vote to get rid of the competition - and that will mean those at the top of the leaderboard. End result is that the talented/most promising end up in the dance off. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tannadice
Posts: 11,736
|
Quote:
How about going back to the old system of scoring but getting rid of dance off at quarter final stage so public have more influence towards the end of the competition.
Why don't we just get rid of the dance off? Or just get rid of James Jordan that'll stop talented women getting voted out early. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The end of time.
Posts: 12,100
|
I'm not entirely sure it would be fairer.
Despite being good dancers, Ali and Ricky Whittle don't seem to be very popular. Had that system been in place, I'm pretty sure at least one of them would be gone by now. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I AM with James Martin
Posts: 1,580
|
Once the judges get over the so obvious "over-marking" of the "chosen ones" - in this case Zoe and to a certain degree Ali and Ricky W. Then the public (who are allowed to vote for whoever they want - and spend their money EXACTLY how they like) might stop voting for the lesser able dancers. Last nights performance from Zoe was lack lustre and also contained elements that Anton and Laila had been slammed for the previous week - it was nowhere near being worth a nine - it wasn't anywhere near as good as Natalie and Vincent - who scored less.
Note to Judges try to be a bit more consistent with your scoring - and pull all the contestants up for the same faults rather than pick on one or two and let others off as they are that years "chosen ones" |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11,211
|
If it was a vote to go my only inclination to pick up the phone would be to try and get rid of my favourites biggest competition and theres no logic in that. We'd most likely have already seen the back of the best dancers - Ricky W, Ali, Laila, Jade and the characters like Ricky G/Chris would also have been targeted by now . We'd have been sitting on Saturday watching Joe, Jo, Richard (who?) Craig and Linda battling it out - well i wouldn't because i'd have switched off long ago! Quote:
Or you say there are three people at the bottom of the leaderboard - you can save one, the judges will save another. That way you get at least 2 good dancers to the SF and probably the final. The current way we could get one against no one in the same league.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 28,896
|
It's fair as it is.
The better dancers are assited by the judge's scores. The rest is up to us. If the majority of the audience prefers to watch a more entertaining but slightly inferior dancer as opposed to someone who can perform heel leads but is devoid of personality, then so be it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,464
|
Quote:
Once the judges get over the so obvious "over-marking" of the "chosen ones" - in this case Zoe and to a certain degree Ali and Ricky W. Then the public (who are allowed to vote for whoever they want - and spend their money EXACTLY how they like) might stop voting for the lesser able dancers. Last nights performance from Zoe was lack lustre and also contained elements that Anton and Laila had been slammed for the previous week - it was nowhere near being worth a nine - it wasn't anywhere near as good as Natalie and Vincent - who scored less.
Note to Judges try to be a bit more consistent with your scoring - and pull all the contestants up for the same faults rather than pick on one or two and let others off as they are that years "chosen ones" I remember when Zoe Ball was on strictly, she danced beautifully and should have been in the final but, the judges praised her to the hilt every week and gace her top marks and she was voted out. I am sure the public got fed up with their obvious favoritism and she went out in the semi-final (I think) |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,226
|
Quote:
I'm confused as well.
All those who wish their chosen couple to stay (especially if that couple is at the bottom of the leaderboard) will simply vote to get rid of the competition - and that will mean those at the top of the leaderboard. End result is that the talented/most promising end up in the dance off. I agree it gets risky later on as the two weaker SF candidates fans ought to vote out the strongest dancer but you can change the rules then. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Or just get rid of James Jordan that'll stop talented women getting voted out early. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 28,896
|
Quote:
Line of the week. I wish Claudia would make this the forum quote when little Jim is on ITT this week instead of the no doubt fawning drivel he will be told is 'all over the forums'.
Had Ola not won over so many viewers this year, I suspect we might have been saying bye bye to the Jordans. It would be odd to get rid of him but not her though. I don't believe he's very popular. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,013
|
Quote:
Once the judges get over the so obvious "over-marking" of the "chosen ones" - in this case Zoe and to a certain degree Ali and Ricky W. Then the public (who are allowed to vote for whoever they want - and spend their money EXACTLY how they like) might stop voting for the lesser able dancers. Last nights performance from Zoe was lack lustre and also contained elements that Anton and Laila had been slammed for the previous week - it was nowhere near being worth a nine - it wasn't anywhere near as good as Natalie and Vincent - who scored less.
Note to Judges try to be a bit more consistent with your scoring - and pull all the contestants up for the same faults rather than pick on one or two and let others off as they are that years "chosen ones" Then we said "Eh?!" I'm sure half of this apparent inconsistency is down to lack of time - the judges can't really contextualise in ten seconds - and then half the time goes on irrelevant clowning around, which may be entertaining but certainly isn't informative. However, the impression the viewer is left with is one of partisanship and unfairness. I'm positive the voting correlates to that, at least in part. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,441
|
Quote:
I remember when Zoe Ball was on strictly, she danced beautifully and should have been in the final but, the judges praised her to the hilt every week and gace her top marks and she was voted out. I am sure the public got fed up with their obvious favoritism and she went out in the semi-final (I think)
Zoe would have been out very swiftly using the format recommended by the OP. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,226
|
Quote:
That never happened.
Why don't we just get rid of the dance off? Or just get rid of James Jordan that'll stop talented women getting voted out early. They underestimated the voters who just reverse the leaderboard and put any good females into the bottom two against each other. The only way out of that was to fix the marks so the best people were all at or tied at the top and hopefully someone hopeless would fall into the bottom two - but that didn't work either. They then tried making the judges nicer and more constructive this year but that didn't work either as I suspect the people who could dance still got no votes and they ended up with 4 bad dancers getting votes not the usual 1 or 2. Their choice now is to cull the vote or give up and hope the show can survive hopeless people staying forever while no one any good bothers to sign up. They should deal with the problem which is the vote but I ssupect they have already just give up and told Bruno to make it more panto. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,441
|
Quote:
The dance off as put in to stop the voters voting out anyone who was and attractive female and had been given a high mark by the judges. They hoped that, even if the voters gave them a tiny vote for no reason to do with what the show was about, the judges would at least be able to keep the best dancer in.
They underestimated the voters who just reverse the leaderboard and put any good females into the bottom two against each other. The only way out of that was to fix the marks so the best people were all at or tied at the top and hopefully someone hopeless would fall into the bottom two - but that didn't work either. They then tried making the judges nicer and more constructive this year but that didn't work either as I suspect the people who could dance still got no votes and they ended up with 4 bad dancers getting votes not the usual 1 or 2. Their choice now is to cull the vote or give up and hope the show can survive hopeless people staying forever while no one any good bothers to sign up. They should deal with the problem which is the vote but I ssupect they have already just give up and told Bruno to make it more panto. I'd go back to having no dance-off at all in a heartbeat. The results had much more suspense then and it was actually worth voting. I would never vote outside the final under the current system. Not everyone who watches the show loves good dancing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London E9
Posts: 769
|
Quote:
It's fair as it is.
The better dancers are assited by the judge's scores. The rest is up to us. If the majority of the audience prefers to watch a more entertaining but slightly inferior dancer as opposed to someone who can perform heel leads but is devoid of personality, then so be it. The reason the show became so popular was due to the dancers with personality and character. The VTs then also were a real insight into what made them tick. Now it is so much of a formula that they have no real impact. It's also not true that the public only like the less able dancers. Think Jill Halfpenny, Colin Jackson, Darren Gough - to scratch the surface. We do however expect to be entertained in one way or another - not sneered at by the judges when their noses are out of joint. They create this problem by their random scoring and downright rudeness. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tannadice
Posts: 11,736
|
Quote:
The dance off was put in to stop the voters voting out anyone who was an attractive female and had been given a high mark by the judges. They hoped that, even if the voters gave them a tiny vote for no reason to do with what the show was about, the judges would at least be able to keep the best dancer in.
They underestimated the voters who just reverse the leaderboard and put any good females into the bottom two against each other. The only way out of that was to fix the marks so the best people were all at or tied at the top and hopefully someone hopeless would fall into the bottom two - but that didn't work either. They then tried making the judges nicer and more constructive this year but that didn't work either as I suspect the people who could dance still got no votes and they ended up with 4 bad dancers getting votes not the usual 1 or 2. Their choice now is to cull the vote or give up and hope the show can survive hopeless people staying forever while no one any good bothers to sign up. They should deal with the problem which is the vote but I ssupect they have already just give up and told Bruno to make it more panto. None that I can think of. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,563
|
The current system is fair.
The main problem is the judges using a small range of scores, which tied 3 couples last week. If they had not done that, the best dancers would have been further away from the bottom dancers, by up to a further 3 points. That would have made it more difficult for last weeks result to have happened. The public also have to catch up with the new system and realise that everyone can end up in the dance-off, even the couple in first place, and vote accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 52
|
The current sytem is not fair.
And better dancers ar not assisted by the judges scores, becasue of the mentality of the voting public they are disadvantaged by it. Thats why the system is not fair. Let me ask this question: If Zoe had been bottom of the leaderboard on Saturday, would she have ended up in the dance off? An almost certain no. She was penalised for NOT being the worst. And its wrong to suggest that people voting to get rid of competition to their favourites would have much of an impact. Everyone has different favorites for a start! My proposed method is much fairer becasue the current system encourages people to vote for the worst dancers to keep them in. My system encourages people to vote for the worst dancers to get them out. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Croydon, Surrey ♂
Posts: 17,698
|
Getting rid of the public vote would make it fair, that and removing Alesha with a person who actually knows something about Dancing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 28,896
|
Quote:
The current sytem is not fair.
And better dancers ar not assisted by the judges scores, becasue of the mentality of the voting public they are disadvantaged by it. Thats why the system is not fair. Let me ask this question: If Zoe had been bottom of the leaderboard on Saturday, would she have ended up in the dance off? An almost certain no. She was penalised for NOT being the worst. And its wrong to suggest that people voting to get rid of competition to their favourites would have much of an impact. Everyone has different favorites for a start! My proposed method is much fairer becasue the current system encourages people to vote for the worst dancers to keep them in. My system encourages people to vote for the worst dancers to get them out. I think we're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Zoe & James simply weren't popular enough to survive the public vote. The viewers (without whom the show would not exist) simply prefer watching other couples, even if they aren't as proficient. What's wrong with that? This isn't the World Championships. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 631
|
If the system was fair then all the dancers would start been a similar ability and a similar age group and a similar status of how well they are known. There would be new pro's each year to ensure no favourite pro and the judges would be from the Ballroom/latin scene.
THe current sysytem is as fair as it could be, the judges could actually sort it out by not awarding ties and then the spread of points would have been from 1 to 10. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:03.


