Agreed - change it back to the old points system.
Alas I doubt they will do it this season though and too late to save Jimi.
Alas I doubt they will do it this season though and too late to save Jimi.
The scoring for ties should be changed back now that there's no dance off
2 of 3
Can someone (preferably with better maths than me) confirm that it should now always be statistically possible for the person at the bottom of the judges leaderboard to escape being bottom provided they top the public vote?
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.
Originally Posted by Tiger Rose:
“Can someone (preferably with better maths than me) confirm that it should now always be statistically possible for the person at the bottom of the judges leaderboard to escape being bottom provided they top the public vote?
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.”
“Can someone (preferably with better maths than me) confirm that it should now always be statistically possible for the person at the bottom of the judges leaderboard to escape being bottom provided they top the public vote?
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.”
I think thats always been statistically possible under both systems until the couple numbers drastically reduce when it would be possible for the bottom of the leaderboard to be in the bottom two despite getting the highest public vote....The opposite is also true the person and the top can get the lowest public vote and survive (until the number of couples reduces)
Originally Posted by Tiger Rose:
“Can someone (preferably with better maths than me) confirm that it should now always be statistically possible for the person at the bottom of the judges leaderboard to escape being bottom provided they top the public vote?
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.”
“Can someone (preferably with better maths than me) confirm that it should now always be statistically possible for the person at the bottom of the judges leaderboard to escape being bottom provided they top the public vote?
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.”
If you top the public vote then assuming you get at least 1 point for finishing last as per the judges and the top ranked couple gets x points when there are x couples remaining, if you top the public vote you cannot finish bottom overall.
Originally Posted by Three Left Feet:
“If you top the public vote then assuming you get at least 1 point for finishing last as per the judges and the top ranked couple gets x points when there are x couples remaining, if you top the public vote you cannot finish bottom overall.”
“If you top the public vote then assuming you get at least 1 point for finishing last as per the judges and the top ranked couple gets x points when there are x couples remaining, if you top the public vote you cannot finish bottom overall.”
I agree- you can be in the bottom two but you can't be absolute bottom if you have won the public vote. Which is a good argument against the dance off, which I don't think should have the power to eliminate the person who won the public vote. This may have happened with one or both of Austin and Gethin.
Originally Posted by Three Left Feet:
“If you top the public vote then assuming you get at least 1 point for finishing last as per the judges and the top ranked couple gets x points when there are x couples remaining, if you top the public vote you cannot finish bottom overall.”
“If you top the public vote then assuming you get at least 1 point for finishing last as per the judges and the top ranked couple gets x points when there are x couples remaining, if you top the public vote you cannot finish bottom overall.”
Thanks. I thought that was the case. In which case the BBC should really have scrapped the new scoring system for ties along with the Dance Off.
Originally Posted by Tiger Rose:
“Can someone (preferably with better maths than me) confirm that it should now always be statistically possible for the person at the bottom of the judges leaderboard to escape being bottom provided they top the public vote?
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.”
“Can someone (preferably with better maths than me) confirm that it should now always be statistically possible for the person at the bottom of the judges leaderboard to escape being bottom provided they top the public vote?
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.”
Yes, you'll always avoid bottom place if you top the public vote (whichever system you choose). But are you suggesting that you'd prefer a system which meant that you were doomed if you were the judges' bottom placed couple? Because that would make any public vote pointless, so there'd be no voting and the show would be over there and then.
Originally Posted by VintageWhine:
“Yes, you'll always avoid bottom place if you top the public vote (whichever system you choose). But are you suggesting that you'd prefer a system which meant that you were doomed if you were the judges' bottom placed couple? Because that would make any public vote pointless, so there'd be no voting and the show would be over there and then.”
“Yes, you'll always avoid bottom place if you top the public vote (whichever system you choose). But are you suggesting that you'd prefer a system which meant that you were doomed if you were the judges' bottom placed couple? Because that would make any public vote pointless, so there'd be no voting and the show would be over there and then.”
But you won't be doomed if you are the bottom place couple. Whatever the judges scores at the very least you can avoid being bottom by topping the public vote and in most instances (pretty much until you get to the final few couples) you can avoid it provided you get a decent public vote. Getting rid of the Dance Off ensures there won't be a situation again such as Tom Chambers in the series 6 Semi where there was no scenario that Tom could avoid the Dance Off.
Originally Posted by VintageWhine:
“Yes, you'll always avoid bottom place if you top the public vote (whichever system you choose). But are you suggesting that you'd prefer a system which meant that you were doomed if you were the judges' bottom placed couple? Because that would make any public vote pointless, so there'd be no voting and the show would be over there and then.”
“Yes, you'll always avoid bottom place if you top the public vote (whichever system you choose). But are you suggesting that you'd prefer a system which meant that you were doomed if you were the judges' bottom placed couple? Because that would make any public vote pointless, so there'd be no voting and the show would be over there and then.”
It was the Dance Off that caused the problem with the rankings because 2 couples were classed as last. Without it there is not an issue. The lowest combined score is out.
The big issue here is that they say that the public vote will always give points from 1-10 (or however many contestants are left), whereas the judges' vote may only give points from, say, 4-10, depending on how many draws there are. So the person who finishes bottom with the judges gets 4 points from them (or else 6 points behind the judges' leader), whereas whoever finishes bottom with the public only gets 1 point (9 points behind whoever topped the public vote).
This means:
a) the judges' and public votes are not balanced;
b) a contestant has a greater disadvantage the greater number of draws below them;
c) a contestant has a greater advantage the greater number of draws above them;
Incidentally, there were three tied scores below Jimi on Saturday.
Add to this the fact there is no dance-off this year puts the control mostly in the hands of the public vote.
Two years ago, the situation was the reverse:
a) a contestant has a greater disadvantage the greater number of draws above them.
b) they would have to score greater on points from the public to be exempt from the dance-off
c) the judges got the final say in the dance off
So most of the control was in the hands of the judges.
The best solution, imho, would be to avoid draws altogether and introduce ranking for couples tied on judges' points. That way, both judges' and public votes are ranked from 1-10.
And don't have a dance-off. Way too predictable.
This means:
a) the judges' and public votes are not balanced;
b) a contestant has a greater disadvantage the greater number of draws below them;
c) a contestant has a greater advantage the greater number of draws above them;
Incidentally, there were three tied scores below Jimi on Saturday.
Add to this the fact there is no dance-off this year puts the control mostly in the hands of the public vote.
Two years ago, the situation was the reverse:
a) a contestant has a greater disadvantage the greater number of draws above them.
b) they would have to score greater on points from the public to be exempt from the dance-off
c) the judges got the final say in the dance off
So most of the control was in the hands of the judges.
The best solution, imho, would be to avoid draws altogether and introduce ranking for couples tied on judges' points. That way, both judges' and public votes are ranked from 1-10.
And don't have a dance-off. Way too predictable.
Originally Posted by Three Left Feet:
“
Bad dancers who are unpopular soon get the chop anyway.”
“
Bad dancers who are unpopular soon get the chop anyway.”
Not before better dancers have left.
And yes I agree about Rachel.
Originally Posted by BuddyBontheNet:
“Some of us were discussing the scoring on the ITT thread this week and dome and I thought an adapted Eurovision scoring system would be a good idea.
The judges would still comment after each dance, but each judge would rank each couple after they had all danced (they wouldn't know each other's rankings).
There are only 4 judges and a maximum of 14 couples, so it wouldn't take very long. We are probably talking about 10-15 minutes max, even if each judge milks their spot. Or someone like Tess could read out the score for each judge. No paddles needed - just a scoreboard.
It would be interesting to see if the comments from each judge matched the ranking they give (part of the problem now). Maybe then we'd see a better balance and I think it would be quite exciting. The scoreboard could look like this -
”
“Some of us were discussing the scoring on the ITT thread this week and dome and I thought an adapted Eurovision scoring system would be a good idea.
The judges would still comment after each dance, but each judge would rank each couple after they had all danced (they wouldn't know each other's rankings).
There are only 4 judges and a maximum of 14 couples, so it wouldn't take very long. We are probably talking about 10-15 minutes max, even if each judge milks their spot. Or someone like Tess could read out the score for each judge. No paddles needed - just a scoreboard.
It would be interesting to see if the comments from each judge matched the ranking they give (part of the problem now). Maybe then we'd see a better balance and I think it would be quite exciting. The scoreboard could look like this -
Code:
C L A B Total Points K&A 9 9 5 9 32 9 M&A 8 7 9 5 29 8 F&V 6 8 8 2 24 7 P&J 7 6 6 6 25 6 S&N 2 5 4 8 19 5 M&B 4 5 3 7 19 5 P&R 4 2 2 7 15 3 G&K 3 3 4 3 13 2 A&A 1 1 1 1 4 1
Still think we have come up with the best solution.v
Originally Posted by Jan2555*GG*:
“I think thats always been statistically possible under both systems until the couple numbers drastically reduce when it would be possible for the bottom of the leaderboard to be in the bottom two despite getting the highest public vote....The opposite is also true the person and the top can get the lowest public vote and survive (until the number of couples reduces)”
“I think thats always been statistically possible under both systems until the couple numbers drastically reduce when it would be possible for the bottom of the leaderboard to be in the bottom two despite getting the highest public vote....The opposite is also true the person and the top can get the lowest public vote and survive (until the number of couples reduces)”
It's always possible for the person top with the public to be in the bottom two. It's just that the specific combination needed gets more and more likely as the possible permutations increase. For instance Week 1 :
A = 14+2 (16)
B = 13+3 (16)
C = 12+4 (16)
D = 11+5 (16)
E = 10+6 (16)
F = 9 +7 (16)
G = 8+8 (16)
H = 7+ 9 (16)
I = 6+10 (16)
J = 5+11 (16)
K = 4+12 (16)
L = 3+13 (16)
M = 2+1 (3)
N = 1+14 (15)
It's just very unlikely to happen...
Originally Posted by Ignazio:
“Agree 100% Veri - the present system gives a blatantly unfair advantage to the worst dancers.”
“Agree 100% Veri - the present system gives a blatantly unfair advantage to the worst dancers.”
Doesn't it, I've been saying this for weeks. BBC please change the points system back.
Originally Posted by Cami_27:
“Incidentally, there were three tied scores below Jimi on Saturday”
“Incidentally, there were three tied scores below Jimi on Saturday”
The silly thing is if Jimi had been lower on the score board I think he would have got through this week as people would have voted for him. Everyone thought he was safe because of his score but if you looked at the points he was actually only a few points above Ann because of this silly points system
Originally Posted by Three Left Feet:
“It's not unfair, as the .
Bad dancers who are unpopular soon get the chop anyway.”
“It's not unfair, as the .
Bad dancers who are unpopular soon get the chop anyway.”
He wasn't a bad dancer or unpopular, he was extremely popular and well loved by all the other contestants.
My poor mind is boggling
I say, change it back to the old scoring system, as the dance-off is gone, and I demand a recount!
I say, change it back to the old scoring system, as the dance-off is gone, and I demand a recount!
Originally Posted by Cami_27:
“The big issue here is that they say that the public vote will always give points from 1-10 (or however many contestants are left), whereas the judges' vote may only give points from, say, 4-10, depending on how many draws there are. So the person who finishes bottom with the judges gets 4 points from them (or else 6 points behind the judges' leader), whereas whoever finishes bottom with the public only gets 1 point (9 points behind whoever topped the public vote).
This means:
a) the judges' and public votes are not balanced;
b) a contestant has a greater disadvantage the greater number of draws below them;
c) a contestant has a greater advantage the greater number of draws above them;
Incidentally, there were three tied scores below Jimi on Saturday.
Add to this the fact there is no dance-off this year puts the control mostly in the hands of the public vote.
Two years ago, the situation was the reverse:
a) a contestant has a greater disadvantage the greater number of draws above them.
b) they would have to score greater on points from the public to be exempt from the dance-off
c) the judges got the final say in the dance off
So most of the control was in the hands of the judges.
The best solution, imho, would be to avoid draws altogether and introduce ranking for couples tied on judges' points. That way, both judges' and public votes are ranked from 1-10.
And don't have a dance-off. Way too predictable.”
“The big issue here is that they say that the public vote will always give points from 1-10 (or however many contestants are left), whereas the judges' vote may only give points from, say, 4-10, depending on how many draws there are. So the person who finishes bottom with the judges gets 4 points from them (or else 6 points behind the judges' leader), whereas whoever finishes bottom with the public only gets 1 point (9 points behind whoever topped the public vote).
This means:
a) the judges' and public votes are not balanced;
b) a contestant has a greater disadvantage the greater number of draws below them;
c) a contestant has a greater advantage the greater number of draws above them;
Incidentally, there were three tied scores below Jimi on Saturday.
Add to this the fact there is no dance-off this year puts the control mostly in the hands of the public vote.
Two years ago, the situation was the reverse:
a) a contestant has a greater disadvantage the greater number of draws above them.
b) they would have to score greater on points from the public to be exempt from the dance-off
c) the judges got the final say in the dance off
So most of the control was in the hands of the judges.
The best solution, imho, would be to avoid draws altogether and introduce ranking for couples tied on judges' points. That way, both judges' and public votes are ranked from 1-10.
And don't have a dance-off. Way too predictable.”
BIB Good idea, like it
Originally Posted by LazySusan:
“He wasn't a bad dancer or unpopular, he was extremely popular and well loved by all the other contestants.”
“He wasn't a bad dancer or unpopular, he was extremely popular and well loved by all the other contestants.”
So popular that very few people voted for him...
Whatever the system, a "good" dancer who doesn't get many votes one week is always at risk of getting the chop.
Originally Posted by Veri:
“They changed the rule because Tom couldn't be saved from the dance off under the old rule one week.
Now there's no dance off.
AND if the situation can still arrise re being absolutely bottom, it arises, like the original problem, only near the end, when there are few dancers left. So they could solve the problem by not counting the judge's marks when it gets that close to the end.
The change was this:
Imagine three couples are tied in the judges' makrs, and both get 5 points to be added to the points that are based on the viewers' votes.
Under the old system, the next couple below the tie would get 2 points, just as if the three had been given 5, 4, 3 instead of being tied.
In the new system, the next couple below the tie would get 4 points, and the one below then would get 3, and so on.
This means that when there's a tie, the couples at and above the tie are -- in effect -- closer to the bottom than they seem (so they're in more danger than they seem, and so may get fewer votes than if the danger were clearer), while those below the tie don't need as many votes (compared to the old system) to pass them.
I don't know whether the new rule contributed to Jimi's exit, but it certainly can have that sort of effect.
Also, I don't think the SCD producers ever thought through the consequences of the rule change.
So they should change it back.”
“They changed the rule because Tom couldn't be saved from the dance off under the old rule one week.
Now there's no dance off.
AND if the situation can still arrise re being absolutely bottom, it arises, like the original problem, only near the end, when there are few dancers left. So they could solve the problem by not counting the judge's marks when it gets that close to the end.
The change was this:
Imagine three couples are tied in the judges' makrs, and both get 5 points to be added to the points that are based on the viewers' votes.
Under the old system, the next couple below the tie would get 2 points, just as if the three had been given 5, 4, 3 instead of being tied.
In the new system, the next couple below the tie would get 4 points, and the one below then would get 3, and so on.
This means that when there's a tie, the couples at and above the tie are -- in effect -- closer to the bottom than they seem (so they're in more danger than they seem, and so may get fewer votes than if the danger were clearer), while those below the tie don't need as many votes (compared to the old system) to pass them.
I don't know whether the new rule contributed to Jimi's exit, but it certainly can have that sort of effect.
Also, I don't think the SCD producers ever thought through the consequences of the rule change.
So they should change it back.”
I'm in agreement with that too.
Originally Posted by Tiger Rose:
“Can someone (preferably with better maths than me) confirm that it should now always be statistically possible for the person at the bottom of the judges leaderboard to escape being bottom provided they top the public vote?
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.”
“Can someone (preferably with better maths than me) confirm that it should now always be statistically possible for the person at the bottom of the judges leaderboard to escape being bottom provided they top the public vote?
If so then definitely revert back to the old system.”
Ok - exchange DO for bottom 2 if the Dance Off is done away with.
I couldn't do this for any more than 4 couples as it would take days with thousands of permutations for say 7 couples
but for 4 couples :Underlined entries = the dance off follows the original leaderboard
Entries in Red = SHOCK
LB = Leaderboard, PV = Phone Vote
LB+PV=Final Score
4+4=8 3+3=6 2+2=4 1+1=2 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+4=8 3+3=6 2+1=3 1+2=3 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+4=8 3+2=5 2+1=3 1+3=4 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+4=8 3+2=5 2+3=5 1+1=2 LB 2nd+4th DO
4+4=8 3+1=4 2+2=4 1+3=4 LB 2nd+3rd DO
4+4=8 3+1=4 2+3=5 1+2=3 LB 2nd+4th DO
4+3=7 3+4=7 2+2=4 1+1=2 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+3=7 3+4=7 2+1=3 1+2=3 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+3=7 3+2=5 2+4=6 1+1=2 LB 2nd+4th DO
4+3=7 3+2=5 2+1=3 1+4=5 LB 2nd+3rd DO
4+3=7 3+1=4 2+2=4 1+4=5 LB 2nd+3rd DO
4+3=7 3+1=4 2+4=6 1+2=3 LB 2nd+4th DO
4+2=6 3+4=7 2+3=5 1+1=2 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+2=6 3+4=7 2+1=3 1+3=4 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+2=6 3+3=6 2+1=3 1+4=5 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+2=6 3+3=6 2+4=6 1+1=2 LB 1st+4th DO
4+2=6 3+1=4 2+4=6 1+3=4 LB 2nd+4th DO
4+2=6 3+1=4 2+3=5 1+4=5 LB 2nd+3rd DO
4+1=5 3+4=7 2+2=4 1+3=4 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+1=5 3+4=7 2+3=5 1+2=3 LB 1st+4th DO
4+1=5 3+3=6 2+4=6 1+2=3 LB 1st+4th DO
4+1=5 3+3=6 2+2=4 1+4=5 LB 1st+3rd DO
4+1=5 3+2=5 2+4=6 1+3=4 LB 1st+4th DO
4+1=5 3+2=5 2+3=5 1+4=5 LB 1st+2nd DO
Ties:
Leaderboard = Bold
4 4 4 1
4+4=8 4+3=7 4+2=6 1+1=2 LB 1/3 tied 1st+4th DO
4+4=8 4+3=7 4+1=5 1+2=3 LB 1/3 tied 1st+4th DO
4+4=8 4+2=6 4+1=5 1+3=4 LB 1/3 tied 1st+4th DO
4+3=7 4+2=6 4+1=5 1+4=5 LB 1/3 tied 1st+4th DO
4 4 2 2
4+4=8 4+3=7 2+2=4 2+1=3 LB 2/2 tied 3rd DO
4+4=8 4+2=6 2+3=5 2+1=3 LB 2/2 tied 3rd DO
4+4=8 4+1=5 2+3=5 2+2=4 LB 1/2 tied 1st+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+3=7 4+2=6 2+4=6 2+1=3 LB 1/2 tied 1st+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+3=7 4+1=5 2+4=6 2+2=4 LB 1/2 tied 1st+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+1=5 4+2=6 2+3=5 2+4=6 LB 1/2 tied 1st+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4 3 3 3
4+4=8 3+3=6 3+2=5 3+1=4 LB 2/3 tied 2nd DO
4+3=7 3+4=7 3+2=5 3+1=4 LB 2/3 tied 2nd DO
4+2=6 3+4=7 3+3=6 3+1=4 LB 1st+1/3 tied 2nd DO
4+1=5 3+4=7 3+3=6 3+2=5 LB 1st+1/3 tied 2nd DO
4 4 2 1
4+4=8 4+3=7 2+2=4 1+1=2 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+4=8 4+3=7 2+1=3 1+2=3 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+4=8 4+2=6 2+3=5 1+1=2 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+4=8 4+2=6 2+1=3 1+3=4 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+4=8 4+1=5 2+2=4 1+3=4 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+3=7 4+2=6 2+1=3 1+4=5 LB 3rd+4th DO
4+4=8 4+1=5 2+3=5 1+2=3 LB 1/2 tied 1st+4th DO
4+3=7 4+2=6 2+4=6 1+1=2 LB 1/2 tied 1st+4th DO
4+3=7 4+1=5 2+4=6 1+2=3 LB 1/2 tied 1st+4th DO
4+3=7 4+1=5 2+2=4 1+4=5 LB 1/2 tied 1st+3rd DO
4+2=6 4+1=5 2+4=6 1+3=4 LB 1/2 tied 1st+4th DO
4+2=6 4+1=5 2+3=5 1+4=5 LB 1/2 tied 1st+3rd DO
4 3 3 1
4+2=6 3+1=4 3+3=6 1+4=5 LB 1/2 tied 2nd+4th DO
4+2=6 3+1=4 3+4=7 1+3=4 LB 1/2 tied 2nd+4th DO
4+3=7 3+4=7 3+2=5 1+1=2 LB 1/2 tied 2nd+4th DO
4+3=7 3+1=4 3+4=7 1+2=3 LB 1/2 tied 2nd+4th DO
4+4=8 3+2=5 3+3=6 1+1=2 LB 1/2 tied 2nd+4th DO
4+4=8 3+1=4 3+3=6 1+2=3 LB 1/2 tied 2nd+4th DO
4+1=5 3+2=5 3+3=6 1+4=5 LB 1st+1/2 tied 2nd DO
4+1=5 3+3=6 3+4=7 1+2=3 LB 1st+4th DO
4+1=5 3+4=7 3+2=5 1+3=4 LB 1st+4th DO
4+2=6 3+3=6 3+4=7 1+1=2 LB 1st+4th DO
4+3=7 3+1=4 3+2=5 1+4=5 LB 2/2 tied 2nd DO
4+4=8 3+1=4 3+2=5 1+3=4 LB 2/2 tied 2nd DO
4 3 2 2
4+3=7 3+4=7 2+1=3 2+2=4 LB 2/2 tied 3rd DO
4+4=8 3+3=6 2+1=3 2+2=4 LB 2/2 tied 3rd DO
4+2=6 3+4=7 2+1=3 2+3=5 LB 2/2 tied 3rd DO
4+1=5 3+2=5 2+3=5 2+4=6 LB 1st+2nd DO
4+2=6 3+1=4 2+3=5 2+4=6 LB 2nd+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+1=5 3+3=6 2+2=4 2+4=6 LB 1st+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+3=7 3+1=4 2+2=4 2+4=6 LB 2nd+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+4=8 3+2=5 2+1=3 2+3=5 LB 2nd+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+1=5 3+4=7 2+2=4 2+3=5 LB 1st+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+4=8 3+1=4 2+2=4 2+3=5 LB 2nd+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+2=6 3+3=7 2+1=3 2+4=6 LB 1st+1/2 tied 3rd DO
4+3=7 3+2=5 2+1=3 2+4=6 LB 2nd+1/2 tied 3rd DO
Blimey, Bonnie, are you having problems sleeping?! Seriously good work though, must have taken you ages!
Its funny how SCD scoring stirs up passions, we got a similar thing on the BBC forums last year (though, with the dance-off, things were more complicated, I think). Personally, I love it!
I think there'll always be controversy in a show like SCD. If there was only judges' scores, and no public vote, the show would be too "dry", and would lose some of its appeal (and there'd be no phone-vote money of course). If there was only a public vote, the show would be too much of a popularity contest. And with a combined system, you get controversy over how you combine the scores/votes.
I think the best methods of combining scores are those which offer a consistent and even balance between judges' assessments and public preferences. DWTS probably feel they've succeeded in this, but they've not taken into account the fact that the judges don't use the full range of scores, and you end up with the judges' scores grouped tightly together. Because of this there's little to protect the top performers from being thrown out (you'd definitely need a dance-off, and you'd still get major upsets).
So the next best thing is to use the points sytem based on placings. If you could get rid of tied scores, everything would be straightforward. But if you allow ties to be reflected in the points awarded, then you need to be careful. The current system, in my view, erodes the judges' influence too much - depending on how many ties there are. The old system certainly doesn't do this, but in certain circumstances may be felt to go too far the other way.
I reckon Dr. Jan Itor's suggestion (earler in this thread) is by far the best compromise.
All this is academic, of course - nothing's going to change!
Its funny how SCD scoring stirs up passions, we got a similar thing on the BBC forums last year (though, with the dance-off, things were more complicated, I think). Personally, I love it!
I think there'll always be controversy in a show like SCD. If there was only judges' scores, and no public vote, the show would be too "dry", and would lose some of its appeal (and there'd be no phone-vote money of course). If there was only a public vote, the show would be too much of a popularity contest. And with a combined system, you get controversy over how you combine the scores/votes.
I think the best methods of combining scores are those which offer a consistent and even balance between judges' assessments and public preferences. DWTS probably feel they've succeeded in this, but they've not taken into account the fact that the judges don't use the full range of scores, and you end up with the judges' scores grouped tightly together. Because of this there's little to protect the top performers from being thrown out (you'd definitely need a dance-off, and you'd still get major upsets).
So the next best thing is to use the points sytem based on placings. If you could get rid of tied scores, everything would be straightforward. But if you allow ties to be reflected in the points awarded, then you need to be careful. The current system, in my view, erodes the judges' influence too much - depending on how many ties there are. The old system certainly doesn't do this, but in certain circumstances may be felt to go too far the other way.
I reckon Dr. Jan Itor's suggestion (earler in this thread) is by far the best compromise.
All this is academic, of course - nothing's going to change!
I'm not sure the term "shock" is being used correctly. It seems to be used to describe where a couple ranked "high" by the judges ends up in the bottom 2.
I'm not sure this can really be a shock, given how frequently it happens. If memory serves, after the first month or so in 2008, either Rachel or Lisa were in the D-O 50% of the time, despite being high up the leader board. Something that happens 50% of the time is hardly a shock, really, particularly as it's well known that being in the middle of the leader board is dangerous.
Jimi was perceived to be popular, but as the public vote result is never revealed, he might have been near the bottom of the public vote every week, and so was going to be a gonner sooner rather than later. Expecting him to be safe when high up the leader board was never based on objective info re his popularity, so his departure cannot be a shock.
A shock would be Michelle being bottom with the judges and then escaping the bottom two, as having been in the bottom two before, her public vote form is not good, and you would legitimately expect her to be toast if bottom with the judges.
Likewise, Ann being eliminated this week would be something of a shock, as she's never been worse than third from the bottom so far, and it would need a "shocking" collapse of her public support to see her ousted this weekend, although even this wouldn't be truly shocking, as there are plenty of folk saying she's not amusing any more.
Too much hyperbole and not enough objectivity, I say.
I'm not sure this can really be a shock, given how frequently it happens. If memory serves, after the first month or so in 2008, either Rachel or Lisa were in the D-O 50% of the time, despite being high up the leader board. Something that happens 50% of the time is hardly a shock, really, particularly as it's well known that being in the middle of the leader board is dangerous.
Jimi was perceived to be popular, but as the public vote result is never revealed, he might have been near the bottom of the public vote every week, and so was going to be a gonner sooner rather than later. Expecting him to be safe when high up the leader board was never based on objective info re his popularity, so his departure cannot be a shock.
A shock would be Michelle being bottom with the judges and then escaping the bottom two, as having been in the bottom two before, her public vote form is not good, and you would legitimately expect her to be toast if bottom with the judges.
Likewise, Ann being eliminated this week would be something of a shock, as she's never been worse than third from the bottom so far, and it would need a "shocking" collapse of her public support to see her ousted this weekend, although even this wouldn't be truly shocking, as there are plenty of folk saying she's not amusing any more.
Too much hyperbole and not enough objectivity, I say.
There are problem with any other system than ranking the couples -
1. The first couple always seems to be at a disadvantage and scored a little lower.
2. The judges already have preconceived ideas about the ability of each couple and that influences the scores they give during the show.
If the judges rank all the couples after they have all danced, then the playing field is more level.
The DWTS system of using percentages doesn't change the results as much as you might think it would (that's been checked before on here).
1. The first couple always seems to be at a disadvantage and scored a little lower.
2. The judges already have preconceived ideas about the ability of each couple and that influences the scores they give during the show.
If the judges rank all the couples after they have all danced, then the playing field is more level.
The DWTS system of using percentages doesn't change the results as much as you might think it would (that's been checked before on here).
I think that SCD does not leave the ranking on screen for long enough once it has been converted from judges points, so maybe a lot of people are still thinking that someone like Jimi was higher than he was (based on judges paddle points).
So perhaps they could leave it on screen longer alongside voting tel number.
Even after this many series my Mum does not understand points system.
I agree with OP that should revert to old system now dance off canned.
So perhaps they could leave it on screen longer alongside voting tel number.
Even after this many series my Mum does not understand points system.
I agree with OP that should revert to old system now dance off canned.
Perhaps an alternative would be to give the judges two scores. One for Dance & one for Entertainment. Then in the event of a tie the couple with the highest dance score is higher on the leader board.
One problem that has cropped up with the DWTS percentage score is the couple at the top can be knocked out. There should always be a balance whereby the highest with the judges is safe and the highest with the public can be saved.
Because no two couples can be last as in the dance off days, it in no longer necessary to weight things in the public's favour except for the double elimination round. This very fact means a way of clearly ranking ALL the couples first to last is needed.
One problem that has cropped up with the DWTS percentage score is the couple at the top can be knocked out. There should always be a balance whereby the highest with the judges is safe and the highest with the public can be saved.
Because no two couples can be last as in the dance off days, it in no longer necessary to weight things in the public's favour except for the double elimination round. This very fact means a way of clearly ranking ALL the couples first to last is needed.
2 of 3
