For me I think its the judges overmarking (or imho they are )

In the past we have had the judges raving about certain couples who I have been decided "meh" about, and then the judges have kept them in after the dance off. (Lisa Snowden springs to mind ) I think i find this more annoying for some reason than the public who seem to want to keep lame ducks in way beyond their time (Ann and John spring to mind).

So which one of the above makes you want to throw your supper at the TV more?

Over-marking bugs me more I think. The judges should know what they're talking about. The public can vote for their favourite even if it's for entertainment value not dance talent, but I do expect the judges to get it right!

Stupid public keeping stupid rubbish dancing in drives me crazy

Over-marking - makes me feel manipulated.

I think I agree with the OP. As much as I'd rather the weaker dancers left before the stronger ones, it's everybody's right to vote for who they want.

But the judges are supposed to be there to be impartial, and help us to make up our minds by pointing out technical stuff. I lose respect for their views if I feel I'm being manipulated, for whatever reason, so this annoys me more.

overmarking which will do no favour for the couple at all and moreover it will turn the people against that couple. I felt sorry for Scott and Natalie last week.

This is what annoys me the most.

Judges trying to manipulate the public vote, by lying to the public about a celeb's performance.
Judges treating the public as if they are blind dumb and stupid.
Judges who think the show is all about them than the celebs.
Judges who over mark bad performances and under mark good performances.
Judges who are just rude and not professional.

The show is on a downward slide.

Inconsistent marking gets me, both in terms of across pairs in a single week and over time. Variations between judges doesn't bother me, so long as they are consistently derived variations.

The public vote makes a post midnight, midweek BBC2 programme into prime time family weekend TV fodder, so the eccentricities of the voters have to be tolerated, if not directly encouraged!

Me too

Both, but when it comes to the voting that line about no one ever going broke underestimating the public's (bad) taste comes to mind.

All vote competitions in the UK are prone to some average and in some cases downright awful contestants doing really well and even winning. Rarely do we get the deserved winner, so I always just hope that my favourite stays till the end.

The judges, however are supposed to be giving an objective, professional opinion, and if they cannot do that than there is little point in having them there at all.

I agree with this.

Overmarking.

Keeping rubbish dancers in. I choose to ignore the overmarking otherwise I would fear for my blood pressure

Manipulating the scoring bothers me more than the public vote BUT I never look at individual scores as such I look at the leaderboard and if I think thats about right I dont worry about each mark as in the end it makes little difference.

Looks like I'm in a minority here - I mind poor dancers surviving more than any alleged manipulation - which if it happens at all, is probably the result of frustration at the lunatic voting fringe.

I'm with you , I canignore the votes the judges give because they alway have their favourites but seeing good or potenially good dancers getting elimated while those with two left feet who don't try really spoials the show for me, I watch it to see the dances and the dancers improving even slighty

I totally agree - which is why the hysteria this week seems rather like a storm in a teacup.

Whatever was going on this week, there was nothing remotely close to the scandal of Series 6, where two dancers liked by the judges but not that popular with the public had places in the final engineered for them throughout the entire series.

Despite differing opinions about his routine, Matt was not deliberately scored so he'd be in danger - unlike Austin Healy was.

As far as this year goes, provided all the finalists have learned to dance to the best of their abilities, I don't have a problem. There's only one person who hasn't bothered doing that and instead has spent their time working on their already over-inflated ego - so I'm just keeping my fingers crossed ...

One solution is to get rid of the useless, inept exec. producer in Moira Ross and get in someone who knows their stuff a bit more. Also to have a deal or no deal format of where you dance what is in the box, rather than you having a choice of what to dance.

Back to topic, the overmarking of Ann Widdecombe is pickling our heads a lot as it's forcing us to vote for her. The public are equally to blame to get lured into voting for her. BBC haven't delivered and have got in a joke contestant for variety reasons.

Hopefully next year they should get in a group of contestants next year who are more or less on par with each other. You would still get the odd bad apple in the competition, but it would flow a bit more.

Btw I have complained to the bbc about Ann still being in the competition as it's an outrage. I'd like the bbc to consider the viewer a bit more rather than trying to hike their revenue stakes and market shares.

BBC are not as badly off as they think they are, so why get in a joke act? mystifying beyond belief. Next year I'd like the bbc to focus less on the marketting side of Strictly and focused more on the dancing instead.

I don't care about the overmarking except when it allows the public to vote in bad dancers and drop good ones. No amount of overmarking changes the fact that I have just seen and enjoyed a great dance.

However, the public voting in bad dancers at the expense of good ones DOES deprive me of enjoyment.

They are just going down dwts route and it doesn't make sense.

Yes .. that's what gets me, I miss out on some potentially dazzling routines, in favour of some very mediocre ones. Frustrating!

Most of the so-called "over-marking" isn't over-marking at all.

It's just a judge using a 9, for example, to say "better than the ones I gave 8", rather than marking too high on some imaginary absolute scale.

It is at least very rare for a judge to use a mark that couldn't be justified as a legitimate relative mark, even if popular opinion in a forum disagrees with the mark.

It is also, imo, libel to accuse judges of giving marks (that they don't genuinely believe in) as a way to protect a "favourite".

The use of a forum to post libellous accusations bothers me more than the alleged over-marking.

Can you prove that?

The odd thing in theories like that, imo, is the mystery of why the judges would do it. Why would they like those dancers so much that they'd risk their reputation and a scandal that could severely damage the show and perhaps even the BBC by falsely marking in order to keep those dancers in?

It makes no sense, and it's never been explained.

The public keeping the worst dancers in - and those that vote to spite the judges.

I don't like the judges overmarking either, but I think the above ruins the show even more.