I'm sure Ronan would have won if he had been last.
Did the running order effect the voting?
Daily Mail reported yesterday, with some accuracy, that it can add 5% to your vote each position nearer the end you are placed. So if you go last you would expect to get 45% more votes than if you went first.
On this BGT that would only affect the result if Jai had gone significantly before Ronan. Both the winner and runner were so far ahead of the others that even if New Bounce extended their vote by 50% they'd still be on 13.5%, half of Ronan's vote.
So only Ronan could overtake Jai. Since there was only 2.4% between them, it would only have to be one place difference with Ronan going immediately after Jai - but that's only if you believe this theory. Personally, I think Ronan was simply outsung by a better more mature singer with a much bigger voice.
On this BGT that would only affect the result if Jai had gone significantly before Ronan. Both the winner and runner were so far ahead of the others that even if New Bounce extended their vote by 50% they'd still be on 13.5%, half of Ronan's vote.
So only Ronan could overtake Jai. Since there was only 2.4% between them, it would only have to be one place difference with Ronan going immediately after Jai - but that's only if you believe this theory. Personally, I think Ronan was simply outsung by a better more mature singer with a much bigger voice.
Originally Posted by duncann:
“Daily Mail reported yesterday, with some accuracy, that it can add 5% to your vote each position nearer the end you are placed. So if you go last you would expect to get 45% more votes than if you went first.
On this BGT that would only affect the result if Jai had gone significantly before Ronan. Both the winner and runner were so far ahead of the others that even if New Bounce extended their vote by 50% they'd still be on 13.5%, half of Ronan's vote.
So only Ronan could overtake Jai. Since there was only 2.4% between them, it would only have to be one place difference with Ronan going immediately after Jai - but that's only if you believe this theory. Personally, I think Ronan was simply outsung by a better more mature singer with a much bigger voice.”
“Daily Mail reported yesterday, with some accuracy, that it can add 5% to your vote each position nearer the end you are placed. So if you go last you would expect to get 45% more votes than if you went first.
On this BGT that would only affect the result if Jai had gone significantly before Ronan. Both the winner and runner were so far ahead of the others that even if New Bounce extended their vote by 50% they'd still be on 13.5%, half of Ronan's vote.
So only Ronan could overtake Jai. Since there was only 2.4% between them, it would only have to be one place difference with Ronan going immediately after Jai - but that's only if you believe this theory. Personally, I think Ronan was simply outsung by a better more mature singer with a much bigger voice.”
there
Originally Posted by Last Resort:
“Wasn't Doctor Who on when the first three acts performed?”
“Wasn't Doctor Who on when the first three acts performed?”
And of course there's no opportunity these days for people to record it or watch it on the net or even ITV+1.
That excuse is almost as lame as the first two acts.
Originally Posted by Saturn:
“The running order does have a strong effect on the voting.”
“The running order does have a strong effect on the voting.”
How? What evidence do you have to support this?
Originally Posted by duncann:
“Daily Mail reported yesterday, with some accuracy, that it can add 5% to your vote each position nearer the end you are placed. So if you go last you would expect to get 45% more votes than if you went first.
On this BGT that would only affect the result if Jai had gone significantly before Ronan. Both the winner and runner were so far ahead of the others that even if New Bounce extended their vote by 50% they'd still be on 13.5%, half of Ronan's vote.
So only Ronan could overtake Jai. Since there was only 2.4% between them, it would only have to be one place difference with Ronan going immediately after Jai - but that's only if you believe this theory. Personally, I think Ronan was simply outsung by a better more mature singer with a much bigger voice.”
“Daily Mail reported yesterday, with some accuracy, that it can add 5% to your vote each position nearer the end you are placed. So if you go last you would expect to get 45% more votes than if you went first.
On this BGT that would only affect the result if Jai had gone significantly before Ronan. Both the winner and runner were so far ahead of the others that even if New Bounce extended their vote by 50% they'd still be on 13.5%, half of Ronan's vote.
So only Ronan could overtake Jai. Since there was only 2.4% between them, it would only have to be one place difference with Ronan going immediately after Jai - but that's only if you believe this theory. Personally, I think Ronan was simply outsung by a better more mature singer with a much bigger voice.”
it what separates the men from the boys
Originally Posted by duncann:
“Personally, I think Ronan was simply outsung by a better more mature singer with a much bigger voice.”
“Personally, I think Ronan was simply outsung by a better more mature singer with a much bigger voice.”
You think? Ronan is very good for his age and his vocal tonight was in many ways adult standard but there is never any guarantee that good children's voices are going to develop into good adult voices. You can only judge by what the standard is at present and Jai's voice is much better than there is any guarantee of Ronan's ever being.
Originally Posted by duncann:
“Daily Mail reported yesterday, with some accuracy, that it can add 5% to your vote each position nearer the end you are placed. So if you go last you would expect to get 45% more votes than if you went first.
.”
“Daily Mail reported yesterday, with some accuracy, that it can add 5% to your vote each position nearer the end you are placed. So if you go last you would expect to get 45% more votes than if you went first.
.”
It's not really accurate, it sounds like they've made the basic amatuer mistake of assuming correlation means causation.
Yes, acts who go on last generally do get more percenatages
But the acts who go on last are more talented.
To put in another way, they're on last because they're more popular. They're not more popular because they're on last.
Take Thursday's semi-final. The last 3 acts to perform were the top 3 - including Jai
However, if the order were to be reversed, the question is, would this affect the outcome? Answer: No.
I doubt a lot of viewers even remember the other acts in that semi final. They were Jessica Hobson, Dance Angels Elite, Mexican Mayhem, Nathan Wyburn and Out of The Blue.
Fact is whatever order the acts were put in the top 3 was always going to be those 3 -There's sod all chance of the other acts ever coming close to topping the votes
Originally Posted by spoonfulofsense:
“How? What evidence do you have to support this?”
“How? What evidence do you have to support this?”
Wiki
Study the difference going 1st to last can make to a programme like X factor or BGT. Going last can only be an advantage.However I dont think that made much difference tonight ronan and Jai were clearly going to be the top 2. The others werent even close.
Originally Posted by Last Resort:
“Wasn't Doctor Who on when the first three acts performed?”
“Wasn't Doctor Who on when the first three acts performed?”
Originally Posted by ibeca:
“And of course there's no opportunity these days for people to record it or watch it on the net or even ITV+1.
That excuse is almost as lame as the first two acts.”
“And of course there's no opportunity these days for people to record it or watch it on the net or even ITV+1.
That excuse is almost as lame as the first two acts.”
Watching Dr Who and recording BGT and watching the first 3 acts before voting closed would be a hassle that only the most ardent fans would consider.
On the other hand the Dr Who fans would be highly unlikely to record the end of Dr Who and watch BGT from the start.
Of course the running order affects the outcome, and for the poor acts who performed whilst Dr Who was on they had no chance. Michael Collings would have been higher up the final order if he had performed after Dr Who, but I doubt very much if he'd have been anywhere near the votes of Jai or Ronan.
Originally Posted by spkx:
“It's not really accurate, it sounds like they've made the basic amatuer mistake of assuming correlation means causation.
Yes, acts who go on last generally do get more percenatages
But the acts who go on last are more talented.
To put in another way, they're on last because they're more popular. They're not more popular because they're on last.
Take Thursday's semi-final. The last 3 acts to perform were the top 3 - including Jai
However, if the order were to be reversed, the question is, would this affect the outcome? Answer: No.
I doubt a lot of viewers even remember the other acts in that semi final. They were Jessica Hobson, Dance Angels Elite, Mexican Mayhem, Nathan Wyburn and Out of The Blue.
Fact is whatever order the acts were put in the top 3 was always going to be those 3 -There's sod all chance of the other acts ever coming close to topping the votes”
“It's not really accurate, it sounds like they've made the basic amatuer mistake of assuming correlation means causation.
Yes, acts who go on last generally do get more percenatages
But the acts who go on last are more talented.
To put in another way, they're on last because they're more popular. They're not more popular because they're on last.
Take Thursday's semi-final. The last 3 acts to perform were the top 3 - including Jai
However, if the order were to be reversed, the question is, would this affect the outcome? Answer: No.
I doubt a lot of viewers even remember the other acts in that semi final. They were Jessica Hobson, Dance Angels Elite, Mexican Mayhem, Nathan Wyburn and Out of The Blue.
Fact is whatever order the acts were put in the top 3 was always going to be those 3 -There's sod all chance of the other acts ever coming close to topping the votes”
I agree with you to an extent, some of the better acts are put on towards the end - particuarly by Cowell Productions who definitely seem to think it might effect the voting outcome. Piers even admitted to this by saying he thinks Flawless only didnt win over Diversity because they were on first (something I dont actually agree with). However there are occasions where going on last has helped an act. the semi-final you mentioned: true Jai and Edward would have been top2 whatever but I think Steven was massively helped by the fact he was on last. There have been other fun acts that go on near the start and dont get the votes. Out of the Blue were popular on plenty of fourms Ive looked out, also if Jessica had been last sobbing and the numbers had then flashed up she would have been fresh in people's minds and some more would have thrown her the sympathy vote, although she still wouldnt have made it through.
Diversity were on 1st in their semi-final, Susan Boyle 8th. susan won by over 50% whilst Diversity were about 30%. Cut to the final, diversity are put on last and they win over Susan.
Originally Posted by Arnostae's Mum:
“Watching Dr Who and recording BGT and watching the first 3 acts before voting closed would be a hassle that only the most ardent fans would consider.
On the other hand the Dr Who fans would be highly unlikely to record the end of Dr Who and watch BGT from the start.
Of course the running order affects the outcome, and for the poor acts who performed whilst Dr Who was on they had no chance. Michael Collings would have been higher up the final order if he had performed after Dr Who, but I doubt very much if he'd have been anywhere near the votes of Jai or Ronan.”
“Watching Dr Who and recording BGT and watching the first 3 acts before voting closed would be a hassle that only the most ardent fans would consider.
On the other hand the Dr Who fans would be highly unlikely to record the end of Dr Who and watch BGT from the start.
Of course the running order affects the outcome, and for the poor acts who performed whilst Dr Who was on they had no chance. Michael Collings would have been higher up the final order if he had performed after Dr Who, but I doubt very much if he'd have been anywhere near the votes of Jai or Ronan.”
agree if Michael had of been last I think it'd have picked up some more votes but still wouldnt have won.
Still Steven hall will be my guilty you tube addiction ... , when I need to smile .. i will watch him!
Originally Posted by DinkyDee:
“Wiki Study the difference going 1st to last can make to a programme like X factor or BGT. Going last can only be an advantage.”
“Wiki
Study the difference going 1st to last can make to a programme like X factor or BGT. Going last can only be an advantage.”
Ahh but you are forgetting one possibility, that the genuinely better acts are put on later because it makes better TV.
Look at the audition shows, the formula is always the same. The first half an hour you see all the rubbish acts, then you get some speil from the judges how they are worried they won't find any talent and then in the last half of show all the good ones come on and save the day.
And they do the same in the live shows. They seen the auditions several times so know what are the stronger acts. As Simon said in this series of BGT about an act "it's better to start off small and build up to a big finale than come out all guns blazing".
Matt Cardle won last year despite going going second in the first epeisode (out of 16 acts) and first in the later rounds.
A good act will go through regardless of order and it makes sense for the producers to "finish on a high" by making sure the last act is good which can give the false impression that the person that went last has some kind of advantage..
Originally Posted by spoonfulofsense:
“Ahh but you are forgetting one possibility, that the genuinely better acts are put on later because it makes better TV.
Look at the audition shows, the formula is always the same. The first half an hour you see all the rubbish acts, then you get some speil from the judges how they are worried they won't find any talent and then in the last half of show all the good ones come on and save the day.
And they do the same in the live shows. They seen the auditions several times so know what are the stronger acts. As Simon said in this series of BGT about an act "it's better to start off small and build up to a big finale than come out all guns blazing".
Matt Cardle won last year despite going going second in the first epeisode (out of 16 acts) and first in the later rounds.
A good act will go through regardless of order and it makes sense for the producers to "finish on a high" by making sure the last act is good.”
“Ahh but you are forgetting one possibility, that the genuinely better acts are put on later because it makes better TV.
Look at the audition shows, the formula is always the same. The first half an hour you see all the rubbish acts, then you get some speil from the judges how they are worried they won't find any talent and then in the last half of show all the good ones come on and save the day.
And they do the same in the live shows. They seen the auditions several times so know what are the stronger acts. As Simon said in this series of BGT about an act "it's better to start off small and build up to a big finale than come out all guns blazing".
Matt Cardle won last year despite going going second in the first epeisode (out of 16 acts) and first in the later rounds.
A good act will go through regardless of order and it makes sense for the producers to "finish on a high" by making sure the last act is good.”
No i said in my second post above, but gave an example of when the order has made a slight difference. SYCO productions do tend to put their better acts on towards the end and I think he is almost scared to put a favoured act on early nowdays.
I agree about Matt, for a first show going 2nd would be risky for most as the public havent yet got to know alot of the acts and find a favourite- alot happens in a 2 hour a show. But the fact he came 2nd and then 1st all the other times shows a really strong act and support trumps everything. For Spellbound last year, it wouldnt have made any difference where they were in the running order, they would have still won. I just think for those who dont have a strong following, it can make some difference to the amount of votes they get.
