|
||||||||
The only way you will ever get a true result. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 813
|
The only way you will ever get a true result.
The only way that shows like this can work fairly is to vote for the performance that you think is the weakest and let the judges save one of the bottom two.
When it gets to the last 5 when the competition and artists are established and the judges don't have a say anymore then change to a vote to win. The vote gets too diluted in the early stages for various reasons and that is why we end up every year with controversial results. It was obvious even to a deaf person that the two worst acts were Rylan and Christopher which was in the main reflected in the bookies odds also. When it goes to deadlock in these early stages it is anybodys guess who goes through and does not really represent the true feelings of the voting public. People do not have money to viote for all of their favourites but anyone voting would have money to cast a vote for their least favourite. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 603
|
totally agree. it has always puzzled me on why it is not done that way
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,102
|
Quote:
The only way that shows like this can work fairly is to vote for the performance that you think is the weakest and let the judges save one of the bottom two.
When it gets to the last 5 when the competition and artists are established and the judges don't have a say anymore then change to a vote to win. The vote gets too diluted in the early stages for various reasons and that is why we end up every year with controversial results. It was obvious even to a deaf person that the two worst acts were Rylan and Christopher which was in the main reflected in the bookies odds also. When it goes to deadlock in these early stages it is anybodys guess who goes through and does not really represent the true feelings of the voting public. People do not have money to viote for all of their favourites but anyone voting would have money to cast a vote for their least favourite. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,624
|
Quote:
totally agree. it has always puzzled me on why it is not done that way
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 940
|
This show is about making money, full stop..they're not going to change the voting system..
That's why the phone lines are open from the start of the show for nearly 24 hours..before we've even heard the mess some of these people make of classic songs. To quote Mika... Kerr-ching-AH! ;O) Rich. x |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,134
|
On the whole people wouldn't vote out the weakest, though, they'd vote out whoever most got up their noses. Early exits for Cher Lloyd, Katie Waissel, Wagner, Misha B, Frankie, Rylan, James... I've mixed feelings about that list, but with everyone knowing that "marmite" contestants would be first to leave they'd probably not even pass Judges' Houses, and the whole competition would become far too homogeneous to sustain a mass audience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,077
|
No, that's an absolutely terrible suggestion. People would vote out anyone even slightly controversial and all the super dull acts with no personalities and no career prospects but who can sing passably well would get through. Also it would be too easy to be tactical and the show wouldn't be entertaining. People on Twitter would just rally together to remove the favourites from their own fave's path. After people like Rylan were booted out it would be the favourites to go next as no one would spend money to get people who aren't as notable out. It just wouldn't work. Look at Big Brother in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,842
|
Voting for the one you think is weakest = vote for the biggest threat to your favourite.
We'd lose the best acts in the first weeks and be left with the middle-ground dross at the end. Positive voting is needed to gauge a proper winner in this sort of show, popularity contest is a far better method than piling on hate. I bet last week had it been vote for the weakest we would have had Ella, James, Lucy or Jahmene in the bottom two. Voting for your one favourite makes it harder to manipulate the result and force out the strong ones, to disadvantage your favourites biggest rival in the current method would result in 10+ votes to single out the rival getting no vote. |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 11,177
|
Quote:
The only way that shows like this can work fairly is to vote for the performance that you think is the weakest and let the judges save one of the bottom two.
When it gets to the last 5 when the competition and artists are established and the judges don't have a say anymore then change to a vote to win. The vote gets too diluted in the early stages for various reasons and that is why we end up every year with controversial results. It was obvious even to a deaf person that the two worst acts were Rylan and Christopher which was in the main reflected in the bookies odds also. When it goes to deadlock in these early stages it is anybodys guess who goes through and does not really represent the true feelings of the voting public. People do not have money to viote for all of their favourites but anyone voting would have money to cast a vote for their least favourite. The only way we'll ever get a true result is if the public vote for the sing-offs instead of the biased judges/mentors. The results show could be on at 8pm-9pm then the results from the public voting could be on at 10pm so they'd be 1 hour to vote. This would be fairer and also mean they'd make more money from the votes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,129
|
The only problem with that is the public will vote for the act they like best based on how cute the boys or girls are. Weak would mean nothing to them.
The public is unspeakably stupid is the main flaw in your theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 7,744
|
Definitely like that idea but a few people may end up voting based on personality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 11,177
|
Quote:
The only problem with that is the public will vote for the act they like best based on how cute the boys or girls are. Weak would mean nothing to them.
The public is unspeakably stupid is the main flaw in your theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 813
|
It really amazes me that alot of people cannot think outside of the box and want to stick to the same old dull system which constantly throws up controversy, those that say the best would go first just have not read the OP properly and thought about it.
I did say that the judges vote in the sing off would save the best singers from going out, so if everyone for example hated Ella then the judges would obviously save her against poorer singers. Some of you make it sound like there is a large mafia that would target favourites etc. On a vote for the worst I would guess that only 2 or 3 would be really up against it that is Rylan, Chris Maloney and MK1 after that I think the vote would be spread but what you get every year are silly people voting for the likes of Rylan, Chico, the Macdonald Brothers etc etc just to cause controversy and Cowell and co love it because of the money coming in as mentioned above. It will never change because of this and this is what is ridiculous just that some people are too close minded to see it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,783
|
Quote:
More money is made by people voting for favourites than for voting off the person they dislike (unless one person really hates an act and phones in a dozen times or so).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,622
|
There's a massive difference between voting for a bad performance and voting for someone you dislike. I shudder to think that if this voting system was in place, we'd have lost people like Cher, Rhydian, Misha, Aiden, Diana etc within the first few weeks, whilst unspectacular dross such as... well, any unmemorable performer who went early on, would have lasted far longer. There would also be the very real possibilty that people would mass vote against the favourite to win in a bid to ensure their favourite act went further.
So, all in all, I think it would be a terrible idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,489
|
The winners will always be:
Bland, plain girl with an unremarkable voice - Amelia, Rebecca, Ella Henderson Shy boy with an OK voice - Matt, Marcus, Jahmene Bland, asexual, group - Little Mix, 1Dimension, Union J Everything else is just window dressing with every VT, every performance put together to make this happen. Changing the voting system will not change the result. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,964
|
It's not just a singing contest though. It should be voting for the person you like in all ways and who has that indefinable X-Factor. The voice of someone is one small part of the over-all star quality of a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,134
|
I invite the OP's guess as to who the final five would have been in, say, series 7. My guess would be John Adeleye, Belle Amie, Paije, Rebecca and... hmm... probably Mary or Treyc. Katie, Cher and Wagner would have been the first three up for elimination, and, yes, judges could have saved one of them week after week, but on a voting-out system the voters wanting rid of them would either have become more and more infuriated or walked away from the show, as cannon fodder like Diva Fever and Storm were sacrificed week by week to keep them in. I'd imagine Matt and One Direction would each have been sufficiently disliked by a part of the voting public to have them making an early exit: Aiden too for sure.
Does anyone really wish for a top 5 made up of the most inoffensive and forgettable performers, or think that a voting-out system would result in any other outcome than that? |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,622
|
The other issue you would have is that the editing and media leaks for acts that the producers wanted out would become increasingly negative and aggressive - even more so than it is now. So even someone as inoffensive as, say, TreyC, would have been made out to be a massive bitch in the effort to get her out over acts that Syco saw a long term future in, such as 1D and Cher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 318
|
That would be the fairest way and I'd be much more inclined to vote to get rid of an act than save one; maybe that's just me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 813
|
Quote:
I invite the OP's guess as to who the final five would have been in, say, series 7. My guess would be John Adeleye, Belle Amie, Paije, Rebecca and... hmm... probably Mary or Treyc. Katie, Cher and Wagner would have been the first three up for elimination, and, yes, judges could have saved one of them week after week, but on a voting-out system the voters wanting rid of them would either have become more and more infuriated or walked away from the show, as cannon fodder like Diva Fever and Storm were sacrificed week by week to keep them in. I'd imagine Matt and One Direction would each have been sufficiently disliked by a part of the voting public to have them making an early exit: Aiden too for sure.
Does anyone really wish for a top 5 made up of the most inoffensive and forgettable performers, or think that a voting-out system would result in any other outcome than that? I think using the system I have mentioned the end result in most years would probably have been the same in all of the shows i.e. the final three, The only obvious class act that got voted out early using the current system is Laura white who could have gone far had she stayed in the competition, and when she was put out by the judges she wasnt the bottom of the public vote. I don't think sufficient people would have disliked Matt cardle or One Direction to put them at the bottom of the public vote and in any case most peopel who vote actually vote the person who sings best each week not who they like or dislike personally. That is why historically the polls on digital spy are vastly different to what the general public vote for, because we over analyse the show and the people a bit of what you are saying comes into it here but most voters don't read digital spy or other internet forums they just watch the show and vote on good old fashioned saturday night entertainment. Cher Lloyd may have gone in the bottom early but she was pretty dreadful in alot of the weeks. Someone stated above that in my proposed system the judges could give negative vibes about who they want to go well in the current system they just do the opposite they give positive vibes about who they want to keep and are not honest in their critique when performers do badly, Cher Lloyd being a prime example. I think in my system, Olly Murs , JLS and G4 would never have been at the bottom of the public vote but in the main I think it would only stop half decent acts going home early over rubbish or novelty acts. It would mean alot for the likes of Melanie Masson to make the tour because she could get some good gigs out of it, she was never going to win it but it would have meant alot more to her. Novelty acts like Rylan get through because there is the idiot element who want to be spiteful against the show and keep the rubbish in but they don't realise they are just lining Cowell's pockets even more. If ir was a vote for the best singing performance of the night then Carolynne and Melanie would most probably not have been in the bottom 2 yet and could both have possibly made the tour. I would love to see what would happen if Rylan was in the bottom with James Arthur because by judges critique Rylan should go through because he is obviously more entertaining but that would never happen as we all know. I suppose thinking about it whichever way the public votes the judges and producers always manipulate it to get it which way they want it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 11,177
|
If you want true results then you should stay well clear of the XF. The show is all about the money, money, money and the funny, funny, funny producers pulling the strings to get their ideal type of winner for exploiting them for as much as they can. Voting for the worst acts would generate less revenue so it wouldn't happen in 1000 years. /.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,489
|
Quote:
I really think I am banging my head against a brick wall with this one, your theory really is nonsense and you vastly underestimate the type of viewer of the X Factor and of the general British Public.
Which is not to say that all viewers are the same. No siree! |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,134
|
Quote:
I really think I am banging my head against a brick wall with this one, your theory really is nonsense and you vastly underestimate the type of viewer of the X Factor and of the general British Public.
Talk to people who watch the show, or read the comments on any published article relating to an X Factor story, and it's plain that each year there are contestants, among them some of the most talented or entertaining,. who large sections of the public come to regard with aversion or contempt. The same public aren't going to spend their money trying to remove some other contestant who happens to give a weak and forgettable performance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 813
|
But in the first weeks Cher Lloyd, Wagner and Katie Waissel deserved to be voted in the bottom 2.
Cher Lloyd was awful through Bootcamp and judges house and even lied that she had put her own words to songs when it was proved she hadn't, her only really good week was when she did Stay, Cowell wanted to sign her up anyway and saw a market a different market to those who vote on X Factor. Wagner was just Wagner another novelty act like Rylan. And Katie Waissel didn't do a bad job of getting in the bottom 2 with the current system 5 weeks out of 8 and saved by the judgesd 4 times, no doubt she would have been saved the 5th time if she hadn't automatically gone for being bottom of th elast 3 in the voting in a double eviction. I don't think that Aiden Grimshaw would have gone so early if the system I favour would have been used but probably 2 of the 3 Katie, Cher and Wagner would have lefty early which would have been correct. Probably Cher would have been saved by the judges and got as far as she did anyway. Too many people in UK are stick in the muds in all walks of life, this included, and just reject any possible change out of hand without thinking it through properly. This thread being a prime example. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:18.



