Obviously when channel 5 took over, the production team knew that positive voting had merit and was a great way to evolve the show.
So why have they taken 10 steps back to the awful negative voting system
!
Its taken just days to damage he series

What do you think was gained by vote to save? Which evictions would have been different, and in what way?

Or perhaps the vote to save didn't work out as well for C5 as they'd hoped it would ie Conor and have reverted to easier to predict option.

Are you serious?

Aaron from series 12 would have been voted out right at the start and would never have had a chance of winning the show. Spencer and Heidi would have been out right away. etc etc.

Vote to evict is fkn stupid and only gets rid of the divisive characters.

All of the times Speidi were up on CBB.I also don't think Aaron would have won his series if it was a vote to Evict. I'm sure there were plenty more but I cant be asked to to list them all.

Conor was the only reason there was anything to talk about last year. It would of giving bb4 a run for its money in the boring stakes if he had gone early.

Does it really matter? Surely good characters can carry themselves?

Didn't you watch the show during the Channel 4 years?

Caroline, Becky? Two big characters in their own right, didn't come across well..

Some one who isn't a big character as such ends up winning any way. None of Sallie or Gina is going to win. Sophie will probably win for all we know and she has barely featured.

Errr, Arron was a big character, and he won thanks to the vote to save. It is impossible for an entertaining housemate to win with vote to evict.

Anyway, who wins is irrelevant to me. I just want the entertaining hosuemates to stay in til the end to make the show watchable.

This...

I think this version of Big Brother has been flopping around clueless for a while, with this move they have finally come out in the open and fully admitted it. They have no idea what to do.

I'd guess that they inroduced VTS in the hope that it would increase revenues, and, having seen that it doesn't, reverted to VTE. Only speculation, of course, but it's important to remember that the show is designed to make money when analysing any major decision they make.

Both systems have their weaknesses, but my own preference has always been for VTS with a minimum of three up.

Aaron would never have gone against Tashie in a million years. He was already favourite by then, Harry was also very popular, and all their fans would have voted for Tashie. The second time he was up his fans had only to settle on Anton or Jay and the job was done. They were pretty well organised and would probably have gone for anton as being the far easier target. And the third time all his fans AND Faye's fans (if separate, as they sometimes were) would have voted against Jay; and since Aaron's fans were clearly more numerous than Jay's, Jay would have gone. So Aaron would have won and Alex would have come second.

BB had no intention of losing Heidi and Spencer early on. They could have protected them in a million ways; indeed at one point, they DID have to protect them.

There is no etc etc. Apart from Heidi and Spencer there would be little change; the same two people would undoubtedly have won the main BB's, especially Luke, who was never in any danger at all other than in the one to one, which he won by a fair margin.

In the case of this vote, as far as I am concerned, the three least likeable people are up, so who cares really? I guess Dexter would go under a vote to save, and i might be one of the women in a vote to evict, but none of them have any chance of winning or even lasting long unless they get a personality transplant,so makes little difference

I read loads of posts last year saying it should be vote to evict

People always try to convince themselves that if the voting focus was changed it would magically give them the result they wanted. It makes far less difference than they think. The only time it makes a big difference is if multiple housemates are up for eviction and one of them is very divisive, as with Nikki being evicted against minnows like Michael Cheshire. Otherwise the same person will nearly always win.

i think it makes no difference in the overall sceme of things if a stronger fan base wants to save there fav they will ..be it a vote to save ..or a vote to evict

I agree,we have gone back to vote to evict because of Conor!!

That's the only reason I could think of too, that one of their favourites is up and they're nervous. I remember, I think it was probably either Jay or Connor who were up and it was vote to save, people were upset then because in order to get rid of them they had to vote for more than one person as there was over 2 of them up.

LAMO wellcome to DS! Nothing will ever be good enough for this forum lol

I'm also miffed by how big brother have got away with getting the public to vote for the same thing twice.
Its like the x factor saying vote for your top 3, then when we have your top 3 we will reset the votes and ask you to vote for the winner .

There would be little change? Are you kidding me?

Aaron would've lost his series in a vote to evict.
Lydia would've been out first. It would've been likely that Lauren would have been evicted over Benedict. Deana would've gone way before the final. Conor would've gone against Shievonne.

There's so many results that would have changed. People argue "what difference does it make?" but if it didn't make a difference Big Brother wouldn't bother to change it, would they?

Really? for weeks he did nothing - then what he did was be a vile and disgusting excuse of a human.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't .......