DS Forums

 
 

Bottom of the Leaderboard should be up for the dance off every week


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26-10-2014, 22:07
holly berry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,372
I'm happy with things as they are now. Scott, Judy and Alison are clearly more popular with the public than Thom and Simon. It was quite exciting watching the dance off tonight - more so than if any of the aforementioned three had been in it.
holly berry is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 26-10-2014, 22:15
Tejas
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,656
It's fine how it is. The judges (supposedly) score based on ability, and the public vote for their favourites. What's the point in forcing the lowest ranked person into a situation they are highly unlikely to win? That would, in my view, be far more damaging to the programme and probably result in viewers switching off in their droves.

At the end of the day, people vote for who they want to stay in the competition - clearly not enough people cared whether Tom stayed, hence he lost his place. Life goes on.
Tejas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 00:15
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,226
That way this farce voting wouldn't keep happening!
Let the public vote save one of the bottom 3 , (or 2 of 4.) Anyone who wants to vote can. Those who back someone good won't have to bother.There's no charity to gain from added votes now, so there's no loss if fewer people vote - and its then for something that does make a difference.

The alternative is the minority of negative, anti-judge, voters keep the worst in - with a big block vote going to whoever is worst of all. And we end up, as we have, with the judges begging the public to effectively vote for everyone they think should stay - because thats the only way the people in the middle of the leaderboard will get a vote. Thats just not going to happen - as people will vote for who they like , or think is best - not for 11 people who deserve to stay.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 00:20
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
I guarantee you that any system that explicitly gives the three or four people per series who can really dance immunity from being voted off for 95% of the series would not end well for people who want the best to win. You would end up with Chris Hollins winner after Chris Hollins winner as bandwagons built up around the mid-table contestants who people would actually have to vote for to save.
Monkseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 00:23
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,226
It's fine how it is. The judges (supposedly) score based on ability, and the public vote for their favourites. What's the point in forcing the lowest ranked person into a situation they are highly unlikely to win? That would, in my view, be far more damaging to the programme and probably result in viewers switching off in their droves.

At the end of the day, people vote for who they want to stay in the competition - clearly not enough people cared whether Tom stayed, hence he lost his place. Life goes on.
People don't do that though. The anti-judge vote votes anti-judge. It backs whoever is marked lowest - whether they have a personality or not. It abandons them when they get higher marks. Its been a feature of most reality TV shows, in many producing similar 20%+ shares of the vote - you get it if you are the weakest dancer, singer, skater - regardless of whether you are funny, dull, or likeable, or not. It ignores story or achievement - it just votes against what the judges say the story is.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 01:13
Jethryk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,187
People don't do that though. The anti-judge vote votes anti-judge. It backs whoever is marked lowest - whether they have a personality or not. It abandons them when they get higher marks. Its been a feature of most reality TV shows, in many producing similar 20%+ shares of the vote - you get it if you are the weakest dancer, singer, skater - regardless of whether you are funny, dull, or likeable, or not. It ignores story or achievement - it just votes against what the judges say the story is.
problem on this occasion is that there are 3 of them. Scott wasn't even bottom this week.
Jethryk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 11:27
scott_paterson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 18
Total farce on two counts

1. Len should not have another vote when the first four votes are tied, it should go to the viewers vote

2. BBC need to explain the weighting of the viewers vote v judges votes. We should be told exactly what it takes to move contestants out of the bottom 2 on the judges leaderboard.
scott_paterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 11:30
wazzyboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,514
How about viewers vote first, judges are not told outcome (taking that on massive trust though) and score after?
wazzyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 11:38
Arcana
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 🖥⌨🖱
Posts: 29,240
How about viewers vote first, judges are not told outcome (taking that on massive trust though) and score after?
I've considered that idea. It probably would discourage people to some extent from just assuming their faves are safe because of their position on the LB.

Not sure it would work in other ways but it's the kind of change they could trial on an Xmas Special (albeit with the audience vote rather than viewer vote and no DO).
Arcana is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 11:50
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,483
scrap thye viewers vote. Make it more like Bake Off or the Apprentice or Masterchef. . They seem to do well in the ratings without being a popularity contest.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2014, 22:04
brumilad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,211
That would make the show really boring and predictable and hand way too much power to the producers (who already have too much power anyway). The whole point of the show is viewer participation.
Exactly.

And the other point is to see people from various backgrounds, of varying ages, with varying skills and varying physique learn to dance. Otherwise you might as well watch real competitive dancing.

I love the way people complain about 'farce voting'. Did they miss the memo that this tv show was created as a farce.
brumilad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2014, 14:27
zabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 364
I no longer trust Len's critiques of the dancers throughout the show and therefore I certainly dont trust his opinion in being given the Deciding Vote. If the judges are tied go back to the viewer vote or let both couples remain to fight it out another day.
zabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2014, 14:39
holly berry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,372
Yes, liking the idea that if it's a split decision then the viewer's favourite should survive to dance another week.
holly berry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2014, 15:01
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
That way this farce voting wouldn't keep happening!
The farce voting is caused by the public. Therefore, you might as well scrap the public vote (something that I would not wish to see)
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2014, 15:06
bornfree
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,434
The farce voting is caused by the public. Therefore, you might as well scrap the public vote (something that I would not wish to see)
True. I agree. Scott will then be gone.
bornfree is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:28.