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.
Bottom of the Leaderboard should be up for the dance off every week
2 of 2
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Karis:
“That way this farce voting wouldn't keep happening!”
“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.
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.
Originally Posted by Tejas:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“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.”
“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.
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.
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.
How about viewers vote first, judges are not told outcome (taking that on massive trust though) and score after?
Originally Posted by wazzyboy:
“How about viewers vote first, judges are not told outcome (taking that on massive trust though) and score after?”
“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).
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.
Originally Posted by chachachavvy:
“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.”
“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.
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.
Yes, liking the idea that if it's a split decision then the viewer's favourite should survive to dance another week.
Originally Posted by Karis:
“That way this farce voting wouldn't keep happening!”
“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)
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“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)”
“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.
2 of 2
