If you have a look on page 51 of this week's Radio Times regarding Strictly voting, you will see what I mean. They say top couple gets one vote, second couple two, and so on down, with bottom two couples with most votes in the dance off. Surely the wrong way round? Or is this how they really do it?
Has the Radio Times got it wrong?
Originally Posted by Rosegrower:
“If you have a look on page 51 of this week's Radio Times regarding Strictly voting, you will see what I mean. They say top couple gets one vote, second couple two, and so on down, with bottom two couples with most votes in the dance off. Surely the wrong way round? Or is this how they really do it?”
“If you have a look on page 51 of this week's Radio Times regarding Strictly voting, you will see what I mean. They say top couple gets one vote, second couple two, and so on down, with bottom two couples with most votes in the dance off. Surely the wrong way round? Or is this how they really do it?”
Who knows
Originally Posted by Rosegrower:
“If you have a look on page 51 of this week's Radio Times regarding Strictly voting, you will see what I mean. They say top couple gets one vote, second couple two, and so on down, with bottom two couples with most votes in the dance off. Surely the wrong way round? Or is this how they really do it?”
“If you have a look on page 51 of this week's Radio Times regarding Strictly voting, you will see what I mean. They say top couple gets one vote, second couple two, and so on down, with bottom two couples with most votes in the dance off. Surely the wrong way round? Or is this how they really do it?”
It's the wrong way round - 2 couples with the lowest combined score are in the dance-off.
I will never understand why the BBC don't release the voting percentages as ITV do - unless of course they have something to hide?
The RT journalist for that article should be sacked it's completely wrong, surprised on the poor standards someone should have spotted it on proof reading,
Originally Posted by hilary2329:
“I will never understand why the BBC don't release the voting percentages as ITV do - unless of course they have something to hide?”
“I will never understand why the BBC don't release the voting percentages as ITV do - unless of course they have something to hide?”
They claim that it could hurt a particular celebritie's reputation, or could affect their career (if they were low in the vote).
Also, the BBC don't actually take any of the public's money from voting (they don't make any profits on the phone vote, and online voting is free). ITV do, however, and they were involved in a phone voting scandal a few years ago, so that is why they do reveal voting percentages.
Originally Posted by Stuart25:
“They claim that it could hurt a particular celebritie's reputation, or could affect their career (if they were low in the vote).
Also, the BBC don't actually take any of the public's money from voting (they don't make any profits on the phone vote, and online voting is free). ITV do, however, and they were involved in a phone voting scandal a few years ago, so that is why they do reveal voting percentages.”
“They claim that it could hurt a particular celebritie's reputation, or could affect their career (if they were low in the vote).
Also, the BBC don't actually take any of the public's money from voting (they don't make any profits on the phone vote, and online voting is free). ITV do, however, and they were involved in a phone voting scandal a few years ago, so that is why they do reveal voting percentages.”
The BBC were also hauled over the coals over the phone vote scandal. It's for this reason that a percentage of the proceeds from Strictly's phone vote no longer goes to Children in Need.
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“The BBC were also hauled over the coals over the phone vote scandal. It's for this reason that a percentage of the proceeds from Strictly's phone vote no longer goes to Children in Need.”
“The BBC were also hauled over the coals over the phone vote scandal. It's for this reason that a percentage of the proceeds from Strictly's phone vote no longer goes to Children in Need.”
I know this is true, but I have never been able to grasp the logic of it. Why should a phone vote scandal stop the proceeds going to Children in Need?
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“The BBC were also hauled over the coals over the phone vote scandal. It's for this reason that a percentage of the proceeds from Strictly's phone vote no longer goes to Children in Need.”
“The BBC were also hauled over the coals over the phone vote scandal. It's for this reason that a percentage of the proceeds from Strictly's phone vote no longer goes to Children in Need.”
What is "the" phone vote scandal? I thought there were a bunch of different ones and, like Rosegrower, I don't know how a scandal could stop the BBC from giving money to Children in Need.
Originally Posted by Rosegrower:
“I know this is true, but I have never been able to grasp the logic of it. Why should a phone vote scandal stop the proceeds going to Children in Need?”
“I know this is true, but I have never been able to grasp the logic of it. Why should a phone vote scandal stop the proceeds going to Children in Need?”
I'm not 100% sure on where I read this so don't quote me on it, but ISTR reading that the rationale was that in the aftermath of the various phone-in vote scandals, the phone call must be for one purpose only, so it had to be either to vote or donate, not both. (Shows with an explicit link to Comic Relief or CiN such as Let's Dance are exceptions.)
Originally Posted by Rosegrower:
“I know this is true, but I have never been able to grasp the logic of it. Why should a phone vote scandal stop the proceeds going to Children in Need?”
“I know this is true, but I have never been able to grasp the logic of it. Why should a phone vote scandal stop the proceeds going to Children in Need?”
The BBC rules were changed after the phone voting scandal in 2007 when it was found that competitions were fixed and the result of some competitions didn't match up to the phone votes. So now the programme from which proceeds of phone calls go to charity must be directly associated with that programme. So proceeds from phone calls to Children in Need got to Children in Need, Sport Relief proceeds got to Sport Relief, Comic Relief programmes to Comic Relief and so on.
Strictly isn't directly associated with any charity so no proceeds can be used as such. Calls used to be dearer to include a donation. Now there are the Strictly Specials for Children in Need on CIN night.
As far as I know the phone vote scandal was when the judges marks meant that Tom Chambers, in last place, could not avoid being bottom when the public vote was added so inviting people to vote to save him was asking them to waster their money. The points from the judges votes changed after this so it could never happen again.
Originally Posted by A.D.P:
“The RT journalist for that article should be sacked it's completely wrong, surprised on the poor standards someone should have spotted it on proof reading,”
“The RT journalist for that article should be sacked it's completely wrong, surprised on the poor standards someone should have spotted it on proof reading,”
Absolutely. I'm sure they will have had this pointed out and will print a correction in the next issue.
I wondered if it was me going mad or them when I first read it.
Originally Posted by Thursday next:
“As far as I know the phone vote scandal was when the judges marks meant that Tom Chambers, in last place, could not avoid being bottom when the public vote was added so inviting people to vote to save him was asking them to waster their money. The points from the judges votes changed after this so it could never happen again.”
“As far as I know the phone vote scandal was when the judges marks meant that Tom Chambers, in last place, could not avoid being bottom when the public vote was added so inviting people to vote to save him was asking them to waster their money. The points from the judges votes changed after this so it could never happen again.”
The allocation of votes was changed then so it couldn't happen again, but it was fixed competitions that stopped the charity donations were stopped.
It emerged that there had been many "fixings" and the one I remember was a Blue Peter competition when children spent parents' money voting for the name of a new kitten as 'Cookie', but Blue Peter decided they didn't like that and called the kitten 'Sox'. There was no charity element involved, but it was symptomatic of the fixing so the new rules were decided on.
Originally Posted by Thursday next:
“As far as I know the phone vote scandal was when the judges marks meant that Tom Chambers, in last place, could not avoid being bottom when the public vote was added so inviting people to vote to save him was asking them to waster their money. The points from the judges votes changed after this so it could never happen again.”
“As far as I know the phone vote scandal was when the judges marks meant that Tom Chambers, in last place, could not avoid being bottom when the public vote was added so inviting people to vote to save him was asking them to waster their money. The points from the judges votes changed after this so it could never happen again.”
There was another scandal, circa 2006-07 IIRC, where it was found that ITV were ignoring the results of viewer votes and putting whichever people they liked in the bottom two, in addition to both the BBC and ITV having members of a show's production team pose as competition winners and the editor of Blue Peter overriding the results of a viewer poll to name a new cat. It culminated in both channels receiving massive fines and ITV publish the results of the viewer votes to prove that everything was above board.
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“Absolutely. I'm sure they will have had this pointed out and will print a correction in the next issue.
I wondered if it was me going mad or them when I first read it.”
“Absolutely. I'm sure they will have had this pointed out and will print a correction in the next issue.
I wondered if it was me going mad or them when I first read it.”
It took me about two seconds to think, this is a load of.........
I think the voting scandal that prompted the change was to do with a Blue Peter competition and it sparked a review of phone competitions and a change to the BBC's Charter (or what ever it is called). The votes raising money for CIN was a casualty of that review. The BBC can no longer raise money for charity in the same way SCD voting used to do. Someone else with a better memory will come along.
The Tom Chambers situation wasn't really a scandal, just a scoring situation that hadn't cropped up before and hadn't been foreseen. The voting was changed after that to make sure it couldn't happen again, but personally I wouldn't call it a scandal.
PS Wish I could type faster!
The Tom Chambers situation wasn't really a scandal, just a scoring situation that hadn't cropped up before and hadn't been foreseen. The voting was changed after that to make sure it couldn't happen again, but personally I wouldn't call it a scandal.
PS Wish I could type faster!
