Jeremy is really poor but he throws himself into Strictly so I can't help but like him. Thinking back to previous years I just couldn't warm to Natalie Gumede, good dancer but that was about it.

The voice.

Good dancing always wins out for me, although I wouldn't have Jeremy at the bottom of the pile just yet.

I mean...the last thing I'd say Natalie was lacking in would be personality. I can see people finding it annoying, but she definitely had one.

I suppose Rachel Stevens was the prime example of the excellent dancer who many felt lacking in personality.

I'd rather see a good dancer. Personality isn't really that important on this program when they just get the celebs to do terrible VTs anyway.

I love the ones like Mark Benton, willing to do comedy but not bad and do improve.
Lisa Riley fits this category as well, but maybe she stayed in too long.

The complete duffers (like Scott Mills) do not interest me at all.

Well, as a shy person myself I always identify more with the more laidback personalities in a group (okay, Rach did look fantastic in those outfits ).

Find it always a bit sad that just because people might not be extravert, that they get judged on that (more the female ones, for instance with Jay it's endearing and oh I want to mother him).

It's bad for a woman when she's not loud, as recent series have proved with SEB, Natalie (sorry, Monks ), Frankie.

While with Mark, Harry, Louis and Jay? this is not an obstacle at all.

Though I couldn't warm to her at all, her lack of personality still wins over pure insincerity - Lisa Snowden anyone?

I love a good personality - because it demonstrates of love of learning and enjoying oneself.

Keep it up Jeremy!

Iwan combines bad dancing with no personality. Surely he must win

How very true

BIB: I have just one thing to say to this: AUSTIN WUZ ROBBED!!

Another vote for good dancing here, though a bit of both is good to have - especially in the early stages. Personally I think that someone like Jeremy adds great value to the show and enjoy seeing him.

I'd also much rather have a supposedly 'bland' personality than an annoying one!

Ideally, both personality and at least respectable dancing.

I will vote for a good performance (in terms of personality and charisma) over a technically brilliant but passionless dance.

In the early stages I vote for the people I enjoy watching the most.

In the later stages I look more at the dancing, but I also look at how much they've learnt. If they were brilliant from the start then I'm less impressed than if they were a relative beginner, but personality also comes into it. If I like them and they're fun to watch, I don't care if they're the ringiest ringer in the bell tower!

Ideally a good dancer with a nice enough personality.

But if I had to choose out of your choice, a good dancer without a personality (presuming you mean the personality of a person rather than the personality they exude through their dancing).

I've enjoyed seeing wonderful pro dancers (of whatever dance disciplines) that have horrid personalities and yet I can tolerate not liking a person if their dancing still captivates me. I've had dance teachers and fellow pupils that were highly talented and could still inspire me despite not liking them as individuals off the dance floor. In my own experience, lots of the best dancers have the most difficult personalities off the floor, and yet on stage or in classes and training they exude so much dancing personality that you're still reeled when watching them.

I love dance, simple as, and i'd prefer to see a dancer win. I will always prefer a Ricky Whittle type person to win over a Chris Hollins type person. Of course I appreciate those who try, but if you still can't dance by the end, then it's not going to be a winning candidate for me.
But ideally someone that had a good balance of both, like Kara.

I think it was just lost in all of the "ringer" crap. Then the melodrama of the injuries came and she had no chance. Seemed likeable enough though.

Men can definitely get away with a bit of a bland personality - Harry certainly did and Jay is the equivalent this year. It's OK if you dance quite well and you have a pretty face.

Of all the ringer/bots/ringerbots you could have chosen as your example, the craziest of them all (who spent the final month or so of the series high on painkillers) is an odd choice...

Last month or so? She had to have a spinal tap to get through her quickstep and that was only wk 4 etc etc

I'll admit that Natalie is probably not the best example I could have picked, Rachel Stevens, as someone else suggested would probably have been a better example.

At least he has genuinely not had any previous dance training and almost had no dance training before week 1 due to his work schedule....

Maybe next year on strictly they should have a celeb who didn't manage to meet up with their partner before week one, to try to attempt a dance on live TV. They could improvise?

Neither: both suck.

I think in the early part of the season it is important to have good personalities in there. I know people will moan about 'so and so is a better dancer and so and so shouldn't even be on this!' from week one, but I really think it's important, at least for me, for there to be some personality contestants in for a few weeks. Post Blackpool, I'm more interested in good dancers, but for the first few weeks, I tend to vote for people I like as opposed to who I thought was best.

On SCD good dancing every time. in life I am holding out for both.

Neither.

You can't be a good dancer if you have no personality and an audience cannot connect with you.

If you are average with a nice personality but no technique, you'll be equally tedious -unless you are doing it for a joke and it doesn't matter because all you do is panto anyway.

It's the whole package or nothing - not that we really get it that much on Strictly.

Kara and Artem had it.

It's not that Iwan has no personality, it's that the one he has seems to be fairly unpleasant. Needy and arrogant.