Does anyone else think that the judges are scoring too high too soon it's only been 2 weeks & they are already giving eight's out to some of the dancers. Peter, Jay, Georgia & Helen are my favourites but even i don't think some of them deserve an 8 yet maybe 7 at most. I can remember watching the older series of strictly & waiting for someone to get an 8 or higher now the judges are throwing eight's around here & there

Scoring seems to me to be in line with previous years. You could argue that the judges tend to undermark early dances so they can be more generous with later dances in order to suggest couples have improved more than they really have.

The ranking is the most important issue and what they badly need to sort out there is the nonsense of Iwan & Ola finishing bottom but getting 6 points because of ties.

Could you not just have wheeled out 2010's thread on this subject? Or maybe 2011. Or 2012.

Couldn't you just have ignored this thread if you have nothing to contribute to the subject matter?

Yes I do, they also really under mark others that I don't feel deserve such harsh scores. It's a mishmash and at times doesn't make sense. Saying that though every year, without fail the judges scoring annoys me and they definitely have their favourites.

I do tend to think this belief that the judges scored lower in earlier series is a bit rose-tinted glasses. They didn't... If anything the scoring this series is probably one of the fairer - and lower - years.

For reference the highest week 1 score was a 35 for Zoe & Ian back in series 3. In series 4 Louisa & Vincent scored 36 (including a 10) for their jive in week 2. And back in series 8 we had 4 couples over 60 points combined for their first 2 dances.

The only over marking I could really see was for Peter's mediocre quickstep. I think Katie was probably undermarked as at this stage they don't normally lose that many marks for a stumble (it felt like an 8 dance minimum)

I agree with all of that.

Sometimes they mark relatively high at the start of the Series and then give less points for the same level of performance as the Series progresses. I think that is the right way to do it, because it allows them to use all the possible scores and helps differentiate between different couples. It does mean that there is a different standard judged against as the series goes on - which can be a bit confusing.

This year they have got 2 men who can compete with the top lady celebs, and I'm getting the feeling that the top 2 men are getting a little protected by the judges so far, but if their viewer voting numbers are high enough to show they are secure, I think the judges may be allowed to be a bit stricter with them in the future.

Not yet. But I think they should make the scoring criteria harder as some contestants get better so that only a few achieve higher marks and we don't end up with the usual clusters but a fairer range to reflect who improves and who doesn't.

^This

I have thought this for the first two weeks. More so than previous years.

It would the default mark is 5 from Craig and 6 from the rest. It will change as the dross gets dumped and the scores will seemingly fall for better dances in a few weeks.

Average scores after 2 dances :

Series 5 - 26.1
Series 6 - 25.4
Series 4 - 25
Series 8 - 25
Series 11 - 24.5
Series 7 - 24.3
Series 9 - 24.1
Series 12 - 24.1
Series 3 - 23.5
Series 2 - 23
Series 10 - 22.7

Does your spreadsheet show Len's average scores for the first couple of weeks? Just struck me that Len was scoring lower than in previous years. Even to scoring lower than Craig for one dance.

Overall I think the scoring has been better than usual this year. Bruno and Darcey being the ones most likely to overmark.

I think Craig over marked someone too but think of who.

They used to have it where the judges created a lot of tied scores, which resulted in a huge gap to the next celeb - creating a situation where the judges order was much more powerful than the public's order (which is unlikely to ever produce ties).

The judges and public are supposed to have equal power, so that is why we have the current system.

This

The judges and public do not have equal power in the current system unless there are no ties. If there are ties, the public has, in some cases, substantially more power.

Strictly managed to last nearly 7 whole series on the old voting system. It was only changed because of the tie in the semi final when Tom Chambers could not be saved from the dance off by virtue of the tie on the leaderboard. The new system was a total overreaction to that.

What should happen is what happened in the Xmas special some years ago where 4 couples were tied which is for the judges to agree which order the tied couples should be ranked on the leaderboard in order to break the tie.

The problem then, was not the voting system but the stubborn refusal by TPTB to make allowances for anyone resigning. Hence the mess with the judges scores making it impossible to save someone from the DO.

Sophie Ellis-Bextor got four nines for a week 2 Charleston.

Aside from overmarking Peter by two points each week, I am much happier with the scores (and remarks) than last year. Especially yesterday. Len is finally giving some decent feedback.

Well the reason why we have the current system is directly because the introduction of the dance-off with the old system provided the potential for, and then the reality of, a Tom Chambers scenario. No dance-off, no problem.

I think wherever you stand on where the balance of power should lie, it's hard to defend a system that gives the bottom couple in one week 6 points (or more) but then may give only 1 point to the bottom couple the next week.

It also greatly benefits those at the lower end of the leader board. This is the reason why we get "shock" bottom two appearances from couples near the top of the leader board.

BIB
That is certainly a good way that they can avoid ties. It is up to the producer/judges if they want to retain equal power or give up some of their influence. It is in their hands.

I prefer the current system.

It 'felt' more reasonable this year, although the stats show not much in it.

I feel happier though, and it's not higher than in recent series.

How interesting. So the average early scores have actually reduced fairly consistently over the years. That is a surprise.