If there's a lower spread in the judges scores then it gives the public score more weighting than the judges, not less. To push it to the extreme, If all the judges ranking scores were either 1,000,001 or 1,000,000 but the public ranking scores were 10 to 1, the public scores would be far more important, even though the judges numbers were higher.

The best way to work out comparative weight of importance of two (or more) sets of marks producing a combined ranking is to take the standard deviation of each range of marks. The higher the standard deviation, the more "weight" the ranking scale has. Hence why people argue that Craig is the most influential judge, as his standard deviation is usually the highest.

I thought ties made it easier for lower placed celebs to escape the dance off, provided they are popular with the public, because their combined score is higher than it would be if the judges marks went all the way down to 1 instead of, say, 5

Any fans of a celeb that goes out should not blame the system, the judges, or anyone else. The celeb needed more public votes, that's all. The public gets what the public wants and if the public really want a celeb to stay in the competition then that's what happens.

It does. Because of ties the bottom celeb may have 4 or 5 points instead of 1. So much easier to climb over other celebs in public vote.

Preferred the old way of the public vote deciding who is eliminated, but I can see why the BBC has the dance-off.

BBC's funding has been reduced one way or another over the last few years, so the Sunday night show with the dance-off is a cheaper way of producing a new, good programme with lots of viewers. (Sunday night show used to be just edited highlights.)

Celebrities don't like it to be known that they were bottom of the public vote and the dance-off fudges that. That's why I doubt they'll ever let the 'public' have the casting vote rather than Len.

But once you're in the know about the scoring system, you can work out who had the lowest public vote

Exactly! The "new" (series 9 onwards) system allows for the public favourites escape the dance off pretty easily with ties in the leaderboard. Basically, Jeremy could have been 3rd lowest in the public vote (only Ainsley and Jamelia having less votes) for him to avoid the dance off, as in equal points (judges 3 + popular vote 2 = 5 trumps judges 4 + popular vote 1=5 )

The fact ppl turned on pixie was stupid and downright cruel IMHO, but to be fair BBC didn't edit her all that well be it VTs, judges comments, the fact that although brilliant she didn't tell a story all that much etc.......

It's a shame really that she went as in fairness she was as good as frankie and Caroline. I think the BBC staff influenced lens casting vote decision to put simon through. Trouble was it wasn't a credible decision len made.

As mentioned before, that wasn't the case in the Tom/Lisa/Rachel semi final. He couldn't escape the dance off even topping the vote and that's why system changed.

Not necessarily, because of the dance-off. Once it gets to the end with fewer people, the person with the highest public vote can still mathematically end up in the dance off and be sent home by the judges.

If there are no ties, the person with the highest public vote canalways mathematically end up in the dance off and be sent home by the judges.

Yes, the actual points they score is irrelevant, it's the place they are on the leaderboard which gives them the number which is then added to the public vote placement.

so what? its an ENTERTAINMENT show as well as a dancing show...
plus the comments made about series 6!!

The judges scores should be purely figurative then, working only as "guidance". I don't suppose it's fair that the public's favourite can end in the dance off and risk being sent home. Keep the dance off to keep them happy, but it would be fair that realistically the two couples with least votes ended up in the b2

yes....like in that show on the 'other side'......!

thats the real debate...should it be the public who decide, or 4 judges who have always had their 'favourites' and mark them accordingly?

Can't believe no one has picked up on Monkseal's perfectly simple explanation here.

Statistics are beautiful to some people.

Oh, I thought you meant different like the French...they do separate marks for artistic and technical from week 5 which is an interesting way of looking at it as even then, artistic doesn't necessarily mean Jeremy

In a word yes, let the viewers decide.

Personally, I think it is mad that the couples can get a random number of points for the same position from week to week depending on how many might be tied in the judges scores. The whole purpose of the judges scores is to try to rank the couples. If they end up tied then the judges should be asked to break the tie by determining how the tied couples rank (as indeed they did in one Christmas special where four couples tied at teh top of the leaderboard) We all know that two couples who both get, say, a 'Severrrrn' aren't in reality going to be equal. It is just that there are too many couples and too few scores to be able to create a proper ranking order.

Yes, they should absolutely change the scoring system.

Jay, Anita, Helen and Katie should all be marked out of 20.
Jeremy, Jamelia and Georgia should be marked out of 10.
Carol, Kirsty and Kellie should be marked out of 5.
Peter should take a bow and be given a turnip.

This is until the semi-finals where Jay should be marked out of 100, Anita out of 6, Katie and Helen out of 2 and a half, and whoever's left should be pushed around the floor on an oiled teatray until they fall off.

They could be accused of fixing things if that were to happen.

They are accused of fixing things on a weekly basis anyway. What that accusation really means is: "the judges didn't like my favourite as much as me therefore it must be fixed" or "the judges liked the one I don't like more than me therefore it must be fixed". In reality it isn't fixed and nor would it be fixed if the judges were to rank the tied couples.

I would note that if the judges had ranked the tied couples in the semi final of series 6 the Tom Chambers controversy would not have happened as it would have been mathematically possible for him to be saved from the dance off on the viewer vote.

Since they've had the dance-off - though I don't like it I can see why the BBC have it - have always thought they should go by just the public vote from the semi-final.

Though they'd lose the dance-off on the Sunday show, they'd still have the elimination of one person and I'm sure they can find something to fill in the few minutes space just for one week.

However it's much better now the judges have no real say in the final and they have 4 pairs - unless someone is injured - hope not!!

Amazed me at the time that they had to say 'no elimination' that week in the middle of the show in series 6 - after someone had explained the maths.

Often wondered who it was - did someone phone in? a member of the audience? the electrician? Bruno?!?!?

I wasn't watching during series 6 would someone care to explain what happened during the semi-final?

The Judges' scores are figurative and for guidance, it's who they think are the best each week. When it comes to a tie, the public vote carries more weight and always has, same as how in the final it's only the public vote which counts.


Alli explained it earlier in the thread. Because the Judges' tied Lisa and Rachel there was no way Tom could avoid being in the dance off even if he had been the public favourite (which he was), which meant people paying to vote for him were effectively "throwing away money" as he couldn't be saved from the Dance Off.
As there'd been huge controversy about phone voting on other (mostly commercial but did include Blue Peter from the BBC) shows, the Beeb had no choice but to put all three through.

Quite right, except for the last sentence: it's actually biased towards the public vote, as the judges range becomes compressed when there are ties, and the poorer performers get boosted.

There's actually another method (which still maintains the immunity from a Chambersgate situation), but which does indeed favour the judges, if that's what you want to do:

Allocate 1 point to the bottom pair, and 2 points to the next one up, etc. In the event of a tie, the tied couples all get the same points as they would if they hadn't been tied. BUT the next pair(s) up, instead of getting just 1 more point, get boosted by however many couples were involved in the tie.

For example, say there are 7 couples: one at the top of the judges' scores, one in second place, the next 4 tied, and one at the bottom. The bottom pair gets 1 point, the next 4 each get 2 points, the second-placed couple gets 6 points, and the top couple gets 7 points. So, the full range of 1 to 7 points is preserved.

This method tends to help the best performers, which in my view is preferable to what we have now. But what do I know...

Actually, what we need is a system which isn't corrupted by tied scores. There are umpteen ways in which this could be done (most of them fairly radical), but I rather think the BBC actually prefers the extra jeopardy which results from these random scoring anomalies.