I find that too negativistic, people ganging up on somebody who's trying to learn some new skill. It's probably okay for a programme where contestants just fart into couch and do FA all day, but not for Strictly.
Time viewers voted for who should go??
2 of 3
Personally, I'd get rid of voting. It's like the Bake Off. Put a cake in front of me I'll eat it, as long as no gelatine, lard or other butchery-derived living creature products are in it. Giving me a vote on Bake Off would be nuts*. Too indiscriminate and greedy.
I really shouldn't be allowed to vote for favourite dances either.
I'm more than happy to accept the judges' view and would not find the programme any less engaging. Getting rid of the public vote gets rid of the need for all that tangential manipulative palaver too
* mmmmmmm walnut cake
I really shouldn't be allowed to vote for favourite dances either.
I'm more than happy to accept the judges' view and would not find the programme any less engaging. Getting rid of the public vote gets rid of the need for all that tangential manipulative palaver too
* mmmmmmm walnut cake
This suggestion pops up every series, LOL, vote off those you don't like. But the reply to that is always the same. How would the Beeb get people to sign on when the public will be casting the vote to who should go rather than who should stay? Can you imagine being a soap star, or tv personality, or singer or whatever standing out there on results night and then your told 'sorry, the public doesn't like you, don't let the door hit you on the way out'. No one would sign up, their ego's wouldn't be able to take it. Plus there is always the chance a really famous or well liked person who can't dance to save their lives would be on and go all the way to the final based on the fact people like them outside the show.
Originally Posted by Dervlathedog:
“Personally, I'd get rid of voting. It's like the Bake Off. Put a cake in front of me I'll eat it, as long as no gelatine, lard or other butchery-derived living creature products are in it. Giving me a vote on Bake Off would be nuts*. Too indiscriminate and greedy.
I really shouldn't be allowed to vote for favourite dances either.
I'm more than to accept the judges' view and would not find the programme any less engaging. Getting rid of the public vote gets rid of the need for all that tangential manipulative palaver too
* mmmmmmm walnut cake”
“Personally, I'd get rid of voting. It's like the Bake Off. Put a cake in front of me I'll eat it, as long as no gelatine, lard or other butchery-derived living creature products are in it. Giving me a vote on Bake Off would be nuts*. Too indiscriminate and greedy.
I really shouldn't be allowed to vote for favourite dances either.
I'm more than to accept the judges' view and would not find the programme any less engaging. Getting rid of the public vote gets rid of the need for all that tangential manipulative palaver too
* mmmmmmm walnut cake”
Its a good idea, and I personally like it, but don't the Beeb get money from voting, or does that go to charity? Plus there is the argument it would take the public opinion out of the show and make it less entertaining for them. It wouldn't for me, but thats just me, lol.
Negativity poisons the soul!
I'm happy with the current system. It's just a light entertainment show after all.
I'm happy with the current system. It's just a light entertainment show after all.
Originally Posted by GabeRich:
“Its a good idea, and I personally like it, but don't the Beeb get money from voting, or does that go to charity? Plus there is the argument it would take the public opinion out of the show and make it less entertaining for them. It wouldn't for me, but thats just me, lol.”
“Its a good idea, and I personally like it, but don't the Beeb get money from voting, or does that go to charity? Plus there is the argument it would take the public opinion out of the show and make it less entertaining for them. It wouldn't for me, but thats just me, lol.”
The BBC don't get any money from phone voting. The cost is to pay for the company who provides the service.
There'd certainly be less public engagement if people couldn't vote for their favourites. Yes, they don't do that on Bake Off but (alas!) we can't try the things they make so it'd make a mockery of the public vote. At least here we can judge the dances on our own merit (whatever we consider that to be).
I think phone or Internet voting is essential. It engages the people in the programme. It may work for the GBBO not having one, but I think SCD would suffer. The part where the public goes against the judges' opinions is the fun part.
In response to the op.........
I can see arguments for and against your suggestion.
If I just reflect on the pro side for it......... just for the sake of argument and without prejudice.
Getting people to vote for who should be eliminated is directly relevant to the end outcome of every week i.e that somebody has to be knocked out so why not ask the question who should be knocked out.
It could be argued that it would give a more transparent outcome rather than people hiding behind the vote for your favourite idea. Yeah people may vote tactically but I that may happen anyway even with the current system.
The other thing as well is that finishing top of an unpopularity poll is not all that much different in principle to finishing bottom of a popularity poll so what difference does it make?
The feeling generated should not really be all that different.
I can see arguments for and against your suggestion.
If I just reflect on the pro side for it......... just for the sake of argument and without prejudice.
Getting people to vote for who should be eliminated is directly relevant to the end outcome of every week i.e that somebody has to be knocked out so why not ask the question who should be knocked out.
It could be argued that it would give a more transparent outcome rather than people hiding behind the vote for your favourite idea. Yeah people may vote tactically but I that may happen anyway even with the current system.
The other thing as well is that finishing top of an unpopularity poll is not all that much different in principle to finishing bottom of a popularity poll so what difference does it make?
The feeling generated should not really be all that different.
Umm, I wouldn't overly mind if we were voting who we wanted to leave rather than save, but Strictly is sort of painted as light heart family entertainment so some (and the beeb) may think the tone sounds mean. Saving your fave sounds nicer for celebs doesn't it.
Whether you agree with the result or not, it is far better to have a "vote for your favourite" in shows like this. At least you know that the winner is the one who has inspired most voting activity and those who go out were the "meh - who really gives a toss?" people.
Voting for least favourite means it's far more open to manipulation.
Voting for least favourite means it's far more open to manipulation.
Originally Posted by sambadan:
“The other thing as well is that finishing top of an unpopularity poll is not all that much different in principle to finishing bottom of a popularity poll so what difference does it make?
The feeling generated should not really be all that different.”
“The other thing as well is that finishing top of an unpopularity poll is not all that much different in principle to finishing bottom of a popularity poll so what difference does it make?
The feeling generated should not really be all that different.”
Because at the moment, you can say you're not everyone's favourite, were middle of the board etc. so people just forgot to vote for you. That's quite different to people actively voting to get you out, which requires some kind of strong feeling against you rather than indifference.
Originally Posted by A.D.P:
“The one change ai would make to the show is a bit on the voting.
I think the top 5 or top 50% in the judging points should be given immunity.
It would make:-
The public vote on really who is at risk.
It would cut shock good dancer exits.
It would make dancers abide by rules more and not play on comedy but skill.
Quite often there is a good dancer who everyone thinks us safe but ends up in the dance off.
So at least in the early weeks when we gave a lot of dancers, let the top judges score dancers go straight through, and let us vote on say the 7/8 bottom dancers only.
It would also cut any debate on racism etc...”
“The one change ai would make to the show is a bit on the voting.
I think the top 5 or top 50% in the judging points should be given immunity.
It would make:-
The public vote on really who is at risk.
It would cut shock good dancer exits.
It would make dancers abide by rules more and not play on comedy but skill.
Quite often there is a good dancer who everyone thinks us safe but ends up in the dance off.
So at least in the early weeks when we gave a lot of dancers, let the top judges score dancers go straight through, and let us vote on say the 7/8 bottom dancers only.
It would also cut any debate on racism etc...”
Agreed I think this would work actually especially in the early stages. I think this is because people slip through the net because people think they're safe or don't remember them.
I'd keep it until Brighton or all the couples fit on one screen. After then it becomes an easy way for the judges to save favourites you go to having to save the whole field possibly eligible.
Originally Posted by StrictlyRed:
“A vote for least favourite feels very negative in what is meant to be a feel good show.
I imagine there would be a greater risk of tactical voting to eliminate dancers that fans saw as a "threat" to their favourite too.”
“A vote for least favourite feels very negative in what is meant to be a feel good show.
I imagine there would be a greater risk of tactical voting to eliminate dancers that fans saw as a "threat" to their favourite too.”
Agreed - the Glasgow and Edinburgh ending up as joint third in a vote for Britain's crappiest town scenario when actually both cities seemed quite nice to me. For those not in the know - a lot of rivalry between the places - a lot of Glasweigans voted for Edinburgh and a lot of Burghers voted for Glasgow when there are much crappier town out there - substitute the names of rival SCD dancers at the top of leaderboard and yeah I can totally see that happening.
Originally Posted by Dervlathedog:
“Personally, I'd get rid of voting. It's like the Bake Off. Put a cake in front of me I'll eat it, as long as no gelatine, lard or other butchery-derived living creature products are in it. Giving me a vote on Bake Off would be nuts*. Too indiscriminate and greedy.
I really shouldn't be allowed to vote for favourite dances either.
I'm more than happy to accept the judges' view and would not find the programme any less engaging. Getting rid of the public vote gets rid of the need for all that tangential manipulative palaver too
* mmmmmmm walnut cake”
“Personally, I'd get rid of voting. It's like the Bake Off. Put a cake in front of me I'll eat it, as long as no gelatine, lard or other butchery-derived living creature products are in it. Giving me a vote on Bake Off would be nuts*. Too indiscriminate and greedy.
I really shouldn't be allowed to vote for favourite dances either.
I'm more than happy to accept the judges' view and would not find the programme any less engaging. Getting rid of the public vote gets rid of the need for all that tangential manipulative palaver too
* mmmmmmm walnut cake”
No no and no because we would have ended up with winners like Emma Bunton, Lisa Snowden and Denise Van Outen and few would be happy with that.
Originally Posted by Lynn_Braben:
“With criticism year on year that poor dancers stay at the expense of better dancers, isn't it time viewers voted for the least favourite? It is all very well having a favourite such as Ed Balls, Anne Widdecombe etc, but if you had to choose whom you think should go, I think it'd be difficult to cast your vote for someone who was good. In effect, you'd be encouraging the good dancers to be eliminated, and sub consciously, that might make people think twice.
Of course, there's no right and wrong when choosing a fave, but would we really want a final with Ed Balls in it? Would viewers want him there t the expense of Ore? Just wondering...”
“With criticism year on year that poor dancers stay at the expense of better dancers, isn't it time viewers voted for the least favourite? It is all very well having a favourite such as Ed Balls, Anne Widdecombe etc, but if you had to choose whom you think should go, I think it'd be difficult to cast your vote for someone who was good. In effect, you'd be encouraging the good dancers to be eliminated, and sub consciously, that might make people think twice.
Of course, there's no right and wrong when choosing a fave, but would we really want a final with Ed Balls in it? Would viewers want him there t the expense of Ore? Just wondering...”
As I pay the phone bill in my house I will vote for whoever I want to vote for. Everyone has different likes and we are all entitled to feel how we want to. Who are you to tell me who is good and who is rubbish. and yes IMHO Ed and Judge are a lot less boring than Danny, Ore and Louise, they are very beige (IMO)
If the public vote was for who should leave, you'd end up with all the marmite characters booted out first, leaving the bland ones. I don't think anyone would want that - particularly the producers.
Originally Posted by Katenutzs:
“As I pay the phone bill in my house I will vote for whoever I want to vote for. Everyone has different likes and we are all entitled to feel how we want to. Who are you to tell me who is good and who is rubbish. and yes IMHO Ed and Judge are a lot less boring than Danny, Ore and Louise, they are very beige (IMO)”
“As I pay the phone bill in my house I will vote for whoever I want to vote for. Everyone has different likes and we are all entitled to feel how we want to. Who are you to tell me who is good and who is rubbish. and yes IMHO Ed and Judge are a lot less boring than Danny, Ore and Louise, they are very beige (IMO)
”
I agree with your points about voting for whom you want and Louise being beige but go and watch Danny's QS or Ore's AS or jive and I'm sorry but if that's beige I'd like to know what your definition of colourful is that doesn't involve someone humilating themselves and this is from someone who finds Danny utterly uninteresting as a person and kinda of hopes he doesn't win.
Originally Posted by Amethyzt:
“Agree with all of this - especially the idea of allowing the top couples to be immune for a week. That would leave the show open to all kinds of manipulation and probably a drop in voting when people realised there was no way to save their favourite couple.”
“Agree with all of this - especially the idea of allowing the top couples to be immune for a week. That would leave the show open to all kinds of manipulation and probably a drop in voting when people realised there was no way to save their favourite couple.”
What happens result show 10-minute interval
Originally Posted by Lynn_Braben:
“With criticism year on year that poor dancers stay at the expense of better dancers, isn't it time viewers voted for the least favourite? It is all very well having a favourite such as Ed Balls, Anne Widdecombe etc, but if you had to choose whom you think should go, I think it'd be difficult to cast your vote for someone who was good.
In effect, you'd be encouraging the good dancers to be eliminated, and sub consciously, that might make people think twice.
Of course, there's no right and wrong when choosing a fave, but would we really want a final with Ed Balls in it? Would viewers want him there t the expense of Ore? Just wondering...”
“With criticism year on year that poor dancers stay at the expense of better dancers, isn't it time viewers voted for the least favourite? It is all very well having a favourite such as Ed Balls, Anne Widdecombe etc, but if you had to choose whom you think should go, I think it'd be difficult to cast your vote for someone who was good.
In effect, you'd be encouraging the good dancers to be eliminated, and sub consciously, that might make people think twice.
Of course, there's no right and wrong when choosing a fave, but would we really want a final with Ed Balls in it? Would viewers want him there t the expense of Ore? Just wondering...”
Nope. I don't give a stuff how "good" someone is. If they emotionally connect with the dance on the dance floor and that emotion affects me while watching then I will enjoy seeing their performance.
Originally Posted by Monkseal:
“It's not Big Brother. Almost all succesful public vote reality shows have a vote to "keep in" because it's more good natured and positive, and a better way of ensuring that there's people on the show that the audience actively wants to see, rather than just "doesn't mind".”
“It's not Big Brother. Almost all succesful public vote reality shows have a vote to "keep in" because it's more good natured and positive, and a better way of ensuring that there's people on the show that the audience actively wants to see, rather than just "doesn't mind".”
Also this ^^
It goes against everything a light entertainment programme is supposed to be about to be choosing who people think is the worst dancer, especially given the vast majority of people watching don't actually know much about 10 Dance in the first place other than what they see on SCD.
How can the normal casual viewer know enough to be able to confidently state that X dancer performed the steps of a Cha Cha Cha incorrectly and should therefore be voted off in spite of turning in a thoroughly entertaining performance?
Originally Posted by GabeRich:
“Its a good idea, and I personally like it, but don't the Beeb get money from voting, or does that go to charity? Plus there is the argument it would take the public opinion out of the show and make it less entertaining for them. It wouldn't for me, but thats just me, lol.”
“Its a good idea, and I personally like it, but don't the Beeb get money from voting, or does that go to charity? Plus there is the argument it would take the public opinion out of the show and make it less entertaining for them. It wouldn't for me, but thats just me, lol.”
No, the money goes to BT, the independent third party company who provide the phone voting service. The phone vote only went to charity in the show's early seasons, first to Sports Relief, then to Children in Need and it was only ever a % of the cost of the call.
Now, if there is anything left in "profit" at the end of the season, it goes to various entertainment related charities I believe like The Variety Club.
Originally Posted by lovecat86:
“I wouldn't vote. Seems vindictive tbh. However, it would probably not work the way you think. Ore and Danny (in that order, ha) are arguably the best two. Thus, you get one out the other has a better shot. Team Danny would turn on Ore (see posts all over the forum) and vice versa.”
“I wouldn't vote. Seems vindictive tbh. However, it would probably not work the way you think. Ore and Danny (in that order, ha) are arguably the best two. Thus, you get one out the other has a better shot. Team Danny would turn on Ore (see posts all over the forum) and vice versa.”
Agreed.
I don't have a favourite couple and don't even vote. But I would vote out Danny because he's already too good that it's becoming boring and it would throw the competition wide open.
It could be carnage with negative voting. (evil laugh)
No OP I'm sorry but I don't think it's a good idea & I don't see how it would be any more
Ikely to keep good dancers in than what the current system does!!
For instance if this forum is anything to go by Louise would be long gone as most seem to find her rather less than interesting & many people dislike Kevin for reasons best known to themselves, so that would be one of the 'better dancers' gone already!!
Also Ore would probably have been in grave danger after the first two weeks as he seemed about as popular as toothache in the early stages so that would have been another good dancer at risk!!
Instead of voting for the likes of Ed people just wouldn't vote for him instead under your system & if multiple voting was to play a part they would just multi vote for someone they didn't like instead of someone they did surely!!
Not quite following the logic of the idea if I'm honest unless there's something I've missed somewhere!!
Ikely to keep good dancers in than what the current system does!!
For instance if this forum is anything to go by Louise would be long gone as most seem to find her rather less than interesting & many people dislike Kevin for reasons best known to themselves, so that would be one of the 'better dancers' gone already!!
Also Ore would probably have been in grave danger after the first two weeks as he seemed about as popular as toothache in the early stages so that would have been another good dancer at risk!!
Instead of voting for the likes of Ed people just wouldn't vote for him instead under your system & if multiple voting was to play a part they would just multi vote for someone they didn't like instead of someone they did surely!!
Not quite following the logic of the idea if I'm honest unless there's something I've missed somewhere!!
2 of 3
