Getting voted off is one thing.
Discovering that it was only two blind women, their dogs and some bloke down the boozer .......
Discovering that it was only two blind women, their dogs and some bloke down the boozer .......
Why do the BBC not release voting figures
3 of 4
Originally Posted by bendymixer:
“ITV do it because of the voting scandal a few years back
The BBC have said in the past that they do not release figures in case it puts celebs off taking part in show - though it never put people off takin part in DOI”
“ITV do it because of the voting scandal a few years back
The BBC have said in the past that they do not release figures in case it puts celebs off taking part in show - though it never put people off takin part in DOI”
I wish half of this lot had been 'put off' from doing the show!!
Originally Posted by VintageWhine:
“Why does anyone need to know - whether during or after the series?
Can only have a negative effect on participants.
They've got it right.”
“Why does anyone need to know - whether during or after the series?
Can only have a negative effect on participants.
They've got it right.”
How negative would the effect really be if the series had already finished? especially if they only released the voting % of the final?
Originally Posted by RichardSteward7:
“How negative would the effect really be if the series had already finished? especially if they only released the voting % of the final?”
“How negative would the effect really be if the series had already finished? especially if they only released the voting % of the final?”
I'm just thinking about how they'd feel in general. What a blow to the ego if you'd been nearly at the bottom of the public vote! Whether during or after the competition...
Originally Posted by VintageWhine:
“I'm just thinking about how they'd feel in general. What a blow to the ego if you'd been nearly at the bottom of the public vote! Whether during or after the competition...”
“I'm just thinking about how they'd feel in general. What a blow to the ego if you'd been nearly at the bottom of the public vote! Whether during or after the competition...”
I think their ego's would cope. If they had managed to get all the way to the final they would surely be pleased with their overall performance (even if they came bottom of the final).
Originally Posted by RichardSteward7:
“I think their ego's would cope. If they had managed to get all the way to the final they would surely be pleased with their overall performance (even if they came bottom of the final).”
“I think their ego's would cope. If they had managed to get all the way to the final they would surely be pleased with their overall performance (even if they came bottom of the final).”
Also celebs need to be thick skinned surely.
Originally Posted by VintageWhine:
“I'm just thinking about how they'd feel in general. What a blow to the ego if you'd been nearly at the bottom of the public vote! Whether during or after the competition...”
“I'm just thinking about how they'd feel in general. What a blow to the ego if you'd been nearly at the bottom of the public vote! Whether during or after the competition...”
If they can cope with all the judges criticism, voting figures are nothing. It can work both ways, some celebs who get kicked early might find out they were never bottom or near the bottom with the public, might make them happy. I don't buy that argument.
Originally Posted by Sarah777:
“If they can cope with all the judges criticism, voting figures are nothing. It can work both ways, some celebs who get kicked early might find out they were never bottom or near the bottom with the public, might make them happy. I don't buy that argument.”
“If they can cope with all the judges criticism, voting figures are nothing. It can work both ways, some celebs who get kicked early might find out they were never bottom or near the bottom with the public, might make them happy. I don't buy that argument.”
Don't ask you to buy it but place yourself in that position over being at the rock bottom / perhaps Danny a person with little self-confidence if you listen to his mother I do not think it would help them just push them further back
If they think it might make the difference between a celeb saying yes or no, why would they risk it? The 'fix' brigade would just disbelieve it anyway. It's probably only a micro percentage of the audience that that would give a damn once the series is over anyway.
Originally Posted by Pasta:
“If they think it might make the difference between a celeb saying yes or no, why would they risk it? The 'fix' brigade would just disbelieve it anyway. It's probably only a micro percentage of the audience that that would give a damn once the series is over anyway.”
“If they think it might make the difference between a celeb saying yes or no, why would they risk it? The 'fix' brigade would just disbelieve it anyway. It's probably only a micro percentage of the audience that that would give a damn once the series is over anyway.”
Disagree lots of people would be interested in the next days news to learn how close the voting was in the final. I except there is a relevant argument for not doing do so during the series but I cannot see any worthwhile reason whatsoever not to release the voting numbers for the final shortly after the result is announced.
Originally Posted by hansue:
“I notice that ITV have released the voting figures for I'm a Celeb and XFactor so why cant the BBC release the ones for Strictly.
I know its been asked before but just wondered if there is a reason for it. Have they something to hide
”
“I notice that ITV have released the voting figures for I'm a Celeb and XFactor so why cant the BBC release the ones for Strictly.
I know its been asked before but just wondered if there is a reason for it. Have they something to hide
”
It's because the phone service is provided by BT and Ofcom have agreed with them that to release the figures would reveal commercially sensitive information that could benefit their competitors.
An FoI request was refused on commercially sensitive grounds and, since then, the BBC have been exempt from FoI inquiries based on this specific subject which is why they now respond with their comment regarding popularity, celebrity status etc.
There's been about a dozen FoI requests, all refused, this one has the most information.
Originally Posted by Cadiva:
“It's because the phone service is provided by BT and Ofcom have agreed with them that to release the figures would reveal commercially sensitive information that could benefit their competitors.”
“It's because the phone service is provided by BT and Ofcom have agreed with them that to release the figures would reveal commercially sensitive information that could benefit their competitors.”
This seems like a complete load of rubbish. How can the number of calls possibly benefit their competitors, surely it would be the same for any competitor providing lines at the same cost?
I don't see how they are allowed to withhold this information when they are charging the public for the calls.
Obviously I accept that you are correct in what you say, I just think the ruling is bizarre, illogical and unfounded.
I've heard the reasons they don't do it while the show is running but I don't see any reason why they can't release the week by week figures once it's over, like X Factor does.
I think they should realese them and then show the overall leader board for each granted some votes will obviously be influenced by the leader board but it might create awareness of how voting affects it at the very least as judges scores don't count they should at least release the voting results for tomorrow.
Originally Posted by hansue:
“I agree when people have given their time and money to vote, then they have a right to know.”
“I agree when people have given their time and money to vote, then they have a right to know.”
Really!!!???!! what about the people putting their normal lives on hold just to take part in Strictly, and it takes you 'time and money' to vote?? Do it for free online then.
Originally Posted by An Thropologist:
“And anyone who already thinks the BBC conspired, pointlessly, to discriminate against a young gymnast in favour of a sports presenter/former pop singer and are not convinced that the vote is being conducted with complete integrity by an independant audit organisation, are unlikely to be convinced by the publication of the numbers.
Some people will only ever believe that it is a fix and the only publication they will believe is one that backs up that belief.”
“And anyone who already thinks the BBC conspired, pointlessly, to discriminate against a young gymnast in favour of a sports presenter/former pop singer and are not convinced that the vote is being conducted with complete integrity by an independant audit organisation, are unlikely to be convinced by the publication of the numbers.
Some people will only ever believe that it is a fix and the only publication they will believe is one that backs up that belief.”
I don't think that you have to be a cynic to want to see the voting figures, I would just find it interesting to see them, not because I don't trust them!
They probably don't want to release them because they prefer it when viewers don't look too closely at how the voting actually works. At the moment, there are still loads of people who, when someone goes out, say 'oh well, it's only fair as they got the lowest public vote' - not realising people can be in the DO with a higher vote than several others on the board. I doubt the BBC want viewers examining the voting figures and seeing how often less popular people are dragged along by the judges/producers - even though it's a 'dance' competition, a lot of people would still see it as unfairness and be put off voting or maybe even watching. It's easier to manipulate things when people can't see you're doing it.
Originally Posted by LisaC:
“This seems like a complete load of rubbish. How can the number of calls possibly benefit their competitors, surely it would be the same for any competitor providing lines at the same cost?
I don't see how they are allowed to withhold this information when they are charging the public for the calls.
Obviously I accept that you are correct in what you say, I just think the ruling is bizarre, illogical and unfounded.”
“This seems like a complete load of rubbish. How can the number of calls possibly benefit their competitors, surely it would be the same for any competitor providing lines at the same cost?
I don't see how they are allowed to withhold this information when they are charging the public for the calls.
Obviously I accept that you are correct in what you say, I just think the ruling is bizarre, illogical and unfounded.”
The ruling was made because if a competitor knew how many calls were being made, they would know how much money BT was making as a result of those calls and would, therefore, have an unfair advantage in being able to bid for the contract - or something like that. I'm going on memory from a long long time ago when the decision was first made.
There is no "profit" from these calls, the cost of the call is transparent and the public know how much it will cost them to phone in. However, there will be additional costs of actually providing the service which will be unique to BT and it is that element which was felt to be commercially sensitive information.
The cost of the call is a standard non network premium call charge, there is now nothing added onto it for charity. Any money which goes to the calls outside of voting hours etc, is donated to BBC charities at the end of the year so BT isn't making a profit either.
Originally Posted by Ellie1967:
“ At the moment, there are still loads of people who, when someone goes out, say 'oh well, it's only fair as they got the lowest public vote' - not realising people can be in the DO with a higher vote than several others on the board.”
“ At the moment, there are still loads of people who, when someone goes out, say 'oh well, it's only fair as they got the lowest public vote' - not realising people can be in the DO with a higher vote than several others on the board.”
However, that's actually irrelevant when people know that the phone vote is only half of the element which goes into a couple remaining on the show - the judges' vote also counts too.
Originally Posted by Ellie1967:
“They probably don't want to release them because they prefer it when viewers don't look too closely at how the voting actually works. At the moment, there are still loads of people who, when someone goes out, say 'oh well, it's only fair as they got the lowest public vote' - not realising people can be in the DO with a higher vote than several others on the board.”
“They probably don't want to release them because they prefer it when viewers don't look too closely at how the voting actually works. At the moment, there are still loads of people who, when someone goes out, say 'oh well, it's only fair as they got the lowest public vote' - not realising people can be in the DO with a higher vote than several others on the board.”
Only if they're very daft. The voting has been this way for YEARS. You'd have to have been seriously not paying attention to fail to grasp how it works by now.
Originally Posted by Cadiva:
“However, that's actually irrelevant when people know that the phone vote is only half of the element which goes into a couple remaining on the show - the judges' vote also counts too.”
“However, that's actually irrelevant when people know that the phone vote is only half of the element which goes into a couple remaining on the show - the judges' vote also counts too.”
Originally Posted by claire2281:
“Only if they're very daft. The voting has been this way for YEARS. You'd have to have been seriously not paying attention to fail to grasp how it works by now.”
“Only if they're very daft. The voting has been this way for YEARS. You'd have to have been seriously not paying attention to fail to grasp how it works by now.”
There have been 3 or 4 threads started on here this year alone by people asking for an explanation on how the voting works and how the two scores are combined, and that is from people who are signed up to a forum about Strictly. There are probably loads more casual viewers who never think about how the scores are combined and what it really means in terms of probabilities, judges power and all the things that get discussed on here - and I think the producers would rather it stay that way.
Originally Posted by Ellie1967:
“There have been 3 or 4 threads started on here this year alone by people asking for an explanation on how the voting works and how the two scores are combined, and that is from people who are signed up to a forum about Strictly. There are probably loads more casual viewers who never think about how the scores are combined and what it really means in terms of probabilities, judges power and all the things that get discussed on here - and I think the producers would rather it stay that way.”
“There have been 3 or 4 threads started on here this year alone by people asking for an explanation on how the voting works and how the two scores are combined, and that is from people who are signed up to a forum about Strictly. There are probably loads more casual viewers who never think about how the scores are combined and what it really means in terms of probabilities, judges power and all the things that get discussed on here - and I think the producers would rather it stay that way.”
Absolutely. There are no actual conspiracies but all reality shows, including Strictly, are manipulated to a degree. Not in the producers' interests to make anything more transparent than they absolutely have to.
I would be amazed if the BBC hadn't established an audit trail for Ofcom or whoever to follow up any complaints of jiggery pokeery. As others have said all that would happen if the results in the final were to be published is that the conspiracy theorists would then demand a stewards inquiry and still not accept the result.
You can make an educated guess that Louise would have got more votes last week from the public than Danny and Claudia and she may have beaten Ore as well.
You can make an educated guess that Louise would have got more votes last week from the public than Danny and Claudia and she may have beaten Ore as well.
They don't do it because if they did you'd realise how much massaging of figures and stacking of the deck goes on. You'd see that if Dancer A had been top of the voting three weeks running, Week 4 he'd be marked down by the judges to move him further down the pack. This happens, and they don't want people to know it.
Originally Posted by Nakatomi:
“They don't do it because if they did you'd realise how much massaging of figures and stacking of the deck goes on. You'd see that if Dancer A had been top of the voting three weeks running, Week 4 he'd be marked down by the judges to move him further down the pack. This happens, and they don't want people to know it.”
“They don't do it because if they did you'd realise how much massaging of figures and stacking of the deck goes on. You'd see that if Dancer A had been top of the voting three weeks running, Week 4 he'd be marked down by the judges to move him further down the pack. This happens, and they don't want people to know it.”
If they don't want people to know. How do you know it?
3 of 4
