There you go - last year's judging was a two-horse race, and the 100-1 outsider took it. Therefore the outcome there was not pre-ordained, neither is it this series.

I've said before, but I sometimes think the judges take no account of the day jobs of the celebs. They are amazed that Darren - and now Mark - can improve and actually dance.

Yes, Darren is a big chap - but his day job is a medium paced/fast bowler. He is light on his feet - he has to be in his run up, and the balance, rhythm and co-ordnation needed in a bowlers action is second to none.

Mark is a batsman - and his balance, timing and co-ordination again are all supberb - as is his footwork.

Its the sheer stupid illogicality of the public vote that drives the judges to do odd things in part.

The format is the same from SCD to Cirque de Celebrite to Fame Academy to the X Factor. Who ever the judges don't like attracts a proportion of stupid voters who decide that they know better. Its as if they pick up the phone to right a wrong if anyone has any criticism made of them and don't believe that some people are better than others - a sort of give averyone a GCSE philosophy extended to TV talent shows. The result is that the people at the bottom with the judges feature highly with the public and that people in the middle go home. Georgina at the bottom stays . Spoony goes. Georgina improves - Georgina goes. On Cirque, Sophie Anderton comes last with the judges but at least third with the public and the result is that someone who was joint first last week and suitable for the final goes. On X factor people stay who the judges know are useless whilst better people go.

If the public are that silly you will get odd voting from the judges. The judges have to overmark the best people so they stay and have to either either mark the worst so that it doesn't look as if they are being told they are bad or fix the marks so that the worst people end up against popular people and do actually go.

Cor!! C'mon, networkbabe, dish the dirt, you're obviously a mole if you know that much about how the judges minds work.

This is part of the problem though. Why should anyone be rewarded for improving a lot if they get to a 8.5 if someone else improves less but ends up as a 9.5. Its the old question of whether you should get excited about the person who improves greatly to get an essentially undemanding qualification or the person who sails through it and comes out with top marks. In most fields of life you would want the most qualified not the most improved doctor, dentist, football player or investment manager.

Same with "other " factors. You can't weigh these and can't actually know lots of them so why reward the cricketer for looking less ungainly when other people start looking less ungainly than they do at the end? Its true Zoe might have had dance classes but its also true that world class athletes are usually fitter, more use to training and have better body awareness than the average radio DJ. To take an example from another current reality show who should be able to balance better - a fit model, a dancer,a boxer or an olympic athlete?

Nah - just to long watching the wrong people go early all over the place plus enough maths savvy to be able to work out the public's voting order when there is enough information to work it out. Tonight's Cirque de Celebrite public voting was utterly bizarre.

if you know that and know who the judges think is good enough for the final (and there's probably three topping the list with other 3 possibles in SCD) you can start to think of what order you would produce to defend the ones you think are good. Problem is it can go horribly wrong - sticking Brendan down the bottom for example is probably a good move as it means that people will save him and be careful who else they vote for at the bottom but if the public bump him up three places and also bump Peter up 5 you are still left with a situation where anyone in the middle of the judges order could go.

But Hey we're not talking Doctors or Dentists here are we??

It's a reality entertainment show after all, not exactly in the same league as Professional Qualifications for a life saving vocation.....

[quote=thenetworkbabe]

Sorry, network babe, I'm not getting at you. I just find this whole thing of slagging off the public quite ridiculous. We are the public. We are not immune.If we have brains and the sense to mark people out of talent and skill, shouldn't we try and allow it in others? I feel uncomfortable looking to the public to right the wrongs of last night. I personally think the judges have a lot to answer for. But I didn't mean to offend you and I'm sorry if I did. I'm just cross that the public as a whole gets written off as this brainles entity. I think that's too easy and I think that lets us all down.

Sorry xx
Last edited by sugartingles : 29-10-2006 at 23:40

I agree. Carol's routine was lovely - her's were also the only heel turns that I saw all evening, and I definatly didn't see Emma doing any so how they could mark her higher is beyond me. I also think that the 5 mark difference between 1st and 2nd place was too much. I enjoyed Mark and Karen's dance and thought it was v good and well performed but didn't rate it that much better over Ray and Camilla.

As for the mark's they gave Brendan...aren't they supposed to be judging Claire ?

I thought Brendan was spot on with his "rant" to the judges - as was echoed by the cheer from his fellow contestants when they went to chat to Tess for their scores.

Do you really think anything other than a small proportion of SCD voters judge anything on who did what step better? the judges are there precisely because of that and they mark on wider factors because thats the nature of the show. Anyone can make up their own voting system but the judges are there to try and provie one that fits the reality of the show and guide anyone modest enough to seek guidance.. True they make mistakes but thats why you have 4 of them to even things out.

The problem isn't that the public are finding different conclusions to the judges - though its pretty bizarre to reverse the experts order - its that they are producing irrational, indefensible, inconsistent results in terms of any criteria possible - dancing technique, entertainment value, or personal journeys . Do you think Spoony and at leat two other people were worse dancers than Georgina and Jan the week before last? Or that Peter danced better than at least 5 other people this week. Or that Georgina was the worst dancer this week? Or that someone in the top 6 with the judges has been in the bottom 3 both weeks? Thats what the voters are telling you.

if you get nonsensical results that clearly bear no relationship to either the talent displayed or the stories in the VTs or the judges comments, its pretty undeniable that other factors are at work unless you believe the public is always right which every politician in history would tell you is the biggest joke in history.

The voting results tell a very clear story which is universal to all reality TV shows - at least until much nearer the end. Significant numbers of people vote on the exchanges with the judges. They not only ignore the judges views but seem to deliberately vote the opposite way. It has little to do with seeing merits the judges ignore and usually ends up meaning that people who are better go home. Its got little to do with any story or personality that any particular contestant has because it happens randomly to whoever is doing worst with the judges that week and people who benefit from the anti-judge/sympathy vote can lose support again the next week.

Obviously not every voter is doing it but it looks as if a significant group do vote for the victim or anti-judge and they are probably more important early on when the most popular people are not in danger and fewer people are voting. The sheer scale of the swings in popularity week on week though suggest that unless you have massive support on a reality TV show anyone can be victims of it - totally regardless of how relatively well they perform on the night.

I don't think Louisa Lytton was overmarked this week except by Bruno, BUT she was overmarked for her Jive, quite simply because the judges had already way over marked Emma's Jive and Louisa's was better. I felt sorry for Carol, as she did have the best foxtrot and they scored her three points LOWER than Emma.

I am growing heartily sick of the blatant favouritism and sycophantic behaviour towards Emma, and I believe it will cost her the competition and possibly a place in the final. (Ray, Louisa, Mark) Brendan was right to speak out.

Groan, good morning! Sorry about last night, networkbabe. I do get uncomfortable with large categorisations. You make some very thoughtful points. Some voters probably do vote for the 'hero', or against the pantomime 'villain', I guess.

I don't think this necessarily swings the judges in the decisions they make through the evening... I'm not convinced that they are subtly responding to perceived public opinion and are attempting to address the balance, although I'd like to believe it. I do sometimes sense another agenda at play.

Some acts seem to get rated higher *despite* obvious flaws, while others get deconstructed and marked down *despite* doing a comparitively decent performance. Some decisions the judges came out with on Saturday were beyond baffling and massively inconsistent. The fact that you have four judges becomes a farce when their marks are so wildly different to each other.

I do still believe that yes, a lot of people do vote because of technique, improvements made, effort put in, chemistry, elegance, energy and enjoyment, all as well as having a particular favourite, although I appreciate the main reason people vote is just to keep their favourite in.

If the judges, as you say, are there to guide people who want to learn, I think they need to start doing their job better. At the moment, I'm not convinced they are helping the people who need help, or always wanting to provide constructive criticisms. In some cases they are pandering to egos and celebrity rather than keeping their eye on the ball. At leat, that's the way it seems to me...

Sorry I have to disagree with the OP Mark has not been the most consistent celeb, he has improved enormously every week. And I have to agree with the judges this week, Karen and Mark were easily the best performance, is that allowed this week agreeing with the judges?

He cannot improve much more, that just would not be possible, and with Emma performing badly this week, but still getting hugely inflated marks and Louisa showing her youthful inexperience I do not think it is a foregone conclusion and if the likes of Ray or even Carol get on a similarly steep improvement curve then anything could happen, although Ray and Carol do not have the genius that is Karen to help them improve so much.

I'm sorry I'm a bit late with this, but brilliant, brilliant post.