Not a problem for me- but at least Arlene gave Mark an honest mark (?!) this week so debunking the scroing high for your fave myth a little- only a little but it was there!

If Bruno had come on and pretended his score was completely based on merit, people would have called him a liar. Now he has admitted he ranked one (and only one) point higher than he might have done, he is getting vilified for that. Did anyone seriously think the judges were completely unbiased? They're only human!

Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't!

While I agree with you somewhat, I think the whole point is that judges are there to mark according to some proper dance 'guidelines', and not by emotion. The audience should be the ones voting by emotions (i.e. fans) and/or based on merits (the more rational ones, which I hope I am one of them ).

Just to say, I have no clear favourite couple and actually think Mark/Karen, Louisa/Vincent and Matt/Lilia (recently) have the potential to reach the final based on their performances, not because I like them per se, but they have each at least TWO excellent dances that still stick in my mind...

I'd say 10 clearly doesn't mean perfection in this show, and most of 9's meaning is the relative one: better than anything that got an 8.

It may be a bad thing that 10 doesn't mean perfect and 9 mostly just means better than 8, but, I think, that's how it is; and people would be less annoyed with the marking if they didn't expect it to be something it isn't.

But the alternative may be that she's eliminated. I think it's clearly doing her a favour if it keeps her in.

I don't think the reason for Zoe's unpopularity (?) last year was because of the marking. I think it was the other way around: people didn't dislike Zoe because of the marking so much as dislike the marking because of Zoe. Some people started disliking Zoe for whatever reason and then resented it when the judges didn't agree.

Thanks for putting so eloquently what has been nagging at the back of my mind.

People don't seem to like Emma, so they resent any perceived overmarking. Other people have been overmarked, e.g.

1) Georgina got a 6 from Len one week when Mark only got a 7 - how is that fair? Mark and Georgina are miles apart in their ability.

2) Mark got two 8's for his poor dance last Saturday - even by his own admission it wasn't a great dance and the marking confused him - but people are justifying it as ok because they still ended up near the bottom. So what? For people crying out in rage about Bruno (and only Bruno's) overmarking of Emma last week - if it's all just about fairness, why should two 8's be excused just because it happened that he was the right end of the table for a poor dance? Surely it should be about the fairness of each judge's scores, or else Bruno's marking to rectify other judge's scores almost has some validity.
Last edited by Shappy : 21-11-2006 at 19:00

I would agree with you Veri, ONLY in relation to Len and Bruno. A 10/9 from Len from is slightly dubious...and from Bruno virtually worthless. Craig is extremely stingy with 10's and Arlene uses them sparingly.


As for Zoe I do think it was Bruno's marking was one of the reasons. I didn't mention it before but I also think she was harmed by press reports (whether they were true or not I don't know) that she was having " extra" dance lessons

I think the judges are trying to do the best they can at a very difficult job, and I think they largely succeed.

Some seem to think it's more important for the marks to have the right meaning than for them to be fair. Since the dancers aren't all professionals, there's a wide variation in how good the dances are, and it can be very difficult to predict, when marking the earlier dances, how much "room" above those marks might be needed. If someone is clearly better than ones who've been given 8, is it really fair to say they can't get a 9 because their dance wasn't one step below perfection? I don't think so.

One alternative, of course, is to give everyone lower marks. That might work, but the cost might be that the show seems less exciting and fun. It also might be demoralising for the dancers.

What Bruno seems to be saying is that he doesn't just give the marks a meaning relative to his own other votes but also considers what the other judges are likely to do, aiming for what he thinks is the right relative result overall.

I agree that that's more questionable, but I'm not so sure it's unjustified. I think the combined marks are often more "right" than the ones from individual judges, so they seem to be doing something right even if the methods look questionable when considered in isolation.

It also has to be remembered that the combined marks are just used to put the dancers in order, with the "marks that count", so to speak, being taken from the order. That means that the values of the original marks don't matter so much as if they were used directly. Also, since it's the relative totals that really matter, it's not surprising that the judges sometimes have them in view.

(I'm not an Emma supporter, btw, and I probably wouldn't mind if she went out. But what goes around comes around in cases like this, and the same thing could happen with someone I like.)

But he would have been lying, or am I missing something

Even after Saturday's low mark for Mark, Arlene is favouring Mark by a significant amount. She even said something like, don't make me feel nasty, I've already had to (give a low mark) to my passion. I'm convinced she meant Mark not Emma. If I was one of the other competitors, I would find that quite hard to hear.

Bleh... Arlene he's not your passion, that probably frightened him even further.

He didn't. As indeed people have already pointed out. He said he felt Emma was being undermarked and corrected the situation as far as he could. Thats what professional markers in any field do - you aim to achieve the fair total - particularly if someone else is marking low.With 4 markers your scope is limited but you try - and so do all the other markers for any performance they like. The only issue is whether they told the viewers they use some other system and whether the amrks are all decided before any are given - otherwise the final mark balancer is always the last name called - Bruno.

Its also what happens when you have no decimal points in the mark. Three judges decided on a 7 rather than an 8 and the last one decided on a 9 rather than an 8 - deciding something is nearer to a 7 than an 8 though can be a very marginal choice. Its entirely possible for Emma to have got the same 30 points if just one other marker had moved her .1 nearer to 8 and given her an 8 in which case Bruno would have given her 8 too. Point one of a mark is all that stands between 29 and 30 if the judges are rounding their numbers, so its hardly outlandish for Bruno to add the point 1.

Even if he had given her an 8 it would have made no difference as Peter lost the anti-judge vote last week . He deserved to go - weeks ago - but he only went because Claire, Louia and Carol also beat him in the public vote.

The problem with the entire show remains the ridiculous public voting. That explains why better people have gone, the contestants are totally confused because good performances end in the bottom two and the judges do sometimes worry that the public will evict anyone any good and keep the poorest and dullest for the final.

To be honest, whenever judges (or umpires or referees) talk in public about decisions they have made - they always look wanting. There will always be a group of people who disagree with your explanation - that's the nature of being a ref! These things obviously need to be sorted out - but sometimes doing it while the actual 'match' is still going on just creates confusion - a discrete silence on the subject (not really Bruno's style, I know!) is best.

When it comes down to it, the actual scores - be it 4 or 40 are only used to place people on the leader board. Does it really matter if one couple scores 4 and the top scorer only has 10? Not really, it is the position on the leader board and the points that gets them that is the main thing.

If the scores are being inflated to tamper with the leader board positions, then that needs looking at, if the scores are being jigged about to give the audience something to boo and cheer and all done in the name of 'entertainment' but dosen't alter the actual outcome - then hey ho - it's worked!

For next series, though I think they should explain the judging criteria (a 10 is not perfect, Craig votes on choreography, Len technique etc) - I need clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty (with thanks to Douglas Adams )

Maybe the next series should change. Back in the days of Torvill & Dean, Robin Cousins etc. wasn't there a technical merit score and an artistic interpretation score?

Thinks: "or is this a Saturday night light entertainment show and do I need to get a life and stop worrying about judges and unfair scores etc.?" I keep telling myself this but here I am again on my day off on the forums and neglecting the chores.

All sounds a bit unnecessarily complicated to me. For example, if a dancer did a mediocre dance meriting say a score of about 5, and every judge gave 5, the dancer would get a total of 20. However, this total score could also be attained by two judges giving 1's, and two judges giving 9's. The dancer would still end up in the same place on the leaderboard, and if that is all that counts, then the judges have no case to answer!

However, I think in this (very exaggerated) situation, it does matter what the judges have scored - how can one dance have such disparate scores? That is the point I was making with the Emma 9 and Mark 8 score comparison. It does matter that Mark got 8's for a poor dance, irrespective of where it placed him on the table - as there was a good deal of inconsistency in the scores (5,6,8,8).

Arlenes unecessary words (or Brunos or Craigs or Lens) are not doing anyone a favour - quite the opposite many a time; words do not elevate them on the leaderboard nor do they influence the public, other than negitively. A higher mark does because it puts the couple in a different position on the leaderboard and can save them.

An inconsistent set of marks has been the name of the game from the start, for all celebrities, and exactly what Brendan was talking about on the week he had his say.
Last edited by Kez100 : 22-11-2006 at 13:08

I didn't mean it like that .
I just meant that one couple could score '1's' as a score from each of the judges and have an overall score of 4 (I used 4 and 40 because they are the lowest and highest possible marks) - and it makes them bottom. Really, does it make it better to be bottom of the leader board with a high score (that's mainly out of interest more than anything else). I, personally, see nothing wrong with a low score provided that they are consistent - but it seems this year in particular the judges are loathe to mark any couple low across the panel and it does seem to be leading to confusion as to how dances which vary in quality can be similarly marked.

Taking Emma's (7,7,7,9) and Mark's (5,6,8,8) scores you can look and them and say, well the fairest thing to do would be drop the highest and lowest (seeing as how these are the scores which are usually picked out on any bias theory) and just use the 2 middle marks - 7 and 7 in Emma's case and 6 and 8 for Mark - which means both would score 14 points. Taking an average of the 4 marks gives Emma an average of 7.5 and Mark an average of 6.5. Dropping the mark which is either the lowest or highest (9 for Emma and 5 for Mark) gives Emma a total of 21 and Mark a total of 22. Same set of marks, 3 permutations and 3 different results!

It's quite good fun actually - if I wasn't finishing my dinner hour I'd find all the scores from Saturday and see how they compared (especially Carole's as she had the same total score as Emma).

Perspective is very much what I am on about. Here is everyone jumping up and down screeching unfair, cheat, swizz, let's get a new set of judges in cos Len or Bruno 'sometimes' are generous with the marks to balance grumpy Craig or heartless Arlene and quite frankly going well over the top, when there is still the probability (raised from a possibility) that the GBP in the huge 'wisdom' will vote for the wrong result and dump a decent pair cos the GBP prefer the girl in Eastenders or that nice rugby player.