I originally stated
With SCD there are no controls or anything to identify possible vote fixing.


To which you answered

I don't, but consider this. If someone is monitoring the situation, they are not telling us about it. As far as the public is concerned this means the same as not monitoring it.

If they are monitoring, in secret, it also leads on to an even bigger can of worms. Have they discovered any wholesale irregularities. Just imagine the trouble if it was subsequently discovered that large scale rigging was found and that the people spending their hard earned cash on keeping say Penny in the competition never stood a chance and had wasted their money.

I think I can be confident that no official monitoring is going on since from the BBC's perspective any problem would have to be published. It would be calamitous to be found knowing that rigging was going on and not published and having done nothing about it. Far safer to live in ignorance.

You, a Liverpool fan, have left yourself wide open. Take yourself back to 1993 to a dingy bar in the far east
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A963958260

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Grobbelaar

I'll say no more.

Why would they need to tell us?

No it doesn't, not at all.
And I bet the voting public as a whole (rather than the very small number of posters here) don't actually give a fig one way or another.



Why would they? indeed, is there any evidence to suggest rigging? Nope. Other than the public voting for an underdog with little talent, just as they did last year, and the year before that ...... it's nothing new.


Yeah, just imagine. Imagination is a wonderful thing isn't it, especially when all you have are theories based on the flimsiest of conspiracies.


I offer that as one of THE definitive statements from a Conspiracy Theorist made to justify the theory when there is a total lack of evidence.

And theorists like these always tend to ignore the obvious (the fickle nature of the public), especially when their favourite has suffered.


Really, things for me are now just getting TOO silly for sensible discussion centred around a what is a light-hearted entertainment dance show, especially when those that proffer such fantastic ideas could do the simple thing - NOT WATCH.

Trying to ruin to show. It's a conspiracy! We should vote for Same Difference!

Voting audiences do behave strangely. Some always vote on quality. Others revert to voting on quality near the end. Some buy what ever simple story the producers feed them regardless of any basis to it. Some like SCd and the last CFA seem to have voted on an anti-judge ticket. Some seem to fall into patterns of always supporting similar people with similar stories. Some shows are predictable from fan bases - others see the people with no visible base beating the people who should have big ones. There is no rational reason why Willie's story was worse than Kenny's John's or Gethins or why people wouldn't vote for Matt either on merit or from the fanbase eastenders should have. No reason why Stephanie or Letitia has less of a story than Kate and every reason why Gabby and Penny should still be there.

It could be a betting scam but there's no predictability which of the better dancers will go (so who would uou back to go) and Kate and Kenny seem to be coming in at least 4th and 5th every week - all of which suggests its more strange than fixed.

Voting audiences do behave strangely. Some always vote on quality. Others revert to voting on quality near the end. Some buy what ever simple story the producers feed them regardless of any basis to it. Some like SCd and the last CFA seem to have voted on an anti-judge ticket. Some seem to fall into patterns of always supporting similar people with similar stories. Some shows are predictable from fan bases - otehrs see the people with no visible base beating the people who should have big ones. There is no rational reason why Willie's story was worse than Kenny's John's or Gethins or why people wouldn't vote for Matt either on merit or from the fanbase eastenders should have. No reason why Stephanie or Letitia has less of a story than Kate and every reason why Gabby and Penny should still be there.

It could be a betting scam but there's no predictability which of the better dancers will go (so who would you back to go) and Kate and Kenny seem to be coming in at least 4th and 5th every week ( and how could you make money voting for that now its predictable?) - all of which suggests its more strange than fixed.

except: where's the big money being laid down? SCD is not likely to be attracting a betting syndicate willing to risk things for a relatively minor return.

It's all fanciful theories.

Chinese gambling syndicates - they're usually the ones who do this sort of thing.


Not quite - fixing does happen in sports events.

But if this sort of thing were to happen, I suspect it'd be easier to simply bribe the relevant contestant (pro or celeb) to mess up, rather than mess around with complex voting schemes.

Why would the BBC rig the vote?

Surely it is in their best interests to keep in the couple with the most votes, who presumably the viewers are enjoying the most.

mossy2103 you appear to be utterly determined to undermine all our concerns about voting irregularities. You seem very confident and self assured in your sweeping comments and seem to enjoy ridiculing others as so called conspiracy theorist.
The BBC should not need reminding of the appalling mismanagement and fraudulent reputation phone voting has got from the likes of ant & dec, richard & judy, blue peter and GMTV. In the interest of public relations and trust, The BBC should be well advised to be transparent on the issues of phone voting. I see no reason whatsoever why the BBC should not announce the total votes for the weeks SCD and the percentage gained by each pair. After all this is for CIN is it not? There are NO commercial interest here that override the necessity for an authentic public adjudication.

If it was revealed that last week Alesha was getting 20 times as many votes as all the rest combined, do you not think that this would dicourage people from voting next week?

They get more votes by maintaining the illusion that every vote counts, and that it is "neck and neck".

This was clear in SCD 3 whenever Darren Gough was getting loads more votes than anyone else.

They might be discouraged in that case if they were Alesha fans. If, however, they had someone else as their favourite, and it transpired that on judges and public votes together they had just missed the dance-off for 3 weeks in a row, then they would certainly be motivated.

Yeah, so does anyone seriously expect or believe that Chinese betting syndicates would be in the least bit interested?



My comment applies to the fanciful theories here, in this thread, relating to SCD (a comparatively minor competition)


Yep.

No, I am being practical and realistic.


Yep, it's called reality.


It's a free forum discussion - if people come up with rather fanciful/fantastic theories with no evidence at all that there IS any vote rigging (and for what purpose), then I feel am entirely justified to label it as I have (within the forum Ts & Cs). If people disagree, then so be it. But conspiracy theories are very easy to sign up to, and very difficult to debunk or prove without proper evidence (rather than tittle-tattle or idle forum gossip). No-one has so far come up with any compelling evidence of any rigging or of any irregularities. Just some suspicions based on I know not what, potentially ignoring any obvious causes (such as the fickle nature of the voting public) and what appears to be others jumping on the bandwagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory


And of course I would suggest that anyone who does feel strongly enough about this "issue" should report their concerns to the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and...oints_of_view/

or to the BBC Trust:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/appeals/index.html

Everyone posting here convincing each other of wrongdoings is not going to address the matter, nor is it going to throw any light on any issues, perceived or otherwise.


Yep. And that's precisely why I would have expected the BBC to have brought any such "rigging" to light in order to avoid a very public scandal on their flagship programme affecting their flagship charity programme.

There's no `vote-rigging' as far as I'm concerned - but it's not a dance competition either. It's a popularity contest, pure and simple.

How can it be anything else when the phone lines are opened on Sunday, a full six days before the next show? People are already voting for next week's show before anyone has danced - surely that can't be right?

Are we saying that Kate could in fact be safe even before she dances, because of the amazing number of votes in the week might of saved her. Its not a dancing contest this series, but least the money goes towards Children in Need.

I just wish I knew how many phone votes it takes for someone like Kate to get out of the bottom 2 week after week. Not enough sadly!!

Probably not. There's no SCD market with Ladbrokes or Betfair.

And looking at the IACGMOOH market on Betfair, there's only about £87K in the pot. So I doubt SCD is anywhere near a big enough market to be worthwhile, although it's not completely impossible of course.


Yes - just because we're interested in it, doesn't make it a big event.

Complete nonsense. Just because you can vote all week doesn't make it just a popularity contest. If I were to vote now I would base my vote on the the dancing I've seen to date. Why do you assume others wouldn't do the same?

That is quite possible, however think back to last year with Fiona, inexplicably saved each week, but suddenly the competition got serious and out she went. Almost as if the voting publc realised that the competition was serious as=t some stage, and they forgot the "underdog vote" and started to vote on the bestter couples.


neither was it the last series, or the one before that.

http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?m...x=1&origin=MRL

http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?m...x=1&origin=MRL

Top one is the winners market bottom the next elimination. The elimination markets does not attract a large amount of money. I think Chinese betting syndicates can be safely ruled out

The clue is in the title, " STRICTLY COME DANCING"
which says it is a dance contest.
If the clog dancer and the vote beggar get to the final it will have one of the smallest audiences ever ( except in caledonia)

And the clue is in the fact it's called Strictly Come Dancing (a slightly comedic, slightly kitsch title), and not just Come Dancing.

So purely because it's called "Strictly Come Dancing" that's makes it a dancing competition? It's a catchy title, as is always done on tv. This is a reality tv programme based on teaching some people we may know from the public eye to dance, and then what the public feel about that decides who stays and goes. As most of the British public are not expert dancers they can only judge on what they like for reasons unknown to themselves. The Antiques Roadshow doesn't mean they're displaying a variety of types of roads to be judged out of 10. "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here" isn't about the contestant who can create the most creative escape route out of the jungle and then be judged on points out of 10.

Dancing is a part of it, a big part, but still only a part, as in Dancing on Ice is partly about skill and partly about other things, and Celebrity Fame Academy is partly about singing...etc etc etc... The Dancing bit for me is about the learning, not just the fastest acquisition of expertise. It's about the teacher too, and how they cope, which is an aspect seemingly much ignored on a lot of the threads about the less talented dancers. And it's about how people feel about the person who is learning to dance...I'm starting to feel that I'm so out of step (no pun intended ) on here, and that I am missing something, that this really is about the training camp to find the next world champions of the future in 3 months flat.

SCD5 is an enriching journey not just for celebs but also for 9 million viewers. The explosion of dance interest has been phenomenal. Across the nation dance studios have had to open up many nights a week to accommodate capacity crowds. Such beginners viewing at home would identify more with celeb beginners than the highflyers.

SCD5 judges who scored purely on dance were repeatedly thwarted by voters at home who chose their own companions for the dance journey. The phone vote being supreme, the SCD5 eviction process is closer to a trial by jury, with 4 expert witnesses giving evidence.

Nevertheless the controversial underdog vote will be dwindling to a natural end within a few weeks, in a pattern similar to previous years. Voters who kept Kate and Kenny in for just a little while longer would never have intended for them to face the rigours of the final.

With the last three dancers likely to be Alesia, Kelly, plus Gethin or Matt -- where's the vote rigging?

It could be but as I said I can't see what it is when so many people may go at random and there isn't much to be made on backing Kate to stay. With few votes it would be possible to swing an either or vote in favour of the least likely person going but as you say there might not be much money in it and SCD isn't set up with votes between only two people until the final when too many people vote to corrupt the vote.

Where does the title say it's a dance contest, rather than some other kind of show about dancing?

And we're told again and again to vote for our favourites, and they need out votes, especially if they've done poorly with the judges.

If they want it to be about dancing, they have to change what Tess says.