Well tell you what at least it would have made my day, and many people laugh!

If you are going to give people on a stage a chance they have to have the same chance, the same amount of time, the same amount of input, ie why has Faryl had lessons paid for by SC, why were escargo asked to enter, is that giving the same level playing field, no it is not!

And the same goes for the amount of time the public have to vote it has to be the same down to the very last second, or in my mind it is rigging things.

From earlier post:

"Without a shadow of a doubt there is a degree of manipulation by producer of the competition. Just look at the way all the favourites were seeded/apportioned to different semi-finals. In addition, the varying degree of support from backing tracks/dancers, fireworks and camera angles/manipulation the contestants received."

All the above can be used to manipulate the viewing public's perception of the performance and consequently the result!

In this instance I don't believe that it's necessarily a 'fix' in respect to vote rigging. I believe it's more about 'fixing' the order based on how the show feels an act to be popular or not.

They have an impression of who they believe to be popular, they order the acts based on that information, the last act usually gets a little mini-show of their own after the last ad break, the voting lines open just after the last act has finished.

Now if they believe that an act is popular and so therefore put them on last in the running order, do you honestly believe that they aren't going to consider that perceived popularity translating into real votes? And that the final act who they have admitted to believing to be the most popular is somehow not going to get many votes?

You can see the bias and favouritism above where Simon is describing certain acts as 'Big Acts'. Does he somehow believe that these 'Big Acts' are suddenly going to lose popularity and lose a lot of votes when it comes to voting time?

Then there's the history of the final act always going through to the semi finals.
How can anybody suggest that the show is oblivious to this and still puts a 'Big Act' on last without knowing about the likelihood of that act winning that semi-final?

I think that if anybody still doesn't question the show's motives whilst being aware of all this, then they must be extremely loyal and trusting to the show, despite it stretching plausibility to extremes that the show isn't trying to shoehorn certain acts into the final.

Don't just take what has been admitted in the above article at face value, also take into consideration other information at hand as well.

I just wish Simon would admit his producer's camera direction when dance troops are on is appalling , even nemesis got short changed I saw more of piers' nose than i did of their act!

Sorry for clearing the rest of your post, but I totally agree with this point. But the reason why the producers naturally want to avoid this scenario is that it makes for bad TV. They would tell you that having a show end on a poor performance makes for bad TV.

I do agree that they ought to alter the orders once or twice next year but that would just be to shut people up about "fixes" etc.


This is based on a dubious Sunday Mirror article which implies that Yvie Burnett has in some way been parachuted in to take special care of someone. Yvie Burnett is indeed being paid by Simon Cowell, because she is the vocal coach for the show and listed in the credits as such. Just like the role she performs on X Factor, she works with all the acts.

It just isn't practical to have everyone perform to the exact length of time. Musical arrangements just don't work that way.


So are you now suggesting that they decide the final act based on who they believe is most popular with the public as oppose to who they want to push on the public?


So where is the terrible wrongdoing here? That they are aware that one contestant is more popular than another?


I wouldn't deny that they are very much aware that Faryl/ Andrew J/ Signature would make the final. Everybody was. But in identifying them as "big acts" yourself, are you not suggesting that the reason they get through is not because of their slot but because they are already the "big acts"?

Again suggesting that the order is being determined by perceived public feeling and the will to entertain and gain ratings as oppose to some attempt to force a chosen winner upon us or shoehorn someone into the final.

George could have been on first he would still have won in my opinion, and maybe they should realise we dont need to be manipulated. And sorry they should all have the same time, no matter what you say on this, fair is fair, on singing contests they ALL get the same time or they did in Pop Idol that way it was fair, they had to cut the song to fit the time limit.

And sorry again no on the Faryl thing, she was having the lessons before some were even through, so that is rubbish. The girl has had special treatment, Andrew has not!

I feel strongly about fairness to all acts, and in fact I wonder why no one on here has ranted about the dire acts put through when there were good acts let go, if it was for the idiot factor sorry seeing a man booed on the stage in a semi final was appalling and them yelling off off off, he should never have even been there, he denied someone else much better a place.

I guess it's clear that they'll expect the act they think is most popular to get many votes, and that their popularity will translate into votes. That follows pretty naturally from thinking the act's popular.

But that's quite different from thinking that putting them on last will get them more votes than they'd have had otherwise, which is what I thought was the issue here.

There is a different explanation on offer, namely that it makes for a better show if a good / popular act is on last, so that it ends on a high. Many shows seem to take that approach.

They may also consider the effect on votes. But a lot of people don't think that way. They don't think that sort of psychological effect is significant, or they don't even know about it or consider it. I really don't know whether the people who make shows like this think that way or not.

There's also the question of how big the effect actually is. One thing I remember from years ago is that when people have to remember a list, for example, it's easier to remember the things at the beginning or end than the ones in the middle. But I don't know whether it also applies to deciding who to vote for on reality shows or, if it does apply, how much difference it makes.

I don't think (most?) other people commenting on this here know either. I haven't read every thread (not even close!), but I've seen similar points in various DS forums at times, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone put numbers on it.

I don't think it affects how I vote. What I do is note down the names of the contestants I like as I watch, if I think I might forget (or else I rely on the show providing a recap at the end), and I note the numbers when I spot them; then I vote when lines open.

A lot of shows have a brief recap, which should remove much of the effect of the running order.


I'm not loyal to the show, nor do I trust it. I don't even like it. And, just to be clear, I'm not saying there isn't any bias or manipulation. I'm just talking about whether the show is deliberately using the running order to affect votes.

The history of the last act going through does not (<-- edit. ) show that going last has a big part in putting them through. If the last act is a popular one, their popularity translates into votes. Perhaps that's all there is to their going through. It may not require any other explanation, and going last may not be helping them enough to matter.

I am interested, though, in what people think ought to be done. Should such shows be required, for example, to put acts on in a randomly chosen order? Or to keep judges' comments until after voting closes? I think many changes that would increast fairness would also make the show less interesting and less popular, but if fairness is important enough, that would be a price worth paying.

Or would it be enough just to make votes free?

I think you know very well that I'm not.
I'm not NOW suggesting anything different. The two things aren't contradictory.




I'm not sure why you're asking questions like this.
Paraphrasing what I said in the other post.....'They believe an act to be popular, so put that act on last, believing that popularity will translate into real votes'.
You honestly don't see what's wrong with that in the context of a competition which is supposed to be on a fair level playing field, where the viewer pays them money for the privilege to vote?

You honestly don't see a problem with that?




If they are very much aware that those acts you mention would make the final, then they have no business setting it up as a competition here in the semi-finals where the viewer has to vote. If they are aware of this then they can't be asking people to vote as well.
I didn't identify those acts as 'Big Acts'. Simon Cowell did in the above article. That's why I put that term in quotes.
For him to identify certain acts as 'Big Acts' must tell you something in itself.




Somehow you don't seem to be able to correlate the fact that the show itself is showing bias towards some acts whom the show itself deems to be the most popular, with the fact that this is supposed to be a fair competition.

I asked you to look back at the history of the show and it's almost as though you really want to believe that the show hasn't noticed the voting trends and consequences of the format.
You appear perfectly happy that the show puts their favoured acts in the running order in a position which has proven to be the most effective at getting an act into the final.

You can carry on challenging me and asking me questions, but there's no need to. Everything you need is all there for you to look at for yourself. It's not me who you need to be questioning. Your first instinct appears to be very defensive towards the show and to try to prove that everything is just, fair, and completely legit and above board. You're not even stopping to ask questions of the show itself and don't appear to be questioning anything whatsoever. You're just defending it without genuinely considering some of the things which are said. It's as though there's no middle ground with you.

I can't prove anything to you.
It's up to you if you want to genuinely consider all the information at hand and possibly ask questions of the show yourself.

You appear to be just assuming that the 'Big acts' deserve to get through simply by virtue that they are apparently seen as 'Big acts' by the show. I can't believe that you're even defending this at all.
There's actually voting going on here where the public have to fork out money from their pockets.
You shrug it off as though it's okay because it's just entertainment.
This is exactly the defence Michael Grade tried to use to justify the actions which led to one of the recent scandals involving one of the ITV shows. Ofcom didn't appear to think the 'entertainment' excuse was good enough.

I don't think that you're even aware that you're actually condoning the show placing weight behind certain contestants to swing things in their favour.
If you see that as perfectly fine, then I don't think that there's anything I can say to you which can help.

Poor Old Ben mentioned earlier "the way all the favourites were seeded/apportioned to different semi-finals".

That's another example of something that's in a way unfair, but also makes the show better / more interesting.

It's also what happens at Wimbledon. The matches are arranged so that the strongest players won't be playing against each other until near the end.

Most people seem willing to accept it in tennis. If it's not so acceptable in this show, I wonder why. Is it because the show isn't upfront about it, and people are paying when they vote? Or is it because it's unfair to the contestants? Or is there some other reason? (I don't have strong views about this myself.)

If some of the favoured acts were in the same heat and got knocked out, people would soon be complaing about it as well. So i think the way it is, is fine.

Well there you go then. A 100% hit rate.
Do you honestly believe yourself that the show is unaware of this? Truly?
If an act genuinely is more popular than other acts, and that popularity does indeed transfer into votes, then that equation in itself would indicate that the final act will definitely get through. If that were the case.

But the thing is that the show itself shouldn't even be thinking like that and trying to literally make somebody more popular than everybody else. Because that's a case of deciding who they want to be popular, bigging them up, and then putting them through to the semi finals as the final act as a near surefire certainty to make the final.
The show itself generates popularity for the contestants in the first place. The viewer gets to decide only after the qualifier after the judges have whipped people up with sob stories, VTs, their own comments, the production. There should be no concept of who the popular acts are to them. They should be treating everybody equally and fairly.

For example, on this forum many people could spot a couple of judges favourites before they'd even seen one minute of the first episode. They could tell by the trailers. The show was favouring acts before the series had even broadcast it's first episode and the viewers had got to watch the first show. And lo and behold they are in the final.

In answer to your question about what can be done, I really don't know. How do the stats compare to other talent shows? It must be very difficult to compare different shows with each other. But I don't believe that it's as surefire and certain with other shows as it is with this particular one.

I don't know if free votes would prevent favouritism, manipulation, or bias, but I think that they should have free votes anyway.

I don't think that's been better or interesting at all.
It's been the most predictable aspect of the show over anything else.

People guessed who would be put through going by their treatment by the show, VT stories, stage production, love/hate generation instigated by the judges. The majority of people were 100% correct in their speculation.

Wimbldon is based on seeding. There's no way on earth that these talent shows should be dependant on the seeding that judges give to the acts.
That's as bent as anything.

It feels like at the moment it's got to the point where people appear quite happy for the judges to choose who the favourites are for them.
I think that there are probably people out there who actually want this to happen, want judges to give them directions towards who they should like,...and will still actually vote as well.

But wouldn't their popularity translate into votes even if they weren't on last?

It's possible you misunderstood my earlier message. When I said "If the last act is a popular one, their popularity translates into votes" I did not mean it translates into votes because they were last.

It translates into votes because that's what popularity does.

It would be odd if a popular act didn't get votes.

Hmm, I noticed too that the 8th act on every show was first through, BUT they go on phone votes, and by this stage of the show, most people will have favourites regardless of whether they were pap on the night.

In any kind of show, you want the 'crowd pleaser' to be last, when you go and see a band or singer, the support are first for a reason, like a warm up. I think the 8th acts were all the right choices for that reason.

The only real way it could have been rigged was if they ignored the phone voting and chose who they wanted.

I still think that if you are using the true numbers of people who voted for the results, you can't rig it. We vote for who we want!

It has happened before! People forget that Ant and Dec were given a comedy award that was voted for by the public that should have gone to Catherine Tate as she polled more votes. In addition, remember the problems with phone voting on Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway. People were encouraged to call in after the lines had closed and the winner selected.

So that's why Kate and Gin, one of the few acts many people claimed to still remember from the auditions, were on second, was it?

Ben, you're right about the past BUT they did at least say every night, 'the lines have closed, don't ring in, you might be charged' blah de blah.

In light of all the balls ups in the past, surely ITV are more likely to be playing by the rules as they will be being watched a lot more closely?

But technically, ALL 8 of the semi finalists are supposed to be good (Anya Sparks and Vizage aside), so the first 7 are good, just the 8th were the best in the producers/shows eyes

If the best or most popular acts go against each other early on, with only one going through each time, then some will be eliminated earlier than if the show had put them in separate semi-finals, which will make the later shows less interesting.


Is it the judges, rather than the producers, who decide who's in which semi-final?

Of course Wimbledon isn't exactly the same, but it's the same principle of keeping the strongest competitors from going against each other too soon, and it biases Wimbledon against the ones who aren't "protected" in that way.

It seems to me that if shows such as Wherever's Got Talent have to be scrupulously fair, then great changes are needed. Contestants will have to be assigned to shows at random, so that who they're competing against each time is random; the order in which acts perform will have to be random; the judges will have to be silent until after voting closes, the tv audience musn't hear any cheers or boos from the studio audience, and so on. Perhaps there can't even be judges at all, since what they say one week can still have influence the next.

If that's what viewers want, then fine. I don't mind. But I think the show will be a lot less popular. (Which, btw, is fine with me. I wouldn't mind if all these shows were axed.)


I don't think judges can avoid giving what are, in effect, directions, when they give their opinions on the acts.

I think Veri has a point, here. The acts that were put on last would have very good chances of getting through regardless of their position in the ordering anyway, as they were among the most memorable from the auditions. For me, Signature, George Sampson, Faryl Smith and Scala were certs to go through when the information on who was performing was being given out on a daily basis, They were the acts that have generally been best received on net forums and have generated the most youtube hits.

Would it have made any difference if acts such as the guy who played the Starwars theme, the Deans of Magic or some of the other fodder had gone on last. I honestly don't think it would have made the slightest difference. Even in closer examples I think the acts that went on last would have gone through regardless. Take an act like Dean Wilson who finished top three on Monday. I don't think he would have beaten Signature if he had gone on last and they had gone on third as Signature were simply more popular than him before the start of the show and are a better act than him in any event.

There is a trend that all the last acts have gone through but they also double up as the most memorable acts from the audtions. What advantage does going on last provide the final contestant which surpasses them being popular from the audtions? Is it that they have their phone number displayed first, or is this an argument based on peak viewing figures, or a combination of both. Or is just based on the trend on the semi finals themselves? If it is an argument based on viewing figures then presumably the seventh placed act would also have an advantage over the first six as they are very close to the last act and most of the acts that have gone on seventh have been fodder.

From the producers perspective they might think sticking the act on last gives them that added guarantee that the voting will go as they wish but I cannot see how any of the result of the semis would have altered if the ordering was different. This is a theory that can be put to the test tonight as the final looks much closer than any of the semis so if Faryl or Scale go on last and also get the accompanying OTT praise which pushes one of them to victory over the other acts, I will buy it.

I agree but we had faith in them beforehand that was seriously undermined. Who is to say that they are not still doing the same thing but are far more subtle about it! I personally no longer have any faith in any form of voting/phone in etc on television!

Hahaha, I'm glad I'm naive then! Not looking forward to my phone bill though

Signature? Apparently finalists by default due to an "error"

I don't think we could possibly know because they're only 'Big Acts' as perceived by the show.
Remember 'Hope' from the X Factor?
Another so called 'Big Act' whom that respective show tried to foist onto us.

I think basically it doesn't matter what order they go in as long as favouritism isn't involved.
Here on this show it appears that it makes a difference due to when phone lines open.
I'd also say that even more weight is added in favour of the final act by means of having the last segment of the show all to themself (except for last night) and having a mini-show all of their own which often involves the biggest sob story, their performance, and the voting.

In fact get rid of the contestant VTs altogther. I don't need to hear their life story in order to be entertained or not by an act. If they are using all that kind of stuff it's just an artificial crutch which corrupts all of our judgements to some extent.

Yes, I possibly misunderstood your earlier message. Yes I agree with what you said. I'm sure that the judges are well aware of the fact that putting a favoured act on last translates into lots of votes. Just being last in itself probably wouldn't make a lot of difference. But if that final act has been bigged up by hyperbole then I think it makes a huge difference when it comes to receiving votes.

Hmm, so if you don't do this then you could end up with 8 acts in one of the semis which should make the final but only 2 can go through. And then you end up with a shitty semi with a load of dross none of whom are good enough but 2 will have to go through.

Imagine if they had Faryl, George, Andrew J, Signature and Escala all in the same sf and another was all the laughable dross like the magic acts, Michael Machell, Cheeky Monkeys... Would that be best?

It's best to keep the better acts apart.