No, it would be inestimably worse.
Would strictly be better with no public voting ?
2 of 3
Originally Posted by mindyann:
“Doesn't stop them asking people to vote for dancing when you can't see their feet though
And of course, the MasterChef judges are their to help and guide and taste the food for us (in Mr Wallace's case, with a very large spoon and more than once
)”
“Doesn't stop them asking people to vote for dancing when you can't see their feet though
And of course, the MasterChef judges are their to help and guide and taste the food for us (in Mr Wallace's case, with a very large spoon and more than once
)”
True, but we can judge someone who can dance over someone who can't. At a certain point the majority of people which don't know much about dancing lose the ability to really differeiate between them technically, so have to go on the enjoyability/wow factor.
Originally Posted by jpj:
“Just leave it up to expert judges ?”
“Just leave it up to expert judges ?”
nope. most people would stop watching i bet.
Originally Posted by starsailor:
“True, but we can judge someone who can dance over someone who can't. At a certain point the majority of people which don't know much about dancing lose the ability to really differeiate between them technically, so have to go on the enjoyability/wow factor.”
“True, but we can judge someone who can dance over someone who can't. At a certain point the majority of people which don't know much about dancing lose the ability to really differeiate between them technically, so have to go on the enjoyability/wow factor.”
Which is what the judges do to some degree, anyway.
I just don't think that if you take away the public vote, the show would pull in enough viewers to take up the 2 prime weekend tea-time/early evening slots it does currently.
Originally Posted by mindyann:
“Which is what the judges do to some degree, anyway.
I just don't think that if you take away the public vote, the show would pull in enough viewers to take up the 2 prime weekend tea-time/early evening slots it does currently.”
“Which is what the judges do to some degree, anyway.
I just don't think that if you take away the public vote, the show would pull in enough viewers to take up the 2 prime weekend tea-time/early evening slots it does currently.”
Oh I agree with that. Similarly getting rid of the judges scores as stated above would have the same effect.
Both the judges and the public are a good balance. The public choose popular/likeable dancers, and the judges pick the technically good ones.
I don't think Tom was the best dancer, but I can see that he was the most likeable one. (being a hot-blooded 28yr old male probably colours my view on Rachel however
)So even though I do feel Rachel was better, Tom in my book was a worthy champion.
It would have been interesting in a Gethin/Alesha final if that had happened what the outcome would have been though
It certainly would
No, I agree you need the balance. It's when that gets out of kilter you get the happenings of this series, really.
I do think the SCD programme wranglers will amend the judging, to be seen as being pro-active 'n' all that jazz with the last couple of weeks in mind, but I do hope they don't tinker too much.
If I ruled the world - or even just the bit of it in SCD Towers - all I'd do is stop the dance off when it gets down to the 2 dance per couple situation, probably add a judge to give it an uneven number and take away the Len-centricness of the panel and need for casting vote - and drop the top and bottom score from the judges mark. I'd also say they could only mark 1 to 5 until the 6th week as well ... mainly because I'm a bit of a meany and have a whim to see Len panicing.
No, I agree you need the balance. It's when that gets out of kilter you get the happenings of this series, really.
I do think the SCD programme wranglers will amend the judging, to be seen as being pro-active 'n' all that jazz with the last couple of weeks in mind, but I do hope they don't tinker too much.
If I ruled the world - or even just the bit of it in SCD Towers - all I'd do is stop the dance off when it gets down to the 2 dance per couple situation, probably add a judge to give it an uneven number and take away the Len-centricness of the panel and need for casting vote - and drop the top and bottom score from the judges mark. I'd also say they could only mark 1 to 5 until the 6th week as well ... mainly because I'm a bit of a meany and have a whim to see Len panicing.
NO!!! - despite the fact that you get some weird results and travesties with the public vote- the judges have proved that they too get things wrong (I mean 40 points for Lisa's final ccc - WTF!
) - with the judges in charge Lisa would have been in the final two and that would have been wrong.
Even Rachel fans have to conceed that with the judges in charge Emma would have won series four and that's wouldn't have been right either.
) - with the judges in charge Lisa would have been in the final two and that would have been wrong. Even Rachel fans have to conceed that with the judges in charge Emma would have won series four and that's wouldn't have been right either.
Slight digression - I'd like to see the dance off dropped at the two-dance stage too and I'd also prefer it if from then on we didn't get told a bottom two at all. Just who's gone. I think this series has lost a lot of anticipation. You want to go into a three person final with as little idea of possible who's going to end up winning. Only knowing the last-placed person in the final weeks would help that.
I think it would be better if the judges didn't hand out 10's like there no tomorrow!
The dances must be perfect to attain a 10, and this did not always happen.
Then perhaps you wouldn't have ties at the top and with the audience vote it might work out better.
The dances must be perfect to attain a 10, and this did not always happen.
Then perhaps you wouldn't have ties at the top and with the audience vote it might work out better.
Originally Posted by jpj:
“Just leave it up to expert judges ?”
“Just leave it up to expert judges ?”
Presumably this would also mean that Craig, Arlene and Bruno would no longer be on the panel, since while all three certainly know something about dance, they are not 'expert judges' of Ballroom & Latin dancing.
In any case, scrapping the public vote would completely change the dynamic of the show. What needs to happen for SCD7, imo, is a restoration of the delicate balance between the interests of the judges and public, and scrapping the dance-off at the 'two dance stage' would certainly help. As it stands, the judges have too much power to usher their own favourite through to the final even if that person has a dearth of public support.
Originally Posted by welwynrose:
“and what a wonderful result that would have been for some of us”
“and what a wonderful result that would have been for some of us”
.................. and what a travesty that would have been for the show, most of its viewers and the beautiful art of dance.
The outcome of a judges-only show would be a winner that the majority of the public didn't vote for. I can't think of a better way to haemorrhage viewers.
Originally Posted by Foxy Moron:
“Maybe after her 'perfect' 80...
...but not after that shambolic show dance! ”
“Maybe after her 'perfect' 80...
...but not after that shambolic show dance! ”
They would still have given her high scores for ir. They gave her high scores for most of her dances, most of which were as shambolic. She was the chosen one.
Originally Posted by magstango:
“Yes, it would be better without public voting, how many individuals voted 20, 30, 40+ times? How is that democratic? The only way for viewer voting to be fair would be if repeat calls could be stopped.”
“Yes, it would be better without public voting, how many individuals voted 20, 30, 40+ times? How is that democratic? The only way for viewer voting to be fair would be if repeat calls could be stopped.”
Do you think that just because a contestant didn't win that many their supporters didn't vote for them 20, 30, 40 times? Of course they did. They just didn't have enough supporters for the multiple voting to make a sufficient difference.
Originally Posted by starsailor:
“Both the judges and the public are a good balance. The public choose popular/likeable dancers, and the judges pick the technically good ones.
I don't think Tom was the best dancer, but I can see that he was the most likeable one. (being a hot-blooded 28yr old male probably colours my view on Rachel however )
So even though I do feel Rachel was better, Tom in my book was a worthy champion.
It would have been interesting in a Gethin/Alesha final if that had happened what the outcome would have been though”
“Both the judges and the public are a good balance. The public choose popular/likeable dancers, and the judges pick the technically good ones.
I don't think Tom was the best dancer, but I can see that he was the most likeable one. (being a hot-blooded 28yr old male probably colours my view on Rachel however
)So even though I do feel Rachel was better, Tom in my book was a worthy champion.
It would have been interesting in a Gethin/Alesha final if that had happened what the outcome would have been though
”
The judges don't always vote for the technically better one, as they have proven time and time again in this series and in series in the past. They are very influenced by who the preferred winner is. Fortunately, it doesn't always turn out the way they hoped. The quarter final of this series was the most blatant miscarriage by the judges in order to get their preferred winner and the semi-final the most blatant attempt at getting rid of the other stronger competition for the preferred winner. Sadly for them, the public noticed their little game.
Rachel was good but in no way did she have the flair that Tom has. Had she won, I wouldn't have questioned her deserving it though. I couldn't understand why she was ever in the bottom two. Lisa, however, WTF? we she doing in the final, semi-final, quarter final or beyond the fourth week even?
As for Alesha v Gethin, Alesha would have won. The combination of her dancing, flair, performance skills and personality was way ahead of anyone else in the competition.
leave it up to expert judges - those same judges who mark on technicality for one dance but not the next, ignore mistakes for some but not others, hand out high scores to 'counterbalance' lower scores
no thanks, Strictly would die a death if that were to happen
no thanks, Strictly would die a death if that were to happen
Keep the public vote.
Cut all the "story" and "journey" crapola - who cares?
Your getting paid a wedge darling.
Alan
Cut all the "story" and "journey" crapola - who cares?
Your getting paid a wedge darling.
Alan
No. It would be a dance competition fair and square. :/ Which is good in a way, but it would lose its appeal for many including me!
If it was a pure public vote, then it would be a pure personality competition.
I think its good what we have atm.. but the system NEEDS to be improved.
If it was a pure public vote, then it would be a pure personality competition.
I think its good what we have atm.. but the system NEEDS to be improved.
Originally Posted by Servalan:
“The final we should have had last night was Austin vs Tom - but, under the circumsances, a Tom victory was the next best thing.”
“The final we should have had last night was Austin vs Tom - but, under the circumsances, a Tom victory was the next best thing.
”
I disgree.
The final 3 should have been Tom Rachel & Austin on dancing ability
Lisa should have gone when she was in the dance off against Cherie - the dear judges overturned their original marks on that one and it wasn't fair on Cherie,
However - as she DID get to the final, it was only right that she as the weakest dancer throughout the series was the first out - despite the vastly over inflated "perfect" score she was awarded in a desperate attempt to keep her in.
Message to judges - please learn from this episode and Zoe in previous series. If a dancer is not popular with the public it is no good inflating their scores artificially to try and push them through. The only thing that might possibly help them is a FAIR score and similar treatment with no obvious favouritism.
People watch this show and its results very closely and we HAVE spotted the inconsistencies in judging in the past. There should be one set of standards and one set of rules for ALL the competitors, not changed according to who the panel favour.
Lisa should have gone when she was in the dance off against Cherie - the dear judges overturned their original marks on that one and it wasn't fair on Cherie,
However - as she DID get to the final, it was only right that she as the weakest dancer throughout the series was the first out - despite the vastly over inflated "perfect" score she was awarded in a desperate attempt to keep her in.
Message to judges - please learn from this episode and Zoe in previous series. If a dancer is not popular with the public it is no good inflating their scores artificially to try and push them through. The only thing that might possibly help them is a FAIR score and similar treatment with no obvious favouritism.
People watch this show and its results very closely and we HAVE spotted the inconsistencies in judging in the past. There should be one set of standards and one set of rules for ALL the competitors, not changed according to who the panel favour.
Originally Posted by jpj:
“Just leave it up to expert judges ?”
“Just leave it up to expert judges ?”
The approach I have come up with is the Judges vote for the two dancers up for eviction. The Public vote for which one goes. Should take a lot of the problems of people voting for dancers because of their persoality or because they feel sorry for them.
The public wouldn't engage as much with the programme if there weren't a public vote. The fact we can vote is what makes it exciting, simply because the public vote is usually so unpredicable.
I've said this on other threads but I think:
» At the beginning of the competition, the public vote should only be between the four couples with the lowest judges' scores each week.
» By the time we get down to the last six couples, the public vote should then only be between the two couples with the lowest judges' scores. And, obviously, scrap the dance-off once we get to this stage.
I've said this on other threads but I think:
» At the beginning of the competition, the public vote should only be between the four couples with the lowest judges' scores each week.
» By the time we get down to the last six couples, the public vote should then only be between the two couples with the lowest judges' scores. And, obviously, scrap the dance-off once we get to this stage.
Originally Posted by memmh:
“The public wouldn't engage as much with the programme if there weren't a public vote. The fact we can vote is what makes it exciting, simply because the public vote is usually so unpredicable.
I've said this on other threads but I think:
» At the beginning of the competition, the public vote should only be between the four couples with the lowest judges' scores each week.
» By the time we get down to the last six couples, the public vote should then only be between the two couples with the lowest judges' scores. And, obviously, scrap the dance-off once we get to this stage.”
“The public wouldn't engage as much with the programme if there weren't a public vote. The fact we can vote is what makes it exciting, simply because the public vote is usually so unpredicable.
I've said this on other threads but I think:
» At the beginning of the competition, the public vote should only be between the four couples with the lowest judges' scores each week.
» By the time we get down to the last six couples, the public vote should then only be between the two couples with the lowest judges' scores. And, obviously, scrap the dance-off once we get to this stage.”
That would only encourage the judges to give higher scores to those they want to keep in - there would be all sorts of machinations to manipulate the bottom of the leaderboard rather than the top.
The public need to be able to vote for their favourite dancer/ best dancer/ pertest bum/ biggest guns/ biggest sob story/ most injured/ nicest dress/ bullied by the judges/ given silly marks by Craig/ nicest smile - or whatever other stupid reason they may choose, candidate every week.
Its an ENTERTAINMENT programme so leave us to vote for who we like for whatever reason. If it is left to the judges - just drop the "Strictly" from the title and shove the programme back into a half our slot at 10:30pm on a Tuesday - just like the original programme which spawned SCD
It's only a matter of time before all phone-ins are stopped. Whether they be for competitions or public voting like SCD. So we best start trying to get used to it sooner rather than later I think!
There may be a bit of misinterpretation of the judges motives when scoring Lisa high marks. It wasn’t necessarily favouritism.
When there were five couples left, Christine was the weakest dancer, but popular with the public, so keeping either Rachel or Lisa out of the dance-off could get Christine into it. Lisa topped the leader board, Christine went.
In the final, Rachel had scored 79 for her first two dances before and got 79 again. If Rachel had the highest judges score, the judges would thereby have put her into the final two (not ideal after last weeks fiasco). Tom’s stumble meant he couldn’t get 80, but Lisa danced well enough for them to see an opportunity - problem avoided.
I am in favour of combined judges and public voting.
When there were five couples left, Christine was the weakest dancer, but popular with the public, so keeping either Rachel or Lisa out of the dance-off could get Christine into it. Lisa topped the leader board, Christine went.
In the final, Rachel had scored 79 for her first two dances before and got 79 again. If Rachel had the highest judges score, the judges would thereby have put her into the final two (not ideal after last weeks fiasco). Tom’s stumble meant he couldn’t get 80, but Lisa danced well enough for them to see an opportunity - problem avoided.
I am in favour of combined judges and public voting.
I think the judges should have 50% Public have the other 50% - Same format as today..
But only have a dance off up to the week before the quarter finals..
in a result of a tie.. they should do it like this e.g..
1) Couple 1 - 4 From Judges
1) Couple 2 - 4 From Judges
1) Couple 3 - 4 From Judges
4) Couple 4 - 3 From Judges
Instead of..
1) Couple 1 - 4 From Judges
1) Couple 2 - 4 From Judges
1) Couple 3 - 4 From Judges
4) Couple 4 - 1 From Judges
That way it doesnt matter if there is a tie, becuase the couple that hasnt tied still has a chance of getting through..
But only have a dance off up to the week before the quarter finals..
in a result of a tie.. they should do it like this e.g..
1) Couple 1 - 4 From Judges
1) Couple 2 - 4 From Judges
1) Couple 3 - 4 From Judges
4) Couple 4 - 3 From Judges
Instead of..
1) Couple 1 - 4 From Judges
1) Couple 2 - 4 From Judges
1) Couple 3 - 4 From Judges
4) Couple 4 - 1 From Judges
That way it doesnt matter if there is a tie, becuase the couple that hasnt tied still has a chance of getting through..
2 of 3
