Alternatively, if the judges know they're less likely to be faced with another Sergeantgate or anther Chris Parker in the final, then it might make them more balanced in their marking.

Yep I would prefer it.

I definitely wouldn't bother watching if it were down to the judges.

The only winners the public and the judges seem to have agreed on were Jill & Alesha, if it were down to the judges Zoe would have won season 3, Emma season 4 and Lisa would have won this series, I much prefer the winners the public choose.

Was it not the Chris Parker final that eventually resulted in the dance off scenario.

Or similar but drop the tied first places a point as with 4 couples the total amount of place points available is 10 so the judges scores should be divided by 10 so

1) Couple 1 - 3 From Judges
1) Couple 2 - 3 From Judges
1) Couple 3 - 3 From Judges
4) Couple 4 - 1 From Judges

= 10 place points.

With 3 couples the maximum is 6 so whenever there are tied places by the judges there is an equal or 1 point less for tied places half points being rounded down.

The week there were 3 in 1st place should have scored 8 (1st 2nd & 3rd divided by 3) rather than 9 for 1st then the difference wouldn't have seemed so large between 1st & 2nd.

This way the Public would have priority over the judges in score share (but only by a small amount).

Rather than have the semi scenario where the judges took 7 points where the public only had 6.

Celebrity Masterchef though managed to get a better story, more drama (including a walkout) a real winner's story and the best cooks to the final. It had more drama and we got to know the celebrities better than anyone on SCD and they were tested more . It had clear rules and criteria and its winner didn't make it on voting rules collapsing or for ccoking unappetising meals.

How many people watch is another issue. People seem to want to influence the show or watch other people influencing the result, some want to watch the dancing equivalent of a Turkey Twizzler and some clearly want to turn the show into a farce by voting for the worst dancers. That doesn't mean that the show is worth watching or that its even sustainable. I suspect - if they keep on having a massive male bias in the voting and an anti-judge vote that can boot anyone better out however hard they try and winners who are undermined by not dancing best or rules accidents or better people going - they will find it increasingly difficult to find both celebrities and viewers.

Certainly wouldn't say there was a male bias this year as the celebrities that disappeared the quickest once the the sexes were merged were male! In the first 7 weeks 5 males went out! Or 4 out of 5 following merge.

The difference and most important part of SCD is the public vote IMHO and this is the reason it can hold an audience on a Saturday Prime time slot!

One word, no. The ratings will fall like flies!

Yes but enjoyability is entirely wrapped up in issues like sex appeal, biases and male leadership qualities. Females just do not react the same way to males as females - many positive values in males become negative in females for many people. Confident = cold, trying hard = desperate, precise and understated = cold, unexciting and aloof, well spoken = public school snob, working class but finding artistic side = chav out of her depth , dashing Casanova type = slutty. Its partly because alpha males are potential desirable mates wheras alpha females are people who tell you what to do, or competition. Its also wrapped up in comedy appeal which favours the males and allows males more lattitude to be bad or for emphasising fun aand performance over ability.

Imagine the response to a girl who showed as much cleavage as Austin and Tom, or danced as badly as JS or had a lot of fun on stage but was clearly worse at the dancing than two boys

I will admit to being a Tom fan this year, but prior to the QF I voted for Jodie, Heather & Cherie. in the QF voted Tom AND Rachel.

Last year only voted for Alesha so definitely no male female bias here.