I just think there over scoring is getting very apparent now. I wonder if they are told the public votes the celebs are getting each week.

Last I read somewhere, the only people who know the public vote are the top producers of the show.

Of course the judges, just like the rest of us, are capable of working out who is popular and who isn't based on the results.

You're quite right to acknowledge that the judging and televoting don't occur in isolation from each other. It is possible that the judges try to compensate for the 'under-voting' of the viewers...but equally it's possible that the voters try to compensate for the 'over-marking' of the judges...and vice versa. In fact both may be occurring simultaneously in some sort of desperate, escalating struggle for ultimate power. Not looking quite so clear cut now is it?

Quite a few of us have speculated that position on the leader board may affect the vote...particularly in the case of 'mid-table syndrome'. I would be interested to see if the theory is borne out by the actual numbers.

In any event it would be difficult to prove that the judges aren't simply scoring it as they see it. In Lisa's case they would point to the occasions on which they placed her low down on the leader board...on two of which (7th of 8, 3rd of 4) she did actually end up in the dance-off.

Sadly I think the answer to this is probably yes - and even if they aren't, it's pretty obvious that the judges have responded to who's been in the dance-off (their two favourites - Lisa and Rachel) and who hasn't (broadly, the public's favourites), and done their damnedest to ensure their own favourites always trump ours. The producers must be complicit in this somehow.

I'd go with the judges saving the best dancers if the overmarking of their favourites wasn't so blatant, and their determination to ignore any kind of entertainment value a competitor can bring to the dancefloor. It's precisely that showmanship that made Austin and Tom so popular, and clinched the SCD crown for Tom. However brilliant Rachel may have been technically, it isn't enough to connect with the audience.

If the figures were revealed, we would then know just how unpopular the judges' favourites really were. Unfortunately for the BBC, not disclosing them just makes it look like they've got something to hide ... and there's rather a lot to suggest they have.

Not the smartest move to make ... but, judging by the management skills on display at SCD this year, hardly surprising.

Its still clear cut that the judges have overmarked -particularly noticeably this season. I dont deny it has occured before but it is OTT this year. at the end of the day the only rightful winners in any kind of power struggle btw judges and viewers should be the viewing public. even if we get something like a ridiculous JS win...

Its FOR us at the end of the day and we are invited to choose the winners. Therefore we have the ultimate power. The judges can advise, not dictate the results (in theory anyway..)

Call me a cynic but Im sure the judges probably know which way the public voting figures are going. I wouldnt be surprised if they knew EXACTLY what they were...

But the public vote is not a straight vote :

I was an Austin fan. I only bothered voting for him when he was low on the leaderboard because there was no point doing so when he was top. A lot of other fans will be the same. When I became a Rachel fan after he left, I didn't bother to vote at all for her in the semis, because I knew the judges would save her over Tom should it come down to it. Likewise when I was an Alesha fan last year. I didn't vote once until the final, because I knew it was an impossibility for her to go home

The system is so tangled and messy and influenced by so many other things than straight up popularity that it's pointless to try to scry out how much people are liked from it. And trying will just lead to more circular debate, unpleasantness, and declaration that the result was somehow "wrong".

It was equally noticeable last series...but I don't really care that much if they over-mark...as long as the placings are correct...which usually they are. The ranking of the contestants is far more important than the number of the marks because it's the ranking which determines the points. As I pointed out, even Lisa had some low placings (albeit not as many as I would have liked).

As to who wins the power struggle, if that is what's happening, I want whoever is right to win....and I'm the judge of that.

The show works so well partly because of a balance of power. I don't like the way it was shifted by the dance-off but the voters still retain > 50% of the power in determining who is in the dance-off each week...and ultimately who wins the final. The judges don't dictate the results but it may be if the votes were revealed I'd prefer them to.

but last year no one was repeatedly in the bottom 2 like Lisa was. So either the public agreed with the judges (hence the judges favourites were getting some public vote too) or in Gabbys/Pennys case the person that could have been "a Lisa" was voted out sharpish
And i dont think the placings were right this year. In both the semi final and final Rachel out danced Lisa by a mile but the judges vote didnt reflect that at all.
I just hope we get more say on who makes the final 3 next year.

Absolutely! I agree- and I wasnt a Rachel supporter...

I would have placed Rachel above Lisa comfortably too but I don't think she outdanced her by a mile. Much as I preferred Rachel's dancing to all the others, that's an exaggeration. In any event, the judges didn't exactly place or mark them far apart...so they retain plausible deniability...and even if Rachel and Lisa were in the wrong places, it didn't make any material difference anyway.

If that's the extent of the problems with the placings, I'm pretty satisfied.

Your first point makes no sense to me so, if you've a mind to, please try and clarify.

The problem is simpler than that. The public vote goes for males unless the males are weak and/or the females are much better and meet certain criteria which exclude most female celebrities. Showmanship, alpha male characteristics, basic blokish behaviour and male sex appeal to large numbers of female voters are all inextricably linked. On top of that being a bad male dancer may actually now work too. It looks from polls as if 20 % of the vote at least up to JS going week this series was going just to whoever scored worst with the judges and there were another 15% at least who liked the comedy more than anyone else dancing. The show has somehow to balance that or there will be a succesion of blokish blokes who are OK at dancing and bad dancers reaching the finals. without the dance off this year would have had a final between two topless blokes and one man marching.

The judges don't have favourites in the sense the public do - they are not voting on sex or attractive behaviour or accent or being bad enough to get a 3 from Craig. They are trying to keep the best dancers in partly because the best dancers should stay and partly because a dancing final without the good dancers is a beauty pageant or a comedy show.

The problem is unsolvable without cutting down the role of the public vote which they won't do. This year they have just discovered how necessary the dance off is and how complicated it makes things ...and if anything all the problems with the public vote have got worse.

Releasing the votes might well tell us Austin was popular (but thats no reason to survive a dance off against someone better on the day any more than it would be in rugby) but it would reveal other embarassing things too. The number of anti-judge votes, any lack of votes for Heather and Don, the lack of votes for all the females would all cause problems. It would also make it very difficult to get anyone to take part. Celebrity Big brother has unknowns and people trying to come back from the dead careerwise, X factor has desperate hopefuls who have signed Simon Cowell's contract . Dancing On Ice votes now go more with performance and its gaining more success for its participants. SCD however takes more established people and exposes then to a more subjective audience with the real danger that someone successful could end up as the great dancer no one voted for. No one with a career or reasonable hopes is going to risk that, so, if you expose the votes .you will get the celebs from the Farm and Celebrity Scissorhands rather than what the BBC manages to get now.

I feel sorry for the majority of you debating this on here as I know the results courtesy of my friend high up and people know that I do as I told them the results going into the final via pm and what was going on and the results on previous occasions. The reason I am not going to tell you who came where on here is that I had a few nasty comments from people and they have basically ruined it for everyone. One person even reported me to the Administrators here for revealing results in spoilers so I just don't want that hassle again (even though the Administrator's didn't take any notice of the complaint after I argued it). I know who came top 3 and bottom 3 every week until it merged and from then onwards. All I will say to Lisa and Rachel fans is that they should be proud of their girls but that they were both very lucky to get to the final . I will leave it at that and let you interpret that as you will but maybe pay attention to the word "very". I'm not saying any more because of before but to everyone on here have a merry christmas and enjoy the christmas special with all it's controversy again. Boy my friend and her colleagues have been busy this year!! I'd do Anything was just as much fun for them!! I wouldn't want her job. Smiley xx

Its been pretty obvious for weeks that Lisa was being marked artifically high in a misguided attempt to protect her ability to reach the final.

The judges never seem to realise that we can spot this quite easily after 6 series - most viewers can now recognise sloppy arms, poor top line and bad kicks and flicks - all of which they chose to ignore in Lisa's case.

You can't say that they don't have favourites because they have made it quite clear that they do from the marks they give and some of their comments. They actually did Rachel no favours with the repetition of the "you have dead eyes" and "that didn't blow me away" type comments. It simply translates to what FMs said on here which is that Rachel was technically good but boring to watch.

The reduction of their score to "points" on the leaderboard goes some way to tempering the excessive marks given, although it doesn't stop an overmarked celeb finishing above an undermarked one leaving the undermarked one to rely on a publlic vote.

That was pretty obvious to be honest. You don't end up in the dance off from 2nd or 3rd on the leaderboard in the middle of the competition if you're getting a reasonable amount of votes.

Merry Xmas to you Smiley and thanks for all the info. I know you had a hard time on here for whatever reasons but I appreciated your posts and, to me, they were credible and, if people did not find them so, then that was their problem - they could choose to ignore your posts - reporting you to the administrators imo was going too far.

Thanks againxx

Definitely agree. The less marks are available, the harder it is to both win the public vote and stay out of the dance off. Austin and Tom were similar in the public vote if that leak is correct, probably whichever one needed it most to be saved getting the highest.

However, once there's only 4 marks available, the audience vote has to pretty much reverse the judges, so Austin probably topped the audience that week, but with Tom second, Rachel third, and he would have needed Rachel or Tom to come last to survive.

Thanks for the lovely message. Have a look in your inbox, you might find a christmas present from Santa!!! x

I'm not sure what leak that was but they weren't similar in votes. That's all I'm saying.