Strictly -- Should be fair to all contestants

Could someone please point out to Panda Eyes that if you're going to wear a skirt that short sitting with your knees together and your ankles a yard apart is not particularly attractive!  

I'd guess Judge Rinder and Ed for the dance off and whoever gets to dance off with Ed will win anyway.

Spot on Bill....... and Claudia and my pound lives on!

Now please can we have the double and get rid of Honey from X Factor - I think she's out stayed her welcome.

David 

David, I'm seriously concerned about your viewing habits! 

Everyone else think Ed was excruciatingly painful this week? Pleeease someone put us out of this misery!

Would be wonderful if he could be voted out of NCFC as well

Oh dear - chance to "spend more time with the club" (sorry, family) for your boy now, then! 

Double bonus yesterday - not only was Ed  finally dismissed, but even better, that spoilt, ungracious, arrogant Shamilton didn't win the F1 title - happy days

Oh, and Claudia W was particularly good I thought

The great shame from all this is that Ed will have deduced that he is, after all, really popular with the public.......something that he always thought to be the case (to the extent that he commisioned a survey - no doubt at our expense - to try to establish
why he was so unpopular.......that was when he was a MP.......before he was voted out.

What he doesn't realise (or will refuse to accept) is that it's only a tiny percentage of the public who have nothing better to do with their lives that have voted. And even they found something better to do on Saturday.

I agree judge rinder out this week , but who 's in the dance off with him ? 

one of the things that 'isnt fair' (the OP?) is the point allocated to the position the contestants finish in, especially with reference to a tied place, which is very likely with lots of 9s and 10s...

for example....

team one.....40 judges pts.....allocated 5

team two.....39 judges pts.....allocated 4

team three...39 judges pts....allocated 4

team four...37 judges pts...allocated 3

team five...36 judges pts...allocated 2

this is wholly wrong and goes against every other scoring system i have come across...

the allocated pts should read.....5,4,4,2,1 ensuring that the last place team should always get 1 pt (except when a tie for last but one place when both teams would get 2.

the current system effectively promotes the lowest place teams whenever there is a tie further up the table...

an extreme example would be first four teams all scoring 40 marks....being allocated 5 pts

the fifth team (really bad) get 20 marks....but get allocated 4 pts.

this skewing of the points awarded is the main reason poor teams can seemingly leapfrog much better teams....

i guess the reason for this is 'more entertaining tv'

I don't think the odd scores from the judges count for much , especially when millions vote by phone.

Write your comments here...I have always assumed that the points allocated for position are added to points allocated in a similar way for the way the public vote.

If this is correct then whoever gets the most votes, in the case of 5 contestants, gets 5 points and the ones getting the least votes gets 1 point this means that someone finishing top with the judges and bottom with the public could end up in the dance
off with someone getting lowest with the judges and highest with the public. so judges points are equal in importance to the public opinion regardless of the number of votes cast, only the order in which the public vote.

Is this correct?

whilst the general concept of the above is correct (judges marks and public marks added together) is correct...it is the way the judges marks are translated into positional points that is incorrect.

those getting a tie (with the judges marks) are awarded the same 'positional score', but the team immediately below any tie are not moved down properly....they get the next numerical number as in my post above.

so, in a five team race, two teams tying at the top would get 5 points each.

the third team 'should' get 3

the fourth 'should' get 2

the fifth 'should' get 1.....as everyone assumes, last wpuld get one point.

however, in my above example, the marks allocated on Strictly would be..

5,5,4,3,2 which is wrong, as this effectively promotes the lower teams should there be any ties above.

in and extreme example, four good teams tying would all get 5, and a rubbish pair (actually 5th) will get 4 points...when they should get 1 for being last.

for some reason, the BBC deems that this team have actually finished 2nd....behind four teams who finished 1st.

with the public vote, this situation will never arise as its (virtually) impossible for two teams to get exactly the same number of votes.

however, with a small number of teams left in the competition and the rising standard driving the judges to award more high scores, ties are a regular occurrence.

i first saw this happening a few years back, checked it again and confirmed it was the case....it even spells it out somewhere deep in the bowels of the SCD rules on the website...

ah, here it is.....

After all couples have performed, the judges' scores will be added together and the couples will be ranked according to the scores received. The couple ranked the highest will be awarded a number of points equal to the number of couples competing that evening. So, for example, if seven couples are competing, the points awarded to the highest ranked couple (based on the judges total score) will be 7, the couple with the second highest score from the judges will receive 6 points and so on in the same downward sequential order.

In the event of a tie, where two or more couples obtain the same number of points, the couple below those in the tie will be awarded one point below the points awarded to each of the tied couples. So, for example, if two couples obtain the same rank and obtain 7 points each, the couple immediately below them will be awarded 6 points. The scoring of all other couples underneath will follow in the same descending order.

M, i also have this vague recollection....ill see if i can drag it up...

however, if adding the (positional) points from the judges to those calculated from the public vote (if they must have one), the least they can do is attache the same value to each source, which they dont.

The right result imho, the judge did look a bit like a gorilla at times, entertaining, but not class. Ore was slightly more polished.

Think Ore will go next week in a dance off with Louise. How's that for a strictly spoiler?....

Your memory is better than mine, Helen - but just you wait till you get to my age!