DanielLuis
Well-known member
- Joined
- March 14, 2011
- Posts
- 8,605
As do the small points already now, don't they?
Indeed. That's exactly why we shouldn't make the whole process even more confusing.
2014 Jury Transparency Revamp!
- Thread starter MrGerbear
- Start date
- Watchers 5
Indeed. That's exactly why we shouldn't make the whole process even more confusing.
Everyone could decide for themselves what to focus on, which is a good thing. I for once would primarily pay attention to the opinion of the people, so if I could not catch up with the elite's rankings it wouldn't bother me. DanielLuis I guess might do it the other way around, fair enough. Important is only that in the end every viewer learns (or gets the chance to learn) who woz voted by whom as the '50/50' results on their own (without additional information) say literally nothing.
DanielLuis
Well-known member
- Joined
- March 14, 2011
- Posts
- 8,605
I wouldn't pay attention to jury votes in a special way. Just because I think they should be in the contest, doesn't mean that I think they should have 100% say or something like that. I'm completely fine with the 50/50.
Anyway we'll just agree to disagree. I think it would be an overload of information in such a small amount of time each country gets their say revealed.
Plus, how can the 50/50 results on their own say literally nothing? They're the only ones that actually matter to decide the winner
^ I mean they stand for neither group's (jury nor public) opinion. So official, yes, but you cannot read anything into them. Unless you believe it is possible to measure ultimate quality values for songs and that the 50-50 combination is the magic formula to it.
But you're right, I shall not disavow my stance on this matter and you will probably not change yours either. Let us agree to disagree then.
But you're right, I shall not disavow my stance on this matter and you will probably not change yours either. Let us agree to disagree then.
DanielLuis
Well-known member
- Joined
- March 14, 2011
- Posts
- 8,605
^ I mean they stand for neither group's (jury nor public) opinion. So official, yes, but you cannot read anything into them. Unless you believe it is possible to measure ultimate quality values for songs and that the 50-50 combination is the magic formula to it.
But you're right, I shall not disavow my stance on this matter and you will probably not change yours either. Let us agree to disagree then.
This is what a forum is for isn't it? Discussing different points of views. That's why I like to "argue" with you, it's always interesting
Just a comment on your comment
Obviously the 50/50 is not the formula to measure the ultimate quality of the songs, but neither is the televoting nor the jury voting. There's really no way to measure that, has everybody has different musical tastes. The most we can do in contests like the ESC, is reach an compromise 
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
Again people seem to assume the public be stupid or something... how would it be confusing?
If done in a good way it would be a nice little addition imo, nothing to pay much attention to but still give some sort of picture of how things are going down. Confusion comes with bad graphical execution and bad timing.
Anyhow it's just a suggestion, as long as they atleast release the split results by country in one shape or other I'm fine with it (although I'd personally want to kick out the juries).
cegs5
Well-known member
- Joined
- March 6, 2012
- Posts
- 6,360
Again people assume that most of the viewers are eurofans who care about split results.
I'm fine if EBU show the split results after the show, so eurofans can study and overanalyze them as they wish.
FilipFromSweden
Well-known member
- Joined
- March 27, 2012
- Posts
- 6,667
Hurray!
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
Aren't you a Eurofan or what's with the patronizing remark? I assume that people atleast have some interest in something they watch... but maybe that's just me...
But sure, as I already said I'm totally fine with EBU releasing all the results afterwards aswell, as long as they really do it. The other suggestion would just be a bonus and nice treat for the show
No Name
Active member
- Joined
- October 1, 2009
- Posts
- 3,818
A visual display of the split-results is a completely unnessecary waste of time and effort and would only end up pleasing a minority.
The common european viewer couldn't care less about split results. For most people ESC is an annual, re-occurring event that lasts 3 days, and that's it. That's the harsh reality. Even I, as a passionate ESC-viewer for 12 years, don't find them that interesting. Sure enough, they are great to have, but I'll leave the over-analyzation to the people finding joy in comparing roughly 80 sets of votes an X number of times to pinpoint small disagreements between public and jury. I guess I've just made a decision to trust EBU too much to care.
The common european viewer couldn't care less about split results. For most people ESC is an annual, re-occurring event that lasts 3 days, and that's it. That's the harsh reality. Even I, as a passionate ESC-viewer for 12 years, don't find them that interesting. Sure enough, they are great to have, but I'll leave the over-analyzation to the people finding joy in comparing roughly 80 sets of votes an X number of times to pinpoint small disagreements between public and jury. I guess I've just made a decision to trust EBU too much to care.
A-lister
Veteran
- Joined
- December 28, 2009
- Posts
- 32,825
Have they proven themselves trustworthy though?
Tbh I don't care too much about the single jury member votes, although I think transparency is important for credibility and I do think the idea of switching juries is a good thing. However the split results is quite crucial to reveal, because millions are over-run by few and I think the public simply has a right to know.
That's nonsense. Otherwise, why would the media report on the 'split results' even if released weeks after the contest? I know journalistic publications are not to be equated with actual interest or opinions by the general populace, but you get the point.
DanielLuis
Well-known member
- Joined
- March 14, 2011
- Posts
- 8,605
It's not like that is very mediatized to be honest.
^ Of course it's not, but that it gets mentioned at all after so much time speaks for itself. Imagine if there were two different winners, this might actually lead to very controversial debates. The sh*tstorm against the jury of this year's German NF is evidence enough IMHO.
DanielLuis
Well-known member
- Joined
- March 14, 2011
- Posts
- 8,605
There were two different winners in 2011. Not really a bad case there was it?
No, because they made the table look like as if Azerbaijan had won the televotings. Although the media in some countries were obviously not too happy going to Azerbaijan the following year.
MrGerbear
Active member
But then they release their individual results and you'd be able to tell.
Jeansy
Active member
- Joined
- March 10, 2013
- Posts
- 635
How? Just because I voted one song higher than another doesn't mean I was bribed but on the other hand I could be bribed up to the eyeballs.
LalehForWD
Active member
I thought these people in the juries were music business professionals, or? I can't imagine anyone would risk he/hers/hens work and reputation for a one time bribe. It got to be pretty big and tempting then. A million EURO? Then the crucial question: Who would be willing to spend that kind of money and for what purpose?