Contact us

EUROVISION 2023 - FINAL REHEARSALS AND LIVE SHOW DISCUSSION

Ajeje Brazorf

Well-known member
Joined
October 6, 2021
Posts
1,424
This isn't North Korea, you can't shut down an entire multi-billion industry just because you're into some conspiracy about the juries. You'd have to have every government in the world ban it.

I really don't care about the multi-billion industry and it's not the question of being North Korea: if Eurovision doesn't want a betting agency to accept bets on the event, it can eventually shut down bets if they won't give the rights to use their brand for profit and speculations, and there will be nothing the betting agencies can do about it. In my opinion it is a path they should consider... Betting odds do not OWN Eurovision and I remind you that in the past betting odds weren't a thing associated to Eurovision.
 
Last edited:

nofuxCZ

Well-known member
Joined
January 8, 2012
Posts
6,338
Location
Czech Republic / Biflovatia
Not only public, but expert juries are affected by running order bias and "public/odds pressure" bias as well. There have been some analysis articles and even studies published on this topic in the past.

This paper evaluated bias of judges in US/UK shows Dancing With The Stars / Strictly Come Dancing
This study examines sequence order bias in a contest format featuring both expert panel judgement and a popular vote. Contrary to expectations from expert panel outcomes assessing on objective performance criteria (applied after each performance), the UK and US data features clear evidence of sequence order bias effects. These effects resemble a J-curve where there is both a ’first’ (in sequence) effect and ‘order’ effect, such that the first and later performing contestants disproportionately gained higher expert panel scores. Although we believe managed choice of opening performers may play a role, we suggest that the key sequence biases observed can be interpreted as a type of ‘grade inflation’ in the expert panel’s scoring. In particular, the ‘order’ effect may derive from studio audience pressure akin to the previously cited evidence on spectator pressure on referees. When popular votes augment the expert panel scores, the ‘primacy’ and ‘recency’ biases observed in previous studies appear to reinforce and even amplify the J-curve effect. Our results add to the evidence that creators of such contests should pay careful attention to evaluation design given the various biases that may exist, including designs where they might not be expected

ESC Insight also did great analysis and proved that juries are affected by running order bias in Eurovision as well
 

Bmbriga

Well-known member
Joined
December 28, 2021
Posts
1,694
Which part of ''my opinion'' do you not understand?
I understand what you're trying to say very well and it's nonsense.

With 14th of May the song was streamed 44.5 million times.
Out of those 44 million- 16 million, one third comes from Sweden, that has a population of 10,4 million.

In a country with similar population, Austria with 9 milion, it was streamed, 180 000 times.

So, yeah, I don't care about it's popularity among Swedes, Dutch and Norwegians or that Dua Vita had 44 million views with 42 coming from Italy.

Oh, Italians are streaming their own song, so according to you it means it's popular and high quality and jury should take this into account. Is this what you're saying?

And before you say no let me remind you this is exactly what you're saying:

However, as Eurovision is a song contest in which popularity is one factor to win, I think it makes a point for the juries legitimacy that the juries put Sweden and (almost) Italy in the top 2, the songs with the largest amount of streams.

Thank you Italians for streaming your song, otherwise would Cro jury that gave 12 points lack legitimacy or god forbid if they voted for a non streaming nation.


I don't care that Norwegians, Swedes or Finns stream the hell out of Queen of Kings or that millions of Poles for some kinda crayzah reason decided to stream Bejba and juries should care even less.

And I really can't believe this is even a discussion we're having here in terms on ESC voting.
 

Ajeje Brazorf

Well-known member
Joined
October 6, 2021
Posts
1,424
I understand what you're trying to say very well and it's nonsense.

With 14th of May the song was streamed 44.5 million times.
Out of those 44 million- 16 million, one third comes from Sweden, that has a population of 10,4 million.

In a country with similar population, Austria with 9 milion, it was streamed, 180 000 times.

So, yeah, I don't care about it's popularity among Swedes, Dutch and Norwegians or that Dua Vita had 44 million views with 42 coming from Italy.

Oh, Italians are streaming their own song, so according to you it means it's popular and high quality and jury should take this into account. Is this what you're saying?

And before you say no let me remind you this is exactly what you're saying:



Thank you Italians for streaming your song, otherwise would Cro jury that gave 12 points lack legitimacy or god forbid if they voted for a non streaming nation.


I don't care that Norwegians, Swedes or Finns stream the hell out of Queen of Kings or that millions of Poles for some kinda crayzah reason decided to stream Bejba and juries should care even less.

And I really can't believe this is even a discussion we're having here in terms on ESC voting.

Neither do I, since Italian entries usually do better in the televote than in the Jury vote... Just saying...
 

AndroZeus

Well-known member
Joined
March 28, 2023
Posts
626
Juries should vote based on their professionalism for the best songwriting, vocal performance, production and staging. If they fail to do so, their services are not required. Ideally, jury members should be required to make notes on all the entries, notes which are published after the contest, ensuring transparency regarding their decisions. Of course, that will never happen, so I'm leaning more and more towards favouring the 25/75 model.
 

heke1988

Well-known member
Joined
March 4, 2018
Posts
3,806
Location
Finland
I would wish, that also Jury show would be able to see in television. That way audience would know better, which based on each jury's ranking.
 

midnightsun

Veteran
Joined
February 26, 2016
Posts
3,927
Location
Germany
Not only public, but expert juries are affected by running order bias and "public/odds pressure" bias as well.

This. It’s known for a while yet people here talk about "conspiracy theories" even now that an NDR employee / radio host himself also openly talked about it.

I don’t want to spread negativity and I know it looks like it when I bring up topics like this but I guess that has to do with my job; as a (former) journalist I‘m used to call things into question critically and do research etc.
I am an avid ESC fan for decades and I‘ve seen enough corruption and bias (not ESC related) during my researches in the past when I worked for the newspaper. I just want to have a fair Eurovision world where everyone and every country has the same chance but I guess in a modern world where only money talks it isn’t possible.

I understand the producers are obliged to act economically and to make profit and I understand they are trying to tweak the contest as much as possible to deliver the best experience for everyone. I just can’t with that Swedish machinery, but ok… I guess we can’t do anything about.

Plus, the "odds problem“ already existed in the past, long before Sweden took over the whole thing. With the difference in the past odds were sometimes totally wrong. Wouldn’t happen today to that extent.

Anyway, maybe fans can think about what change could be made and discuss it.

After all we‘re all here and enjoy and watch the contest year after year so it can’t be ALL bad! ;)
 

MopManMoss

Veteran
Joined
April 1, 2021
Posts
4,795
I would wish, that also Jury show would be able to see in television. That way audience would know better, which based on each jury's ranking.
They really should publicly release the grand final jury show after the Saturday, ive seen so many people complain about the difference between Norway's televote and jury scores but if they had seen the jury show like I'd had they would all see that the 17th in the Jury Norway got was more than justified
 

Andromache

Active member
Joined
May 14, 2023
Posts
94
What's the point of the juries if we had a 25/75 split? In that case you can make it 100% televote because the juries won't have any serious influence anymore and I find this just wrong. Let's not act like the televote isn't unproblematic either. If you want it to be fair then let's only allow people to vote once and not 20 times. We as the bubble vote 20 times and the average joe probably just once if even that. The thing is: people will never be happy. There are people who still hate Netta to this very day even though she won the televote. Same with Kalush. In the 2000s western countries constantly complained about eastern europeans voting for each others countries. Eurovision used to be a show where only juries voted. The televote was introduced in the modern times. The current split of 49/51 is imo okay. The way that both juries and televote come to their conclusion should be more complex tho and maybe they should also change/modernize the way they reveal the points in the GF.
 

AndroZeus

Well-known member
Joined
March 28, 2023
Posts
626
What's the point of the juries if we had a 25/75 split? In that case you can make it 100% televote because the juries won't have any serious influence anymore and I find this just wrong. Let's not act like the televote isn't unproblematic either. If you want it to be fair then let's only allow people to vote once and not 20 times. We as the bubble vote 20 times and the average joe probably just once if even that. The thing is: people will never be happy. There are people who still hate Netta to this very day even though she won the televote. Same with Kalush. In the 2000s western countries constantly complained about eastern europeans voting for each others countries. Eurovision used to be a show where only juries voted. The televote was introduced in the modern times. The current split of 49/51 is imo okay. The way that both juries and televote come to their conclusion should be more complex tho and maybe they should also change/modernize the way they reveal the points in the GF.
I definitely agree that people should not be able to vote more than once for the same act. I think votes should be a signifier of how many people like a song enough to want to vote for it.
 

MARTYM8

Active member
Joined
February 21, 2012
Posts
20
You win some you lose some.

I don't recollect too many people complaining when the juries denied the Russian entry by Sergey Lazerev victory in 2016. He won the televote by nearly 40 points - so wasn't he and not Jamala the rightful winner?

Seems so long ago now - Ukraine actually gave Russia 12 in the televote but perhaps less surprisingly the jury gave Sergey zero.
 

Ajeje Brazorf

Well-known member
Joined
October 6, 2021
Posts
1,424
What's the point of the juries if we had a 25/75 split? In that case you can make it 100% televote because the juries won't have any serious influence anymore and I find this just wrong. Let's not act like the televote isn't unproblematic either. If you want it to be fair then let's only allow people to vote once and not 20 times. We as the bubble vote 20 times and the average joe probably just once if even that. The thing is: people will never be happy. There are people who still hate Netta to this very day even though she won the televote. Same with Kalush. In the 2000s western countries constantly complained about eastern europeans voting for each others countries. Eurovision used to be a show where only juries voted. The televote was introduced in the modern times. The current split of 49/51 is imo okay. The way that both juries and televote come to their conclusion should be more complex tho and maybe they should also change/modernize the way they reveal the points in the GF.

The Televoting system is and will always be the most problematic for Eurovision. And in fact Eurovision wasn't in good shape when it had 100% televote, was it?

Really, guys, don't ask for a 75/25 or a full Televoting system: they already tried it and let's say that system FAILED BADLY in Eurovision. And there is no "maybe this time...", it will be the same and you know it even if you are not ready to admit it, because Eurovision Grand Finale was just 4 days ago and the delusion is still palpable. That system failed so badly Eurovision lost lots of viewers, lost lots of sponsorships and lost almost entirely its credibility. The 2000's were a dark era compared to what we have now and all people supporting 100% televote or similaria, act like they didn't witness that era.

You want more power to public vote? You can test a 60/40 format, you can try to introduce demoscopic jury, like in Sanremo and Benidorm, you can try to extend jury panels... But EBU won't ever be back to a 75/25 or a 100/0 televote format, and rightfully so.
 
Last edited:

crashworld

Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
4,065
If people aren't allowed to vote more than once for their favourite country, get prepare to see the revenue decrease multifold.
And also, ever heard of tactical voting? Just vote once for your favourite and don't vote for the rest. You will still get the same problem of countries getting blanked by televote.
 

AndroZeus

Well-known member
Joined
March 28, 2023
Posts
626
You win some you lose some.

I don't recollect too many people complaining when the juries denied the Russian entry by Sergey Lazerev victory in 2016. He won the televote by nearly 40 points - so wasn't he and not Jamala the rightful winner?

Seems so long ago now - Ukraine actually gave Russia 12 in the televote but perhaps less surprisingly the jury gave Sergey zero.
I recall a lot of people complaining in 2016, including Russian government officials - maybe you've just forgotten?
 

Mainshow

Veteran
Joined
December 23, 2018
Posts
14,463
Me being allowed to vote 20x per device:
Spreading several votes between different countries.

vs.

Me being allowed to vote only once:
Only voting for my fave OR supporting my "other country" as part of the diaspora.
 

MARTYM8

Active member
Joined
February 21, 2012
Posts
20
If people aren't allowed to vote more than once for their country, get prepare to see the revenue decrease multifold.
And also, ever heard of tactical voting? Just vote once for your favourite and don't vote for the rest. You will still get the same problem of countries getting blanked by televote.

I am amazed how disciplined the Finns were in NOT voting for Loreen. Surely there must be quite a few Swedes in Finland - did they get peer pressured?!
 

Looren

Veteran
Joined
August 10, 2020
Posts
10,588
Location
Agadir
You win some you lose some.

I don't recollect too many people complaining when the juries denied the Russian entry by Sergey Lazerev victory in 2016. He won the televote by nearly 40 points - so wasn't he and not Jamala the rightful winner?

Seems so long ago now - Ukraine actually gave Russia 12 in the televote but perhaps less surprisingly the jury gave Sergey zero.

Well like I said earlier if Käärija had won televote with like a 60/70 points lead I would be like : "yeah okay fair, Loreen was still close in tele"

The gap here is like 135 points, it's veeeeery different
 

AndroZeus

Well-known member
Joined
March 28, 2023
Posts
626
Me being allowed to vote 20x per device:
Spreading several votes between different countries.

vs.

Me being allowed to vote only once:
Only voting for my fave OR supporting my "other country" as part of the diaspora.
My preferred option is only once PER COUNTRY. So that you vote once for each country you think deserves a vote.
 

Underdark

Well-known member
Joined
March 6, 2021
Posts
136
Last edited:

Ajeje Brazorf

Well-known member
Joined
October 6, 2021
Posts
1,424
You win some you lose some.

I don't recollect too many people complaining when the juries denied the Russian entry by Sergey Lazerev victory in 2016. He won the televote by nearly 40 points - so wasn't he and not Jamala the rightful winner?

Seems so long ago now - Ukraine actually gave Russia 12 in the televote but perhaps less surprisingly the jury gave Sergey zero.

Some of my fellow compatriots were so gutted when Il Volo didn't won back in 2015 too. But then, after some time, they just accepted it. Juries are just part of the game, easy.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom