May 15, 20169 yr Did you vote before the semi? There was a fair bit of hype building up over the Ukraine song in the few days before the contest, so that will have seen the odds come down a lot. If you got 66/1, then well done :lol: Did it on Wednesday, went to Coral today and did get it at 66/1, no idea how but not complaining :yahoo:
May 15, 20169 yr How much you win then?? :o I still think Aussue shoulda won, but now that I've listened to Ukraine in the context of art, I kinda like it, with the baby cradling bit in the dark, the screaming, the roses on fire.
May 16, 20169 yr How were San Marino's fake televotes devised again? It's interesting that they 'gave' the 12 to Ukraine and voted for nine of the eventual top ten in this fake voting. If they continue doing this and the difference between the top two ends up being a couple of points one year, with the fake San Marino televote having a deciding say, then heads will surely roll. I still don't entirely understand why they just don't add a televote at all from this country, or others where the telephone system fails, rather than fabricating a vote.
May 16, 20169 yr Forgive my ignorance but I thought there was no change to the voting system, just the way they were delivered?
May 16, 20169 yr What an amazing show we had ! Everything about it was spectacular, I can't believe how high the level was. The hosts were incredible as well. Really, really enjoyed it all. Only regret is Dami missing out so close. :(
May 16, 20169 yr Forgive my ignorance but I thought there was no change to the voting system, just the way they were delivered? For most countries there wasn't but for San Marino there was. Because it's so small it has only ever given a jury vote and so its votes have always been based entirely on the jury but that's no longer possible because every country now gives two votes rather than a combined one from their jury and televotes. San Marino needed a televote for the new system and so the EBU decided to... make one up.
May 16, 20169 yr It wouldn't have changed anything BUT it could've been even closer. Danish jury member and Dansk Melodi Grand Prix veteran Hilda Heick has admitted she was confused when entering her jury results, and ranked the songs in reverse order. This means that her favourite song, “The Sound of Silence” was ranked 26th, while her least favourite tune, the Georgian entry, was ranked at the top. The points given in the grand final were: Ukraine – 12 points Australia – 10 points Belgium – 8 points The Netherlands – 7 points Bulgaria – 6 points Lithuania – 5 points Sweden – 4 points United Kingdom – 3 points Israel – 2 points Spain – 1 point But if Hilda’s song order had been reversed and new averages for the Danish jury calculated, the new scores would be like this: Australia – 12 points The Netherlands – 10 points Belgium – 8 points Sweden – 7 points Bulgaria – 6 points Spain – 5 points Israel – 4 points Russia – 3 points Lithuania – 2 points France – 1 point If my maths is correct this would've meant Ukraine ended on 522 with Australia on 513 which would've been just a fraction more nailbiting and heart wrenching for us Dami fans!
May 16, 20169 yr It's insane that one juror can have such an impact on the overall vote - especially when mistakes like this are bound to happen occasionally...surely they should increase the jury sample, by having 10 from each country or something, and making them sit apart to watch the performances, like I said yesterday.
May 16, 20169 yr It is pretty ridiculous that one juror can send a song from 12pts to 0pts, it's just way too much influence to give to such a small set. Imagine if that mistake had've made a difference, there'd have been an uproar!
May 16, 20169 yr After this and what happened in Russia too I think at the very very minimum they need to have some people at the EBU watching all of the juries via video streams/chats and also check they are properly briefed, perhaps via these video chats, prior to the show taking place. From what we've gathered, I assume this isn't the case which is odd as it is such a simple way to keep an eye on things. And yes 10 jurors would be a big improvement too!
May 16, 20169 yr I'm very glad Ukraine won in the end. It was my favorite song of the evening. I'm was happy Australia didn't win simply because I don't think they should be in the contest (and also because I didn't like the song). As for the UK, I think they should just keep taking part as nothing is impossible at Eurovision (something I hope The Netherlands proved after failing to qualify for 8 years in a row). The UK just need to send better songs :P Whoever is in charge of your entries needs to realize that it's better to send something that half the world hates and half the world loves than sending something that everyone thinks is just ''OK'' or ''kinda nice''.
May 16, 20169 yr I'm very glad Ukraine won in the end. It was my favorite song of the evening. I'm was happy Australia didn't win simply because I don't think they should be in the contest (and also because I didn't like the song). As for the UK, I think they should just keep taking part as nothing is impossible at Eurovision (something I hope The Netherlands proved after failing to qualify for 8 years in a row). The UK just need to send better songs :P Whoever is in charge of your entries needs to realize that it's better to send something that half the world hates and half the world loves than sending something that everyone thinks is just ''OK'' or ''kinda nice''. I get your point but BBC read a sentence like that and pluck out a horror like Electro Velvet.
May 17, 20169 yr It's insane that one juror can have such an impact on the overall vote - especially when mistakes like this are bound to happen occasionally...surely they should increase the jury sample, by having 10 from each country or something, and making them sit apart to watch the performances, like I said yesterday. They have tried larger juries (notably one year when they first increased the jury size, then overturned the change at the last minute, resulting in different countries using different sized juries that year), but they found that a larger jury takes longer to collate its results, increasing the chances of not declaring in time (the infamous "I don't have it" moment comes to mind, from the year of the jury size confusion), though admittedly that shouldn't apply so much now that individual jurors scores are recorded first and the televote is not added into it.
May 17, 20169 yr They have tried larger juries (notably one year when they first increased the jury size, then overturned the change at the last minute, resulting in different countries using different sized juries that year), but they found that a larger jury takes longer to collate its results, increasing the chances of not declaring in time (the infamous "I don't have it" moment comes to mind, from the year of the jury size confusion), though admittedly that shouldn't apply so much now that individual jurors scores are recorded first and the televote is not added into it. Having said all that it's just occurred to me that, as far as I understand it, the juries awarded their points on separate performances on Friday night, so my arguments above don't apply, but also if this juror did make this mistake then there was more than enough time to correct the mistake before the results were used during the show.
May 17, 20169 yr I'm very glad Ukraine won in the end. It was my favorite song of the evening. I'm was happy Australia didn't win simply because I don't think they should be in the contest (and also because I didn't like the song). As for the UK, I think they should just keep taking part as nothing is impossible at Eurovision (something I hope The Netherlands proved after failing to qualify for 8 years in a row). The UK just need to send better songs :P Whoever is in charge of your entries needs to realize that it's better to send something that half the world hates and half the world loves than sending something that everyone thinks is just ''OK'' or ''kinda nice''. When Bucks Fizz won in 1981 it was virtually no countries actual favourite, but all countries thought it was 'kinda nice', whilst most of the various countries true favourites were seemingly either loved or hated based on the varied points awarded or not awarded. So it is demonstrably possible to win by being the most 'tolerable' entry rather than being truly loved by anyone, but maybe that strategy doesn't work as well these days with so many more countries voting.
May 17, 20169 yr How were San Marino's fake televotes devised again? It's interesting that they 'gave' the 12 to Ukraine and voted for nine of the eventual top ten in this fake voting. If they continue doing this and the difference between the top two ends up being a couple of points one year, with the fake San Marino televote having a deciding say, then heads will surely roll. I still don't entirely understand why they just don't add a televote at all from this country, or others where the telephone system fails, rather than fabricating a vote. I believe they devised a system whereby any particular countries televote could be constructed as a sort of average of it's neighbours choices, but I hope they use a few careful provisos if that's the case, as otherwise if either the Azerbaijan or Armenia televotes were to fail they could find themselves awarding televote points to a country they have been at war with and whom they never previously ranked above bottom place in either jury or televoting. San Marino is simply not big enough to provide a statistically valid televote, but other countries sometimes fail to have a valid televote on either economic grounds or through problems with the comms infrastructure in that country, though this tends to only be a problem in parts of former Yugoslavia, and some other Balkan countries, most notably Albania.
May 17, 20169 yr When Bucks Fizz won in 1981 it was virtually no countries actual favourite, but all countries thought it was 'kinda nice', whilst most of the various countries true favourites were seemingly either loved or hated based on the varied points awarded or not awarded. So it is demonstrably possible to win by being the most 'tolerable' entry rather than being truly loved by anyone, but maybe that strategy doesn't work as well these days with so many more countries voting. There were only 20 countries in it then, so each country gave points to ten of them leaving only nine (excluding themselves) with nothing. So, a song only needed to be "better than average" to get points.
May 17, 20169 yr the results of the UK record-buying public on itunes the next day: 1. UK 2. Sweden 3. Australia 4. Bulgaria 5. Russia 6. Spain 7. Ukraine 8. France 9. Belgium 10. Netherlands 11. Cyprus 12. Lithuania 13. Poland 14. Israel 15. Latvia Which all goes to show that: a) The UK polish votes are almost certainly not because they loved the song b) at least the UK liked our entry best :lol: c) The record-buying public are always right: (My faves reminder 1. Australia/2. France/3. Bulgaria/4. Spain/5. Belgium/6. UK/7. Russia/8. Malta (first of two not to be rated in my top 10)/9. netherlands/10. Georgia (the second one). Sweden I rated 12th, Ukraine a bit lower) :P
May 17, 20169 yr Here in Ireland Lithuania especially do very well in the public vote as we have so many Lithuanians working here, they obviously vote, i think its what happening in the UK with Poland. While i loved the voting reveal towards the end i slightly miss the juries calling out the 8 and 10 points, i think even they would call out the 10 and the 12 it would be better as its far to quick the other way. I think the new system is great but i wish it was a year later as if the old system was in, that horrid song from Ukraine would not be the winner.
Create an account or sign in to comment