BBO Release Official Weighted %'s For the Top 5!

[AhmedFan2004]

BBO have weighted the %'s for us. As you can see, places 2nd to 5th are close.

http://www.bigbrotheronline.co.uk/bigbrother10/uk_news/post_bb10/the-bb10-finalists-percentages-weighted-by-bbo.htm

Rodrigo 11% (5th Place)
Charlie 13.2% (4th Place)
David 14.4% (3rd Place)
Siavash 15.7% (Runner-up)
Sophie 45.7% (Winner)

Siavash and David were only 1.3% apart!

If anyone uses DS and sees this, could you make a thread on it. Thanks!

[SurferJay]

Siavash and David were only 1.3% apart.

LOL

[JRC__x]

SOPHIE IS THE BEST WINNER EVER! :hugesmile::hugesmile::hugesmile::hugesmile::huges mile:

[Tom]

Its based on estimates like the ones you seen I did are

[Dolphin-and-Whale]

Interesting, I can't read the link but I'll take your word

[AhmedFan2004]

Siavash and David were only 1.3% apart.

LOL
Gotta laugh. :joker:

[Chels]

I thought David was going to come second.

[AhmedFan2004]

Interesting, I can't read the link but I'll take your word
" So, we've taken the trouble to 'weight' the figures for you, and the result comes out something like this:

Rodrigo 11% (5th Place)
Charlie 11.8% (4th Place)
David 14.7% (3rd Place)
Siavash 16% (Runner-up)
Sophie 46.5% (Winner) "

- Weighted %'s

[Chels]

OMFG Hardly anything in it between Rod and Charlie!

[AhmedFan2004]

OMFG Hardly anything in it between Rod and Charlie!
Yep

[Tom]

They've got it slightly wrong, Charlie's percentage was out of 5, not 4.

[AhmedFan2004]

They've got it slightly wrong, Charlie's percentage was out of 5, not 4.
Fair enough ... it's a rough guide anyway. Dave was close to 2nd. :joker:

[setanta]

Hilarious stuff really. I'm telling you, if David had been in from the start, you never know what may have happened.

[keithafc]

You know what's funny. People spent LOTS and lots of money on Siavash to win you know. Im talking hunderds. When i seen the DS thread on how good it would be Asians, i said how sad is that. Using race to get votes. Just sad and the lowest of lows.

[AhmedFan2004]

Hilarious stuff really. I'm telling you, if David had been in from the start, you never know what may have happened.
Yes, or if we had another day to vote. He had the momentum. Sophie would have been hard to topple though.

Vash is nowhere near as popular as forums suggest.

David 14.7%
Vash 16%
Sophie 46.5%

[Jords]

Wow Sophie really did woop them!

[AhmedFan2004]

You know what's funny. People spent LOTS and lots of money on Siavash to win you know. Im talking hunderds. When i seen the DS thread on how good it would be Asians, i said how sad is that. Using race to get votes. Just sad and the lowest of lows.
That loser forum probably edged him past David, ROFL. :joker:

[setanta]

Hilarious stuff really. I'm telling you, if David had been in from the start, you never know what may have happened.
Yes, or if we had another day to vote. He had the momentum. Sophie would have been hard to topple though.

Vash is nowhere near as popular as forums suggest.

David 14.7%
Vash 16%
Sophie 46.5%

Of course he's not. Sure when he beat Marcus, he was up against such a controversial figure who divides opinion. I still think Freddie or Marcus would have done far better than him in the final, had they made it and it was a straight out popularity contest.

[Jords]

Hilarious stuff really. I'm telling you, if David had been in from the start, you never know what may have happened.
Yes, or if we had another day to vote. He had the momentum. Sophie would have been hard to topple though.

Vash is nowhere near as popular as forums suggest.

David 14.7%
Vash 16%
Sophie 46.5%

Yes he is, out the 5 he was 2nd most popular, Sophie was hugely popular and that is why he didnt get as many votes, think about it, alot of Sophie supporters mostly had Siavash as second favourite or Rodrigo. Polls showed clearly Sophie and Siavash were favourites to be in the finale 2.

[keithafc]

Some people threw money down the drain big time tonight. Seriously threw money away. And i knew they would be doing so.

[AhmedFan2004]

Of course he's not. Sure when he beat Marcus, he was up against such a controversial figure who divides opinion. I still think Freddie or Marcus would have done far better than him in the final, had they made it and it was a straight out popularity contest.
Agreed, they had more fans but proportionately more haters. Though Vash is a lot more hated nowadays anyway. Got booed!

[AhmedFan2004]

Yes he is, out the 5 he was 2nd most popular, Sophie was hugely popular and that is why he didnt get as many votes, think about it, alot of Sophie supporters mostly had Siavash as second favourite or Rodrigo. Polls showed clearly Sophie and Siavash were favourites to be in the finale 2.
The forums are miles out, look at the %s, and they've been miles out all series. Nerds flock to the forums, but it's just a niche.

David nearly got 2nd, contrary to any internet poll or forum.

The %s say it all. 2nd to 5th was a lottery. Don't pretend.

[Jords]

Of course he's not. Sure when he beat Marcus, he was up against such a controversial figure who divides opinion. I still think Freddie or Marcus would have done far better than him in the final, had they made it and it was a straight out popularity contest.
Agreed, they had more fans but proportionately more haters. Though Vash is a lot more hated nowadays anyway. Got booed!

I know what this thread is now, a hate thread towards Siavash. :rolleyes:
Guess you a David fan? Well David also got boos, probably more than Siavash if I remember correctly.

Look around on the forum, Siavash is very popular, but Sophie is even more popular, David was the least popular probably just over taking Charlie.

Dont get me wrong think David is alright, but dont be hating.

Edited to add: most peoples last 2 favourites were sophie & siavash but wanted sophie to win, so therefore they would vote for sophie rather than siavash. take sophie out the game, and siavash would storm the game, dont pretend.

[Shasown]

Then if its only a "rough guide" you cant make the assumption that Dave was close to second, for percentages to work effectively and accurately you need actual percentages per round.

You would also need to know roughly how many voted up to the first closing of the phonelines in order to make accurate assessments, in fact the more information you have the more accurate the percentage margins will be. 0.8% doesnt sound a lot 8 in a thousand, how many thousand voted though?

Simply talking the official party guideline "Sophie had 74.4%" of the vote and working backwards is again ineffective, supposing only a couple of hundred votes were actually recorded(thats not 100 people voted, votes can and do get set aside, if the count from a particular phone number exceeds more than an average of 4 per minute as an example, based on time to get a line, dial and record the vote)

[MissKittyFantastico]

Wow that was seriously close! I always said Sophie would win by a landslide but 2-5th place was a LOT closer than a lot of people would ever have predicted! Charlie and Rodrigo .8%. Just wow!

David did really really well, he should be proud of himself.

[dogfacetowin]

interesting indeed

[AhmedFan2004]

Then if its only a "rough guide" you cant make the assumption that Dave was close to second, for percentages to work effectively and accurately you need actual percentages per round.

You would also need to know roughly how many voted up to the first closing of the phonelines in order to make accurate assessments, in fact the more information you have the more accurate the percentage margins will be. 0.8% doesnt sound a lot 8 in a thousand, how many thousand voted though?

Simply talking the official party guideline "Sophie had 74.4%" of the vote and working backwards is again ineffective, supposing only a couple of hundred votes were actually recorded(thats not 100 people voted, votes can and do get set aside, if the count from a particular phone number exceeds more than an average of 4 per minute as an example, based on time to get a line, dial and record the vote)


Of course he was close to 2nd, Sophie won by a landslide. Hell, 2nd to 5th was all close. The forums have been poor indicators all series. It's attracting fans of certain HMs more than others. It's a niche segment of the BB demographic; not representative.

[Shasown]

One other thing to add 5 and 4 places were taken at the initial closure of the phone lines therefore when whoever decided to weight the figures for the second listing of % both should have changed by the same ratio, a simple mistake in maths like that will have a much larger cumulative effect on later percentages.

[setanta]

I doubt it'll be too far wide of the mark Shasown.

[Shasown]

Then if its only a "rough guide" you cant make the assumption that Dave was close to second, for percentages to work effectively and accurately you need actual percentages per round.

You would also need to know roughly how many voted up to the first closing of the phonelines in order to make accurate assessments, in fact the more information you have the more accurate the percentage margins will be. 0.8% doesnt sound a lot 8 in a thousand, how many thousand voted though?

Simply talking the official party guideline "Sophie had 74.4%" of the vote and working backwards is again ineffective, supposing only a couple of hundred votes were actually recorded(thats not 100 people voted, votes can and do get set aside, if the count from a particular phone number exceeds more than an average of 4 per minute as an example, based on time to get a line, dial and record the vote)


Of course he was close to 2nd, Sophie won by a landslide. Hell, 2nd to 5th was all close. The forums have been poor indicators all series. It's attracting fans of certain HMs more than others. It's a niche segment of the BB demographic; not representative.

Am not arguing the point that the forums have been poor indicators just pointing out the maths is flawed in the figures you quote.

Nor does the figures released by CH4 show where or when the landslide you refer to occur, was it throughout all the voting or simply in the last portion of voting, without accurate figures it could be sophie lost.

She may have been within the top 3 and then as other fell by the wayside she picked up some but the lines have been open days, in that time a lot of votes could have been cast.

Manipulating % is a cheap way of bringing who you want to win forward to appear to win.

I hope ch4 release total votes cast per housemate over the whole voting period.

[AhmedFan2004]

LOL whatever, Sophie won easily, and 2nd to 5th was tight ...

And the they don't 'throw away votes' or anything, lol, that would be illegal ...

Every vote counts.

[Shasown]

LOL whatever, Sophie won easily, and 2nd to 5th was tight ...

And the they don't 'throw away votes' or anything, lol, that would be illegal ...

Every vote counts.

Dont they? Get your ignorant ass over to the official site and read the voting terms.

They can discard any votes they think came from automatic diallers etc, and the computers counting the votes use timers when comparing numbers.

There is also a great article on google about block voting checks and timers etc, go educate yourself.

As I said i dont think CH4 will release the full voting figures including overall votes per housemate before and after discarded votes.

[RCW1945]

The BBO figures are interesting, and obviously nearer the reality than the Ch4 released figures.
What they lack, however, are the assumptions that were made during the calculation, knowledge of which would allow us to judge their reliability.

[keithafc]

She won at a landslide, why argue against it?

[Shasown]

The BBO figures are interesting, and obviously nearer the reality than the Ch4 released figures.
What they lack, however, are the assumptions that were made during the calculation, knowledge of which would allow us to judge their reliability.


Thank you, at least one other person with a sensible head on tonight.

[RCW1945]

Shasown
Your comments on the mathematical processes involved are interesting and suggest a person of some intelligence.
However, all that is lost when you come out with "Get your ignorant ass over to the official site and read the voting terms. "
That sort of language has no place in mathematics.

[Jords]

LOL whatever, Sophie won easily, and 2nd to 5th was tight ...

And the they don't 'throw away votes' or anything, lol, that would be illegal ...

Every vote counts.

Your playing the idiot.

You know very well Sophie and Siavash were the top favourites.
But Sophie being the top top favourite would recieve the votes from those who liked both. I doubt many Sophie fans would have David second choice, most Siavash and the rest Roddy.

[setanta]

Shasown
Your comments on the mathematical processes involved are interesting and suggest a person of some intelligence.
However, all that is lost when you come out with "Get your ignorant ass over to the official site and read the voting terms. "
That sort of language has no place in mathematics.



Agreed, and sure I doubt there'll be a huge difference in the official figures. Not enough to have a mickey fit over these ones anyway.

[Shasown]

Shasown
Your comments on the mathematical processes involved are interesting and suggest a person of some intelligence.
However, all that is lost when you come out with "Get your ignorant ass over to the official site and read the voting terms. "
That sort of language has no place in mathematics.



If you follow the thread you will see, the actual mathematical processes were by then discarded by Ahmedfan and his viewpoint was then changed to the fact votes were not discounted.

That to me is ignorance, he had made a statement based purely on what he assumed, not what he knew as fact, in order to change the goalposts for his assertation he was right.

Ignorance can be taken to mean ill mannered, it can also more correctly mean being unaware of the true facts or lacking in knowledge. If he or anyone else is upset by the fact I stated he was unaware of the facts, and incorrectly assumed I meant he was ill mannered or any other meaning they use the word for, then I apologise.

[Shasown]

Agreed, and sure I doubt there'll be a huge difference in the official figures. Not enough to have a mickey fit over these ones anyway.

I am not having a mickey fit over any figures, just stating my opinion.

You may be surprised just how the figures can be massaged, after all BB have been so honest with their totally unbiased H/L shows and then the total unbias interviews and commentary from GL and Davina havent they?

[setanta]

Agreed, and sure I doubt there'll be a huge difference in the official figures. Not enough to have a mickey fit over these ones anyway.

I am not having a mickey fit over any figures, just stating my opinion.

You may be surprised just how the figures can be massaged, after all BB have been so honest with their totally unbiased H/L shows and then the total unbias interviews and commentary from GL and Davina havent they?

No, I understand why you're mentioning the figures and how they can't be accurately gauged until the final tally has been counted but sure I wouldn't get too ruffled up over it. Doubtful that there'll be a huge discrepancy and even if there is, it'll be more to do with the extra half hour that Siavash and Sophie had in votes. It's a good rough guide to how the voting went, you kno?

[UglyBaby]

Siavash has a lot of haters. Even on BBBM he got a very rough ride considering he finished 2nd! Viewers just do not appreciate those kind of antics; not voting, threatening to leave etc

Unpopular HMs can finish top 3. Look at Jason in BB5; much hated but still finished runner up. Then he vanished in shame.

[Shasown]

Agreed, and sure I doubt there'll be a huge difference in the official figures. Not enough to have a mickey fit over these ones anyway.

I am not having a mickey fit over any figures, just stating my opinion.

You may be surprised just how the figures can be massaged, after all BB have been so honest with their totally unbiased H/L shows and then the total unbias interviews and commentary from GL and Davina havent they?

No, I understand why you're mentioning the figures and how they can't be accurately gauged until the final tally has been counted but sure I wouldn't get too ruffled up over it. Doubtful that there'll be a huge discrepancy and even if there is, it'll be more to do with the extra half hour that Siavash and Sophie had in votes. It's a good rough guide to how the voting went, you kno?

No, its an accurate guide to the votes that were counted in the last 30 minutes is all. That is all the 74.4% can reveal

We dont and wont know what way the actual votes were counted and housemates discarded, Sophie could have the most overall votes or over the whole voting period could by zeroing the counts actually have the lowest overall total out of the final 3 but the highest total in the last 30 minutes.

[setanta]

Agreed, and sure I doubt there'll be a huge difference in the official figures. Not enough to have a mickey fit over these ones anyway.

I am not having a mickey fit over any figures, just stating my opinion.

You may be surprised just how the figures can be massaged, after all BB have been so honest with their totally unbiased H/L shows and then the total unbias interviews and commentary from GL and Davina havent they?

No, I understand why you're mentioning the figures and how they can't be accurately gauged until the final tally has been counted but sure I wouldn't get too ruffled up over it. Doubtful that there'll be a huge discrepancy and even if there is, it'll be more to do with the extra half hour that Siavash and Sophie had in votes. It's a good rough guide to how the voting went, you kno?

No, its an accurate guide to the votes that were counted in the last 30 minutes is all. That is all the 74.4% can reveal

We dont and wont know what way the actual votes were counted and housemates discarded, Sophie could have the most overall votes or over the whole voting period could by zeroing the counts actually have the lowest overall total out of the final 3 but the highest total in the last 30 minutes.

I know that, but is serves as a rough guide and I really don't think there'll be much of a difference in the actual results. She probably did get over 40% of the votes, just like they've suggested. Sure we'll see.

[AhmedFan2004]

BBO have corrected the %s. Check it out now. 2nd to 5th was tight!

[chris1232]

Very close indeed!

[AhmedFan2004]

Very close indeed!
Shows how poor an indicator forums are. The %'s on forum polls are WAY out!

[MassiveTruck]

If you consider the simple fact that Rodrigo came out with 11% of the vote and Sophie won with 75% against Siavash, then it should be clear that she complete demolished everyone but also places 2, 3, 4 and 5 were very very very close.

[cleaner67]

I thought Rodrigo would have got better than 5th, just goes to show anything can happen

[MassiveTruck]

Very close indeed!
Shows how poor an indicator forums are. The %'s on forum polls are WAY out!

For me it shows something utterly deeper and far more interesting

How certain housemates require a far more aggressive and amplified support to encourage their survival.

For instance, Siavash, should have got the Marcus and Freddie votes... but he didn't - the view from the forums would have indicated this but it appears as though the general viewing public chose somebody less offensive as a fave... so what does this say about people who chose, empathise and support Siavash with vehemence, since he had such a massive support on the forums.

Just a slight switch and David could have been 2nd.

[AhmedFan2004]

If you consider the simple fact that Rodrigo came out with 11% of the vote and Sophie won with 75% against Siavash, then it should be clear that she complete demolished everyone but also places 2, 3, 4 and 5 were very very very close.
Of course, it was obvious anyway that Sophie won by a landslide and 2nd to 5th were tight. The forums are very very poor indicators.

[MassiveTruck]

If you consider the simple fact that Rodrigo came out with 11% of the vote and Sophie won with 75% against Siavash, then it should be clear that she complete demolished everyone but also places 2, 3, 4 and 5 were very very very close.
Of course, it was obvious anyway that Sophie won by a landslide and 2nd to 5th were tight. The forums are very very poor indicators.

I'm going to give this some thought.

I guess in some ways, votes for the underdog is an example. Underdogs get obsessive support, well perceived underdogs and they get a skewed perspective on their behaviour to counter the observations people make over their immorality.

Also there is the anti-vote as well, I am sure some give people pity too.

Overall though, I think there is a clear indicator as to why there is this form of activity on the forums.

[AhmedFan2004]

If you consider the simple fact that Rodrigo came out with 11% of the vote and Sophie won with 75% against Siavash, then it should be clear that she complete demolished everyone but also places 2, 3, 4 and 5 were very very very close.
Of course, it was obvious anyway that Sophie won by a landslide and 2nd to 5th were tight. The forums are very very poor indicators.

I'm going to give this some thought.

I guess in some ways, votes for the underdog is an example. Underdogs get obsessive support, well perceived underdogs and they get a skewed perspective on their behaviour to counter the observations people make over their immorality.

Also there is the anti-vote as well, I am sure some give people pity too.

Overall though, I think there is a clear indicator as to why there is this form of activity on the forums.
I mainly think it's because the types who use forums tend to be out of touch with society in general. This forum isn't so bad, but on DS there's loads of nerds living in their own little world.

DS is the most 'off' with regards to their polls, etc. They seem to go for alternative/weird/eccentric types, as it aligns with their own personalities.

The average person in the street obviously relates to a Sophie/Charlie/David over a weirdo like Siavash. That's the bottom line.

[Angus]

Siavash and David were only 1.3% apart.

LOL
Gotta laugh. :joker:

Sure do, a miss is as good as a mile:hugesmile::hugesmile:
SIAVASH RUNNER UP, DAVID THIRD. It is what it is.

[AhmedFan2004]

Siavash and David were only 1.3% apart.

LOL
Gotta laugh. :joker:

Sure do, a miss is as good as a mile:hugesmile::hugesmile:
SIAVASH RUNNER UP, DAVID THIRD. It is what it is.
Nobody has disputed the positions. The %'s are also the %'s.

[Jords]

Wish the OP stopped banging on about how forums are bad indicators, obvisously not as we said the order would be:
Sophie
Siavash
Rodrigo
Charlie
David

But in fact it was David and Rodrigo swapped around.
The OP is just a David fan and a Siavash hater trying to bang on about how close it was. Take Sophie out of the game, and Siavash would have won, the majority who supported Sophie has Siavash for second place. It is what it is.

Also you keep saying Siavash isnt as popular as the forums make out?
Um yes he is, he came second.

[MassiveTruck]

If you consider the simple fact that Rodrigo came out with 11% of the vote and Sophie won with 75% against Siavash, then it should be clear that she complete demolished everyone but also places 2, 3, 4 and 5 were very very very close.
Of course, it was obvious anyway that Sophie won by a landslide and 2nd to 5th were tight. The forums are very very poor indicators.

I'm going to give this some thought.

I guess in some ways, votes for the underdog is an example. Underdogs get obsessive support, well perceived underdogs and they get a skewed perspective on their behaviour to counter the observations people make over their immorality.

Also there is the anti-vote as well, I am sure some give people pity too.

Overall though, I think there is a clear indicator as to why there is this form of activity on the forums.
I mainly think it's because the types who use forums tend to be out of touch with society in general. This forum isn't so bad, but on DS there's loads of nerds living in their own little world.

DS is the most 'off' with regards to their polls, etc. They seem to go for alternative/weird/eccentric types, as it aligns with their own personalities.

The average person in the street obviously relates to a Sophie/Charlie/David over a weirdo like Siavash. That's the bottom line.

I've been saying this for a while. I made a post about it once too that people are inclined to follow housemates who are on the edge of society out of pity and political correctness - so they don't look "wrong".

[AhmedFan2004]

Wish the OP stopped banging on about how forums are bad indicators, obvisously not as we said the order would be:
Sophie
Siavash
Rodrigo
Charlie
David

But in fact it was David and Rodrigo swapped around.
The OP is just a David fan and a Siavash hater trying to bang on about how close it was. Take Sophie out of the game, and Siavash would have won, the majority who supported Sophie has Siavash for second place. It is what it is.

Also you keep saying Siavash isnt as popular as the forums make out?
Um yes he is, he came second.
LOL, %'s are %'s, the forums were way out. The order is just how it panned out. The forums were way out; on order AND %'s.

So much for David's 5th place, Rodrigo's top 3 finish and a 'close call' between Vash and Sophie.

The reality is, the geeks scraped him 2nd, ahead of newbie David.

[AhmedFan2004]

I've been saying this for a while. I made a post about it once too that people are inclined to follow housemates who are on the edge of society out of pity and political correctness - so they don't look "wrong".
Yes, in general, normal people don't use forums. Bluntly speaking.

[MassiveTruck]

I've been saying this for a while. I made a post about it once too that people are inclined to follow housemates who are on the edge of society out of pity and political correctness - so they don't look "wrong".
Yes, in general, normal people don't use forums. Bluntly speaking.

Which is why I use them.

I've noticed some people are too flash to use forums or on drugs or married to their couch.

[Jords]

Wish the OP stopped banging on about how forums are bad indicators, obvisously not as we said the order would be:
Sophie
Siavash
Rodrigo
Charlie
David

But in fact it was David and Rodrigo swapped around.
The OP is just a David fan and a Siavash hater trying to bang on about how close it was. Take Sophie out of the game, and Siavash would have won, the majority who supported Sophie has Siavash for second place. It is what it is.

Also you keep saying Siavash isnt as popular as the forums make out?
Um yes he is, he came second.
LOL, %'s are %'s, the forums were way out. The order is just how it panned out. The forums were way out; on order AND %'s.

So much for David's 5th place, Rodrigo's top 3 finish and a 'close call' between Vash and Sophie.

The reality is, the geeks scraped him 2nd, ahead of newbie David.

There is not a million people which use the forums to those which vote. We did infact do very well in a predictions. Your a David fan trying to make him looking better than he is, yes hes a decent guy but did not deserve to win.

[AhmedFan2004]

There is not a million people which use the forums to those which vote. We did infact do very well in a predictions. Your a David fan trying to make him looking better than he is, yes hes a decent guy but did not deserve to win.
I don't think the forums did well. Sophie got triple the amount of votes Siavash got, waaaay different to the forums.

David was 1.3% behind Siavash, yet was miiiillllleeesss behind Vash on forums.

The order of the top two just happened to be correct in the end. But that's a matter of chance really, since the order of 3rd to 5th and all the %s were way off.

David did well and yes he did deserve to win IMO.

[Jords]

There is not a million people which use the forums to those which vote. We did infact do very well in a predictions. Your a David fan trying to make him looking better than he is, yes hes a decent guy but did not deserve to win.
I don't think the forums did well. Sophie got triple the amount of votes Siavash got, waaaay different to the forums.

David was 1.3% behind Siavash, yet was miiiillllleeesss behind Vash on forums.

The order of the top two just happened to be correct in the end. But that's a matter of chance really, since the order of 3rd to 5th and all the %s were way off.

David did well and yes he did deserve to win IMO.



Its not chance at all! People have to vote to win, not toss a coin and do heads or tails! And that clearly means Siavash is more popular than David, but David is more popular that the forums rated, but our predictions were not that bad considering our low numbers compared to all those who actually vote.

Also take in cosideration, not everybody votes, not everybody votes just once. A david fan could have voted 1000s and a siavash fan didnt vote. But on forums people dont need to pay to vote.

There was a thread made stating they had placed a big bet on David and would continuosly vote for him and hopefully he would win and he would still make a lot of money, if that was true, that would have affected it.
Chances are the person made up BS, but other people might have tried this (David had the best payout so people would want to try this with David more).

[AhmedFan2004]

Its not chance at all! People have to vote to win, not toss a coin and do heads or tails! And that clearly means Siavash is more popular than David, but David is more popular that the forums rated, but our predictions were not that bad considering our low numbers compared to all those who actually vote.

Also take in cosideration, not everybody votes, not everybody votes just once. A david fan could have voted 1000s and a siavash fan didnt vote. But on forums people dont need to pay to vote.

There was a thread made stating they had placed a big bet on David and would continuosly vote for him and hopefully he would win and he would still make a lot of money, if that was true, that would have affected it.
Chances are the person made up BS, but other people might have tried this (David had the best payout so people would want to try this with David more).
My point was, if the %'s are so far out, then anything can happen; the forum doesn't know what's gonna happen, that's my point. Take Sophie out and anything can happen.

You made some good points, but I'd like to point out, there were fans of all other HMs also voting hard. There were Vash fans on DS voting plenty, naturally. And clearly Sophie fans voted hard.

I only reckon Rodrigo fans didn't try hard enough. Or split the vote with Charlie (I think that's why these two finished bottom - SPLIT VOTE).

[Shasown]

I mainly think it's because the types who use forums tend to be out of touch with society in general. This forum isn't so bad, but on DS there's loads of nerds living in their own little world.



That include yourself ahmedfan?

[Blink_Me]

Freddie would have won this thing if it was a vote to win.

[Celeb_Rehab]

Hilarious stuff really. I'm telling you, if David had been in from the start, you never know what may have happened.

Yeah ...but remember...he wouldn't have watched the show for six weeks & therefore wouldn't have known about the bullying of Freddie...so if he would have become a part of Team Nasty..would have probably gone the way of Karly & Kris....out the door!!

It's easy with hindsight!! :laugh3:

[Luanda]

Then if its only a "rough guide" you cant make the assumption that Dave was close to second, for percentages to work effectively and accurately you need actual percentages per round.

You would also need to know roughly how many voted up to the first closing of the phonelines in order to make accurate assessments, in fact the more information you have the more accurate the percentage margins will be. 0.8% doesnt sound a lot 8 in a thousand, how many thousand voted though?

Simply talking the official party guideline "Sophie had 74.4%" of the vote and working backwards is again ineffective, supposing only a couple of hundred votes were actually recorded(thats not 100 people voted, votes can and do get set aside, if the count from a particular phone number exceeds more than an average of 4 per minute as an example, based on time to get a line, dial and record the vote)


Of course he was close to 2nd, Sophie won by a landslide. Hell, 2nd to 5th was all close. The forums have been poor indicators all series. It's attracting fans of certain HMs more than others. It's a niche segment of the BB demographic; not representative.

Am not arguing the point that the forums have been poor indicators just pointing out the maths is flawed in the figures you quote.

Nor does the figures released by CH4 show where or when the landslide you refer to occur, was it throughout all the voting or simply in the last portion of voting, without accurate figures it could be sophie lost.

She may have been within the top 3 and then as other fell by the wayside she picked up some but the lines have been open days, in that time a lot of votes could have been cast.

Manipulating % is a cheap way of bringing who you want to win forward to appear to win.

I hope ch4 release total votes cast per housemate over the whole voting period.

You've missed the whole point of why the %'s are weighted.

Did you study maths at school?

[AhmedFan2004]

Well said Luanda ... I guess some people are angry with the %'s. :conf:

[chris1232]

I think Sophie had it in the bag all week.
Good too see Ahmed on :)

[Shasown]

[

Am not arguing the point that the forums have been poor indicators just pointing out the maths is flawed in the figures you quote.

Nor does the figures released by CH4 show where or when the landslide you refer to occur, was it throughout all the voting or simply in the last portion of voting, without accurate figures it could be sophie lost.

She may have been within the top 3 and then as other fell by the wayside she picked up some but the lines have been open days, in that time a lot of votes could have been cast.

Manipulating % is a cheap way of bringing who you want to win forward to appear to win.

I hope ch4 release total votes cast per housemate over the whole voting period.

You've missed the whole point of why the %'s are weighted.

Did you study maths at school?[/rquote]


Funny old thing yes I did, I dont know if you went to school but it was and is a compulsory subject on the curriculum of all UK schools.

Weighing the % is only accurate if all figures are available. And I think its is you who has missed the whole point of my posts on this thread.

If you read the thread properly you will also see the initial realeased figures were corrected after it had been pointed out that the figures for Charlie were totally inaccurate.

[Luanda]

[

Am not arguing the point that the forums have been poor indicators just pointing out the maths is flawed in the figures you quote.

Nor does the figures released by CH4 show where or when the landslide you refer to occur, was it throughout all the voting or simply in the last portion of voting, without accurate figures it could be sophie lost.

She may have been within the top 3 and then as other fell by the wayside she picked up some but the lines have been open days, in that time a lot of votes could have been cast.

Manipulating % is a cheap way of bringing who you want to win forward to appear to win.

I hope ch4 release total votes cast per housemate over the whole voting period.

You've missed the whole point of why the %'s are weighted.

Did you study maths at school?


Funny old thing yes I did, I dont know if you went to school but it was and is a compulsory subject on the curriculum of all UK schools.

Weighing the % is only accurate if all figures are available. And I think its is you who has missed the whole point of my posts on this thread.

If you read the thread properly you will also see the initial realeased figures were corrected after it had been pointed out that the figures for Charlie were totally inaccurate.[/rquote]

You may well have had maths on your curriculum but you obviously didn't go to many lessons. For a start it is weighting and not "weighing" and the whole point of weighting is to balance figures when not all the information can be condensed into a simple conclusion.

Before you embarrass yourself any further I suggest you read up on this form of mathematics before replying.

[Shasown]

You may well have had maths on your curriculum but you obviously didn't go to many lessons. For a start it is weighting and not "weighing" and the whole point of weighting is to balance figures when not all the information can be condensed into a simple conclusion.

Before you embarrass yourself any further I suggest you read up on this form of mathematics before replying.

Well i went to enough obviously to obtain one or two qualifications in various forms of mathematics.

Oh sorry for mispelling it by the way, It's not the first time people have omitted a "t" is it?

Without officially released figures to work upon the weighted figures over on OBB are simply one persons opinions of probable percentage figures.

And as I stated earlier they are worthless as an indicator of true votes, simply because you have no idea of each housemates votes received during each stage of the voting process.

[Jords]

Freddie would have won this thing if it was a vote to win.

He really would have.

Why didnt BB do a vote to save twist again when was Freddie vs Marcus. They know exactly what the outcomes would be, they are cheats, and I wouldnt be surprised if they got people to vote out Freddie because he was blantly gonna win. Then the title of winner was thrown between Siavash, Charlie, Sophie & Roddy, making it more interesting, but at the same time, upset 50%+ of the viewers, risk worth taking? Nope.
Unfortunely, Siavash lost a few fans due to not nominating, Charlie showed his true colours on a lot of occasions, and Roddy fans didnt try hard enough (most Roddy fans like Sophie as well, split vote). So Sophie would blantly win after Freddie.

Lisa and David had no chance of winning, nor did Marcus to be fair. Did find it a bet of a set up tbh. But hey, its over, just hope Soph dotn waste the dosh.

[RCW1945]

Shasown
" then I apologise."
Good, thankyou.
I support you in your argument with Luanda. His missing "t" point was silly and the rest was not just mathematically nonsense but actually seemed to be written in something other than English.
The answer to this whole discussion is quite simple: none of us have sufficient information to calculate the real %s. There also remain some problems over definitions of such quantities as "the % vote achieved by X".

[Luanda]

Shasown
" then I apologise."

I support you in your arguement with Luanda. His missing "t" point was silly and the rest was not just mathematically nonsense but actually seemed to be written in something other than English.


Very bright. I didn't make the point about the missing "t" - It was the very person whose argument you were supporting. Unfortunately you demolished that very argument by saying she had written it in something other than English.

Oh dear.

[Shasown]

Very bright. I didn't make the point about the missing "t" - It was the very person whose argument you were supporting. Unfortunately you demolished that very argument by saying she had written it in something other than English.

Oh dear.

Errr beg to differ, call me a pedantic barsteward if you will but
You may well have had maths on your curriculum but you obviously didn't go to many lessons. For a start it is weighting and not "weighing" and the whole point of weighting is to balance figures when not all the information can be condensed into a simple conclusion.

would appear to disprove your little outbust just there!

[Luanda]

You may well have had maths on your curriculum but you obviously didn't go to many lessons. For a start it is weighting and not "weighing" and the whole point of weighting is to balance figures when not all the information can be condensed into a simple conclusion.

Before you embarrass yourself any further I suggest you read up on this form of mathematics before replying.

Oh sorry for mispelling it by the way, It's not the first time people have omitted a "t" is it?


Shasown, please read the post above. You mentioned the "t".

Scotched!

[Shasown]

You may well have had maths on your curriculum but you obviously didn't go to many lessons. For a start it is weighting and not "weighing" and the whole point of weighting is to balance figures when not all the information can be condensed into a simple conclusion.

Before you embarrass yourself any further I suggest you read up on this form of mathematics before replying.

Oh sorry for mispelling it by the way, It's not the first time people have omitted a "t" is it?


Shasown, please read the post above. You mentioned the "t".

Scotched!

Good Lord indeed I did mention the "t" was missing in my post timed at 04:58pm..... in response to your post which I quoted above, that post was timed at 04:33pm was it not?

Un scotched!

[Luanda]

Your Scotched remains valid as you don't know which "t" the poster was referring to.

[RCW1945]

Luanda,at 4.33pm you said:
"For a start it is weighting and not "weighing" "
Which just reinforces my view that you do not know what you are talking about.
The underlying problem is the silly and confusing habit on this board (almost universally adopted) of feeling it is necessary to quote every stage of a discussion.
The point of quoting is to SELECT the appropriate words to which you wish to address your next contribution.

[Shasown]

Your Scotched remains valid as you don't know which "t" the poster was referring to.

Dead simple pal you lost I won.

DYLAC

[Luanda]

Your Scotched remains valid as you don't know which "t" the poster was referring to.

Dead simple pal you lost I won.

DYLAC



Your status remains as Scotched until I am told otherwise.

[Shasown]

Dream on sonny

[Vicky.]

For gods sake...Luanda

'"For a start it is weighting and not "weighing"

Resorting to correcting a typo during a debate about something like this proves that you were scared you have no point. Which you dont. Noone knows anything until the figures for each stage of the voting are released.

Turning it round to try and say Shasown was the one who was so bothered about the T, which is bolded above...in YOUR statement is just idiotic.

You have no clue, I think it is YOU who didnt study maths at school.
Until official figures are released, weighted figures mean nothing. They are just a guess.

[yousoboo!]

SOPHIE IS THE BEST WINNER EVER! :hugesmile::hugesmile::hugesmile::hugesmile::huges mile:

why? please tell me why she is the best winner?

[Dr.Gonzo]

I thought David was going to come second.

He normally does. :elephant:

[SDAS]

ANYHOO to get back to the original post, what the percentages mean is I didnt need to panic and vote for Sophie another 6 times, she was winning anyway BUGGER

[karezza]

David got 19% of the vote according to teletext.

[alan1965]

who gives a feck big bro fixed it once again.74.4%.dont think so ken won 50 thou. how much did big bro win from paddy power.hundreds of thousands.do this every year.big bro 11 should stop all the phone ins.the votes should be done by pressing the red button on your t.v remote at a fixed rate say 15p a pop.we should then see exactly what perecnt these wanna bes get so they can be evicted fair and square.come on endemol.do somthing about this fixed show.just read in paper other h/m/s lines were closed.anyone else see this.

[RCW1945]

VickyJ
How can you be so erudite and perceptive (and right) at 9.20 am. Amazing!

[aborigenie]

Then if its only a "rough guide" you cant make the assumption that Dave was close to second, for percentages to work effectively and accurately you need actual percentages per round.

You would also need to know roughly how many voted up to the first closing of the phonelines in order to make accurate assessments, in fact the more information you have the more accurate the percentage margins will be. 0.8% doesnt sound a lot 8 in a thousand, how many thousand voted though?

Simply talking the official party guideline "Sophie had 74.4%" of the vote and working backwards is again ineffective, supposing only a couple of hundred votes were actually recorded(thats not 100 people voted, votes can and do get set aside, if the count from a particular phone number exceeds more than an average of 4 per minute as an example, based on time to get a line, dial and record the vote)


Of course he was close to 2nd, Sophie won by a landslide. Hell, 2nd to 5th was all close. The forums have been poor indicators all series. It's attracting fans of certain HMs more than others. It's a niche segment of the BB demographic; not representative.

Am not arguing the point that the forums have been poor indicators just pointing out the maths is flawed in the figures you quote.

Nor does the figures released by CH4 show where or when the landslide you refer to occur, was it throughout all the voting or simply in the last portion of voting, without accurate figures it could be sophie lost.

She may have been within the top 3 and then as other fell by the wayside she picked up some but the lines have been open days, in that time a lot of votes could have been cast.

Manipulating % is a cheap way of bringing who you want to win forward to appear to win.

I hope ch4 release total votes cast per housemate over the whole voting period.


Dude , I understand your point about the importance of # of Votes by each leg.

When all 5 were up
When only 4 remained
When only 3 remained
When only 2 remained

to get a clear picture ...

But the fact that Siavash remained till the last leg where only two remained and still only managed to get 14.7 percent of all votes actually tell a story that he was just so lucky.
It means that if we count the votes when only three remained the percent between David and Siavash would have been even tighter because some Siavash votes surely would have come in the last leg (between Sophie & Siavash) when David wasnt even an option.
If by chance David had survived the 3rd eviction - i am sure he would have eneded up at a higher percent than what Siavash
eneded up.

Whichever way you look at it - Sivash lost by a landslide to Sophie ,,,, ppl simply didntlike the guy !! Accept the fact,,,

Its surely a miracle that he stood second ,,,

If Freddie , Marcus had remained for Finals then it would have been even worse ,,, because he was saved embarrassment only by the freddie-Marcus Muskeeter votes ,,,

[Vicky.]

However aborigenie...Siavash could have been beating the other 3 by a LOT and a huge surge of votes came in at the end for Sophie. So we know nothing until the figures for each stage of the voting are released.

Not saying this happened, but for all we know it could have.

And we dont KNOW that he got 14% of the vote all together, thes are weighted estimates...he got like 26% of the vote between him and sophie. If loads of votes came in near the end, then the weighted figures are very inaccurate.

[Shasown]

Similarly if there was a lot of votes cast in the first three days and voting tailed off during the evening. Sophie could technically have won by only handful of votes. The percentage can only accurately reflect the voteoff between Siavash and Sophie, and as we have no idea of any other figures we cant draw any conclusions from them.

CH4/Endemol havent released any figures except for the percentages, therefore assumptions that Sophie won by a landslide are simply based on what very limited information we have. In other words someones, estimate. But so long as they add up to 100% or close to it hey who cares eh?

It is even possible if you think about it, that CH4/Endemol massaged the votes to reflect Sophie as the more worthy winner in the eyes of the public. So long as the way the votes counted and any discarded votes were agreed with the Independent verifier. It wouldnt be the first time statisticians played with figures to reflect what they wish to show.

Going back to the way the figures were weighted as they show the overall % of the votes cast surely because vote counting for Rodrigo and Charlie stopped at the first checkpoint, they couldnt grow as the other three H/M votes did so when weighting the figure their actual received % would be reduced as part of the total 100 %.

Weighted figures can only effectively show voting trends provided voting is at a constant rate and isnt sporadic during the various stages.

To say the figures are Official is a very misleading as the only Official figures released were the percentages. BBO is not an official site, the only official site is the one contained within the CH4 homesite.

[Luanda]

Why can people not understand the concept of weighting?

[Shasown]

Its the use of a multiplier to be used across a range to indicate the relative importance of each individual quantity's contribution to the final sums.

As two of the initial figures havent changed, the multiplier wasnt consistantly used across the range, therefore all figures are inaccurate because if the two figures for Rodders and Charlie werent adjusted all further adjustments are invalid.

[Luanda]

Its the use of a multiplier to be used across a range to indicate the relative importance of each individual quantity's contribution to the final sums.

As some of the figures havent changed, the multiplier wasnt consistantly used across the range, therefore all figures are inaccurate because if the two figures for Rodders and Charlie werent adjusted all further adjustments are invalid.

You've been on Google again, Shasown.

Still doesn't explain how a weight can be applied.

"t"

[Beastie]

Does anyone know how many people actually voted for the final 5.. were a million votes cast all together? more less? anyone know? lol

[Vicky.]

Does anyone know how many people actually voted for the final 5.. were a million votes cast all together? more less? anyone know? lol

I dont know, but i wouldnt think it will be anywhere near a million.

[Shasown]

Didn't need to use google, but I tell you what will bow to your obvious superior Knowledge (not) if you can show me a page with words or wording like that. Go on bet you can't!

With the figures that were given you would also need other figures to work from in order to produce an effective series of weighted figures. Like the total number of votes cast and at least one of the two inital figues cast for either 5th or 4th place or the total figure of votes cast at the time of the first count, this would then allow a multiplier(thats technically incorrect as in even the best possible case with all figures freely available it would be a variable to be applied to the given % figures for each stage)

In the particular case of the figures released on BBO it would appear the "weight" was what the poster thought just so long as the numbers added up to about 100.

[Luanda]

Didn't need to use google, but I tell you what will bow to your obvious superior Knowledge (not) if you can show me a page with words or wording like that. Go on bet you can't!

With the figures that were given you would also need other figures to work from in order to produce an effective series of weighted figures. Like the total number of votes cast and at least one of the two inital figues cast for either 5th or 4th place or the total figure of votes cast at the time of the first count, this would then allow a multiplier(thats technically incorrect as in even the best possible case with all figures freely available it would be a variable to be applied to the given % figures for each stage)

In the particular case of the figures released on BBO it would appear the "weight" was what the poster thought just so long as the numbers added up to about 100.

You failed to mention time restrictions which are the main constituent in this equation. Obviously some voting lines closed before others and that is the reason for the weightings.

Scotched.

[setanta]

Sorry for breaking up your argument here, but when will we see the official voting figures?

[Luanda]

Sorry for breaking up your argument here, but when will we see the official voting figures?

It's probable Channel 4 will not release the figures, this is what they did for BB6.

[Shasown]

Didn't need to use google, but I tell you what will bow to your obvious superior Knowledge (not) if you can show me a page with words or wording like that. Go on bet you can't!

With the figures that were given you would also need other figures to work from in order to produce an effective series of weighted figures. Like the total number of votes cast and at least one of the two inital figues cast for either 5th or 4th place or the total figure of votes cast at the time of the first count, this would then allow a multiplier(thats technically incorrect as in even the best possible case with all figures freely available it would be a variable to be applied to the given % figures for each stage)

In the particular case of the figures released on BBO it would appear the "weight" was what the poster thought just so long as the numbers added up to about 100.

You failed to mention time restrictions which are the main constituent in this equation. Obviously some voting lines closed before others and that is the reason for the weightings.

Scotched.

Time restrictions dont need to be taken into account in the equation for cumulative totals and contributory comparisons, , they are the reason for adjusting the percentages. Dullard.

Still waiting for proof of your accusation about using google!

[Luanda]

Didn't need to use google, but I tell you what will bow to your obvious superior Knowledge (not) if you can show me a page with words or wording like that. Go on bet you can't!

With the figures that were given you would also need other figures to work from in order to produce an effective series of weighted figures. Like the total number of votes cast and at least one of the two inital figues cast for either 5th or 4th place or the total figure of votes cast at the time of the first count, this would then allow a multiplier(thats technically incorrect as in even the best possible case with all figures freely available it would be a variable to be applied to the given % figures for each stage)

In the particular case of the figures released on BBO it would appear the "weight" was what the poster thought just so long as the numbers added up to about 100.

You failed to mention time restrictions which are the main constituent in this equation. Obviously some voting lines closed before others and that is the reason for the weightings.

Scotched.

Time restrictions dont need to be taken into account in the equation for cumulative totals and contributory comparisons, , they are the reason for adjusting the percentages. Dullard.

We have to disagree there, Shasown, as I think it is blindingly obvious that the weighting is necessary only because of time restrictions, there is no reason whatsoever to weight the total votes cast as they are constants.

By the way;

,,

[Shasown]

[
We have to disagree there, Shasown, as I think it is blindingly obvious that the weighting is necessary only because of time restrictions, there is no reason whatsoever to weight the total votes cast as they are constants.

By the way;

,,

The weighting is an adjustment applied to all figures given in order to see the relative effects to the combined total. It is indeed applied because of the fact that voting lines were closed at differing times.

However time is not taken into the account unless you were wanting to produce statistics showing voting trends over time. In this instance it isnt what we want to produce.

What the adjustments were for this time is to show the true percentages of each housemate against a given total number of votes. Because the total number of votes is an unknown and because the total votes cast per housemates are unknown the weighted figures given cannot be established with any accuracy.

Of course you dont weight the total votes cast because it is a constant, similarly you dont adjust the number of votes each housemate received, it is the percentages that do vary because they were taken at differing times. But time is not a factor in the equation. It is the reason for the equation.

[bigbrothermad123]

Sophie got 74.4% acctuly.

[Shasown]

Sophie got 74.4% acctuly.

Of the allowed votes of the final stage only.

[RCW1945]

I am not sure exactly what figures you are both seeking. I am also not sure whether "weighting" is the correct process here.
Let's go to basics: (using Charlie as an example)
Do you want to know: a = (the total of Charlie's vote/total vote at first closure) x 100%
or b = (the total of Charlie's vote/total vote at Sia's exit) x 100%
b cannot be calculated from our present information.
a was given by BB.

[Luanda]

I am not sure exactly what figures you are both seeking. I am also not sure whether "weighting" is the correct process here.
Let's go to basics: (using Charlie as an example)
Do you want to know: a = (the total of Charlie's vote/total vote at first closure) x 100%
or b = (the total of Charlie's vote/total vote at Sia's exit) x 100%
b cannot be calculated from our present information.
a was given by BB.


Weight needs to be given to the figures as the lines closed for different housemates at different times. Therefore the true percentage vote for each housemate needs to be weighted appropriately considering the number of votes cast and the amount of time viewers had to vote. The majority of the votes are made during the show.

Time is very important when calculating the percentages regardless of what others may say.

[RCW1945]

I think you are using the term "weight" in a rather vague and non-mathematical way.
I think you mean that for each % calculation the denominator will be different because the total is increasing throughout the process. This is not what "weighting" usually means in maths although I suppose you could use it in everyday speech, rather in the way we say "weigh your words carefully."
I'm afraid Shasown is right that time is irrelevant. The rate at which the vote total rises is not proportional to the elapsed time.
If a HM receives 10,000 votes in 20 minutes (say) it is no different to their receiving 10,000 votes in 40 minutes.

[Penelope]

Of the allowed votes of the final stage only.
I don't think they discard votes once the lines re-open.

Surely every vote must count towards the total ... otherwise they would be in massive bother. HMs with less votes cast in total, could end up winning by having a good 30 min run. Would be ridiculous.

Unless you believe they fix it and discard votes if need be, which surely would be very sneaky and outlandish on their part.

Of course, with multiple voting, it's prone to fiddling and fixing by people anyway. HMs can end up winning or being evicted, kinda wrongly; not by having the most fans per se.

Not a good system, multiple voting. A fair, accurate public vote should have 1 vote per person. Fair and simple.

[RCW1945]

I see your point Penelope.
I think "allowed votes of the final stage" was intended to mean all votes up to the final eviction (Sia).

[Luanda]

Of the allowed votes of the final stage only.
I don't think they discard votes once the lines re-open.

Surely every vote must count towards the total ... otherwise they would be in massive bother. HMs with less votes cast in total, could end up winning by having a good 30 min run. Would be ridiculous.

Unless you believe they fix it and discard votes if need be, which surely would be very sneaky and outlandish on their part.

Of course, with multiple voting, it's prone to fiddling and fixing by people anyway. HMs can end up winning or being evicted, kinda wrongly; not by having the most fans per se.

Not a good system, multiple voting. A fair, accurate public vote should have 1 vote per person. Fair and simple.

This is why the viewers are informed when the lines close. Viewers can still vote after the lines have closed but those votes cannot be counted. The differing times that lines close is the reason the percentages have to be weighted. It is immaterial how many times people voted.

[RCW1945]

Penelope
you have made me think further about this issue.
The 74-26 figures, are they:
a) of the votes cast after David left?
OR b) of the total from Tuesday to Friday minus the individual totals for R,C and D?
OR c) of the total from Tuesday to Friday?

[Luanda]

Penelope
you have made me think further about this issue.
The 74-26 figures, are they:
a) of the votes cast after David left?
OR b) of the total from Tuesday to Friday minus the individual totals for R,C and D?
OR c) of the total from Tuesday to Friday?

It is immaterial if the numbers have been weighted correctly.

[Vicky.]

It is immaterial if the numbers have been weighted correctly.

They cant be weighted correctly without more information.

The weighted figures there are nothing but estimates.

[MassiveTruck]

So what are you trying to say? In about 10 minutes, Siavash would have got over 50% of the share to win the show?

Or that David would not have got the 1 to 2% required to beat Siavash?

If you wish to give precedence to Siavash, then objectively, you must give the same precedence to all other contestants vis a vis... you are saying that Siavash was in a position to come last; if you are saying that time constraints can be an issue...

Therefore, logically, Siavash could have come dead last and by the logic of time constraints, Rodrigo could have won as well...

Although if we look at it practically in respect for weighting, in consideration of the time constraints then we can assume with the percentages we already have when David, Charlie and Rodrigo went then, it was a close battle from 2nd to 4th...

further to this and considering the discussion of timing and also in respect of previous evictions and the change in nature from voters, where Freddie was once a favourite etc... we can assume, considering the argument for time constraints and also the argument in relation to factual data of percentages that we have, Siavash's popularity was bombing very very fast. Therefore, with all respect to the data and the analysis given by all posters in relation to a logical appreciation of all opinions... Siavash was least popular in the final.

Therefore... we can view this as a split of votes between, Charlie, Rodrigo, David and Sophie - Sophie being a continual fave where by others were split further.

Therefore, the end analysis is Siavash was very close to coming last but his association with Marcus (who he betrayed) and Freddie (who Marcus and Siavash betrayed) gave him second place but based upon all views... it was only just.

[Vicky.]

Load of b*****s massivetruck and you know it.

You would try to put a spin on anything to make siavash look worse :rolleyes:

If he was the least popular, he would not have come 2nd would he? Regardless of the split vote, that could be used to explain roddy and charlie getting 5th and 4th place...but if siavash was indeed the least popular, then david would have made 2nd, not siavash.

He was popular, not as popular as before all the no nominating crap, but he was still popular.

Some people just seem unable to accept that.

[Vicky.]

So what are you trying to say? In about 10 minutes, Siavash would have got over 50% of the share to win the show?


Plus, noone said that.

All we are saying is that the weighted figures are inaccurate, since they do not have all of the information.

If they knew the vote counts at each stage of line closure, then it would be accurate, as it is, it is nothing more than an educated guess.

[MassiveTruck]

So what are you trying to say? In about 10 minutes, Siavash would have got over 50% of the share to win the show?


Plus, noone said that.

All we are saying is that the weighted figures are inaccurate, since they do not have all of the information.

If they knew the vote counts at each stage of line closure, then it would be accurate, as it is, it is nothing more than an educated guess.

But by the information you are saying that is missing, you can apply that to any housemate, yes? This is what I am saying, by your own logic, Siavash can come dead last as well... Siavash should have done better but considering the figures we do know (3 votes for Sophie to Siavash's 1) and compare this to the popularity we have seen in the past... based upon your own reasoning why the weighting is missing information and regarding what information that is missing...

apply this to comparitive we give to other housemates and the share involved...

Therefore Siavash was going to come dead last.

And don't say it's bullshit.

Do not try to state that I will say anything to put Siavash in a bad light (he put himself in this situation, he broke rules, he betrayed people, he continuously lied - if you have a problem, talk to him - I am basing thins on HIS actions - therefore you have a problem with him - he shouldn't have behaved like he had).

Basically speaking, when all is said and done, if you wish to state good things about Siavash and wish to justify his behaviour and the results - be prepared to have that justification and that behaviour compared to others.

He failed, badly and is a mockery on the internet as you have seen.

THat isn't our fault - that's his. Go and tell him to sort things out. We're just commenting on him

[Luanda]

MassiveTruck you have understood the arguments very well. What some people can't grasp is the concept of voting under different conditions. As an example, a viewer votes for David to win and he is evicted. That viewer may well vote for their second favourite housemate. Additionally if one housemate gains 16% of the vote and then is evicted the vote still continues. Therefore the percentage that housemate has (16%) will reduce as a total percentage of the vote as the lines remain open. That is why the figures have to be weighted.

[MassiveTruck]

Load of b*****s massivetruck and you know it.

You would try to put a spin on anything to make siavash look worse :rolleyes:

If he was the least popular, he would not have come 2nd would he? Regardless of the split vote, that could be used to explain roddy and charlie getting 5th and 4th place...but if siavash was indeed the least popular, then david would have made 2nd, not siavash.

He was popular, not as popular as before all the no nominating crap, but he was still popular.

Some people just seem unable to accept that.


It is not bullshit

I have every known right to have an opinion and save your tongue before you decide to jump on somebody because you are on a mission to attack people like this.

I have justified what I have said. I have based it upon what Siavash fans have stated as reasoning...

Consider your reasoning because it can be criticised and you have personally, by your own justification put him in this position.

If you have a problem with what I say - blame Siavash, he behaved like this... he got himself in a 3-1 position. David came last...

You're trying to assume that a massive percentage of votes would have come in in the final 10 minutes.

Now, are you going to seriously lead us to believe that this has got nothing to do with bias and favouritism towards Siavash? It's all over the forum.

Remember, he behaved like this. He did. If you have a problem and any ounce of objectivity - ask him these questions. Not us.

It's ridiculous to attack us for doing this. Maddening.

[Vicky.]

It is bulls**t.

Basically you have seen a thread where it is possible to have another go at a housemate you seem to feel irrational hatred for, and come in and try to twist everything.

Even if the weighted figures are inaccurate, no way could siavash have come last. He could be closer to third than we think, maybe further away than we think, but he could not have been last. Get it?

Im not bothering to explain it because you know damn well i am right and you appear to be just trying to wind people up again.

I know you are just commenting on him, but now, your tirade is way off topic from what the thread is about. Give it a rest.

[MassiveTruck]

MassiveTruck you have understood the arguments very well. What some people can't grasp is the concept of voting under different conditions. As an example, a viewer votes for David to win and he is evicted. That viewer may well vote for their second favourite housemate. Additionally if one housemate gains 16% of the vote and then is evicted the vote still continues. Therefore the percentage that housemate has (16%) will reduce as a total percentage of the vote as the lines remain open. That is why the figures have to be weighted.

By that same token, the reasoning given in that light can go to Siavash as well.

By that same token, we have to accept the reasoning behind someone switching to Sophie - it can be

a) they like Sophie
b) they dislike Siavash

It can work both ways.

When this is balanced, either way, as much as there can be reasoning that Siavash can get more - there is reasoning Sophie can get more, Rodrigo and Charlie can too...

So at best we've just got the figures to go upon and also the reasons why.

He did this to himself. We are here discussing it because he did this to himself.

David didn't break rules and betray people and neither did the others to the amplification Siavash did... He is the reason this is occurring and if anybody has a problem then why are users on a forum the problem? This is an opinion based upon factual representation of the scenarios we have been given - you can go to Siavash then and ask him why he behaved like that.

We have not got a straight answer from him yet. Some could accept his answer but the figures can't lie and any twisting of reasoning would lead us back to what figures we have...

....

another way of looking at it is, say if Charlie went first - could Siavash have lost if votes went to Rodrigo?

Rodrigo went first - did any votes then go to Siavash - was he in 4th place?

Then we would have to see his association, his behaviour too...

It works in many different ways.

[MassiveTruck]

It is bulls**t.

Basically you have seen a thread where it is possible to have another go at a housemate you seem to feel irrational hatred for, and come in and try to twist everything.

Even if the weighted figures are inaccurate, no way could siavash have come last. He could be closer to third than we think, maybe further away than we think, but he could not have been last. Get it?

Im not bothering to explain it because you know damn well i am right and you appear to be just trying to wind people up again.

I know you are just commenting on him, but now, your tirade is way off topic from what the thread is about. Give it a rest.

Nope no wind up. You've seen the figures. You've done the analysis

I have explained myself clearly but you have a kneejerk reaction to this and are getting aggressive and angry for no reason whatsoever.

If you cannot accept opinion, maybe you are in the wrong place.

I have accepted yours - you have to accept people will address the opinion as well.

[Vicky.]

MT we are not discussing Siavash in general. Just how the weighted figures are, or could be inaccurate.

Noone is disputing the placements, yes it could have all been extremely close, and its likely it was, but that is what we are talking about. Not WHY siavash lost support, not the votes being split or anything like that.

[MassiveTruck]

MT we are not discussing Siavash in general. Just how the weighted figures are inaccurate.

Noone is disputing the placements, yes it could have all been extremely close, and its likely it was, but that is what we are talking about. Not WHY siavash lost support, not the votes being split or anything like that.

But that plays into consideration when addressing things based upon the time constraints and where voting patterns would have gone and why.

So we will be ending up with his actions and how the reaction would be.

[Vicky.]

MT we are not discussing Siavash in general. Just how the weighted figures are inaccurate.

Noone is disputing the placements, yes it could have all been extremely close, and its likely it was, but that is what we are talking about. Not WHY siavash lost support, not the votes being split or anything like that.

But that plays into consideration when addressing things based upon the time constraints and where voting patterns would have gone and why.

So we will be ending up with his actions and how the reaction would be.

No that is nothing at all to do with the discussion.

Give me strength. Nice try at twisting things again though.

We are discussing HOW the weighted figured could be wrong, because the dont have sufficient information

The only other info we would need is the vote count at each stage of line closure. Nothing to do with any housemates behaviour.

[Tom]

Simply put without all the arguing, the weighted figures might be wrong because of housemates getting a bigger ratio of votes than others. It could be that when the lines were frozen for 5th and 4th place the percentages were

Rodrigo- 11%
Charlie-13.2%
David- 17%
Siavash- 20%
Sophie- 39.8%

Then when the lines reopened, Sophie could have gained more votes pushing her further into the lead, so Siavash's and David's percentages dropped

[MassiveTruck]

Simply put without all the arguing, the weighted figures might be wrong because of housemates getting a bigger ratio of votes than others. It could be that when the lines were frozen for 5th and 4th place the percentages were

Rodrigo- 11%
Charlie-13.2%
David- 17%
Siavash- 20%
Sophie- 39.8%

Then when the lines reopened, Sophie could have gained more votes pushing her further into the lead, so Siavash's and David's percentages dropped




Or David could have been in Second, losing votes when Rodrigo and Charlie went and went into Third...

Siavash could have been in fourth, gaining votes with the outcomes of previous evictees...

Works all ways...

That is by this logic... if you want to look at the view properly, without any doubt. We have to measure where the votes for each housemate would have gone and why?

I would say, not many people would give David or Charlie votes. The diminishing votes were down to Siavash and Sophie.

Then again, as housemates disappear the power of a more fanatical housemate gets stronger, their percentage rises as their votes begin to count more and more... Siavash would have gained Marcus' and Freddie's fans...

then we have to consider some people may not care for Marcus, Siavash, Freddie - in the real world and only voted in the final (how many times have we read that on the forums) so the die hard voting in 10s of pounds or even 100s of pounds, don't mean squat other than pushing the fave of a fanatical fans housemate only to 2nd at least.

So... as I have said, all we have here is what data we have because what is given in reasoning for one housemate, can be given for another too.

[Luanda]

Then when the lines reopened, Sophie could have gained more votes pushing her further into the lead, so Siavash's and David's percentages dropped



Exactly right, Tom.

The percentages would then be adjusted for this reason - this is adding weight to the percentages. As the percentages were reduced using the raw data then weight would be added to these in order to give a true reflection of the final figure.

[MassiveTruck]

MT we are not discussing Siavash in general. Just how the weighted figures are inaccurate.

Noone is disputing the placements, yes it could have all been extremely close, and its likely it was, but that is what we are talking about. Not WHY siavash lost support, not the votes being split or anything like that.

But that plays into consideration when addressing things based upon the time constraints and where voting patterns would have gone and why.

So we will be ending up with his actions and how the reaction would be.

No that is nothing at all to do with the discussion.

Give me strength. Nice try at twisting things again though.

We are discussing HOW the weighted figured could be wrong, because the dont have sufficient information

The only other info we would need is the vote count at each stage of line closure. Nothing to do with any housemates behaviour.

For God's sake man!!!!!

Here's a clue? Are Siavash fans trolls? Are they winding up people by supporting him?

If you are saying that people who dislike Siavash are winding people up - are Siavash fans doing the same.

Listen up and listen clearly! if you want to go down this route by over analysing weighting that has been given you have to question which direction and WHY the weighting goes that way? Yes?

SO you will assess why a housemate will get more and why they may not get more? YES?

Therefore behaviour in the house is a factor? YES?

It's very easy if you aren't so blinkered and are agitated by the simplest thing!!

[Tom]

Simply put without all the arguing, the weighted figures might be wrong because of housemates getting a bigger ratio of votes than others. It could be that when the lines were frozen for 5th and 4th place the percentages were

Rodrigo- 11%
Charlie-13.2%
David- 17%
Siavash- 20%
Sophie- 39.8%

Then when the lines reopened, Sophie could have gained more votes pushing her further into the lead, so Siavash's and David's percentages dropped




Or David could have been in Second, losing votes when Rodrigo and Charlie went and went into Third...

Siavash could have been in fourth, gaining votes with the outcomes of previous evictees...

Works all ways...

That is by this logic... if you want to look at the view properly, without any doubt. We have to measure where the votes for each housemate would have gone and why?

I would say, not many people would give David or Charlie votes. The diminishing votes were down to Siavash and Sophie.

Then again, as housemates disappear the power of a more fanatical housemate gets stronger, their percentage rises as their votes begin to count more and more... Siavash would have gained Marcus' and Freddie's fans...

then we have to consider some people may not care for Marcus, Siavash, Freddie - in the real world and only voted in the final (how many times have we read that on the forums) so the die hard voting in 10s of pounds or even 100s of pounds, don't mean squat other than pushing the fave of a fanatical fans housemate only to 2nd at least.

So... as I have said, all we have here is what data we have because what is given in reasoning for one housemate, can be given for another too.

That was just a simplistic view to get the point across, for all we know Sophie could have been in third place then had a massive surge of votes. They don't have sufficient info so I think its stupid for BBO to release this as official. All they've done is worked out a percentage of a percentage.

[Vicky.]

Here's a clue? Are Siavash fans trolls? Are they winding up people by supporting him?

If you are saying that people who dislike Siavash are winding people up - are Siavash fans doing the same.


No, I have no problem if people dont like him...he wasnt anywhere near my favourite housemate anyway. but its extremely annoying when people only ever seem to post about one housemate, turning everything round to make them look bad, criticising everything they do, how they dress, the fact that they breathe etc.

And this thread was nothing to do with the HMs behaviours at all, but yet again, you have to bring it up.

I dont know of any other anti-any housemate poster who is as obsessive as you.

Siavash fans do not go into every thread to do with other housemates and turn it round to be about siavash and how wonderful he is or anything. But certain anti-S people feel the need to bleat on about how he is practically the devil in every thread, even when it has nothing at all to do with his behaviours or anything...funny that isnt it?

[setanta]

You're all getting your knickers in a twist over nothing really. The weighted figures can never be perfect obviously but it's certainly a good rough guide as to the ratio of votes per housemate. Of course it's not going to show us the voting pattern throughout the night though, which is what I'm really interested in seeing.

My own theory is that Siavash got second because of some misguided loyalty from Freddie and Marcus fans, but once it came down to Siavash vs Sophie the audience would literally vote for anyone other than Siavash to win. It was a wake up call for people to pick up their phones and vote for Sophie. I'm sure she already had it won, but it would be really interesting to see how the votes were cast in that last half hour.

[Vicky.]

My own theory is that Siavash got second because of some misguided loyalty from Freddie and Marcus fans, but once it came down to Siavash vs Sophie the audience would literally vote for anyone other than Siavash to win. It was a wake up call for people to pick up their phones and vote for Sophie. I'm sure she already had it won, but it would be really interesting to see how the votes were cast in that last half hour.

Yes would be very interesting.

I think Sophie had a large lead from the start to be honest, but I would expect once it was just her and Siavash left, she got a LOT more votes then. She was a neutral really, and whilst siavash had fans, he also had a lot of people who would rather see anyone win but him, even if the final two had been siavash and david...david would have got a huge surge of votes at the end.

I think anyway.

I personally think David got 3rd place, because of his odds to win. A few people got him at 100/1 the day before, and voted like crazy. 3rd place would have been charlies, had the bookies not offered odds like that. And, if charlie or roddy had been in the last three...its entirely possible that siavash would have got 3rd instead of second. David just didnt have enough fans to do it. Had it been anyone else in the top 3, I think theres a possibility that Siavash would not have made second.

[Penelope]

They should have just kept the lines open for all HMs until 10pm, then closed them and did the vote count. This lines re-opening is BS.

Also there should only be 1 vote per person, since it's clear that Big Brother results can be fixed by multiple voting.

[Luanda]

They should have just kept the lines open for all HMs until 10pm, then closed them and did the vote count. This lines re-opening is BS.

Also there should only be 1 vote per person, since it's clear that Big Brother results can be fixed by multiple voting.

If you keep all the lines open even after various housemates have been evicted then you are running a scam. Think about it.

Multiple voting has very little bearing on the result as they will eventually cancel each other out.

Example : Mrs A votes 30 times for Siavash. Mr B votes 30 times for David and so on.

[Penelope]

If you keep all the lines open even after various housemates have been evicted then you are running a scam. Think about it.
No, just keep the lines open till 10pm, close them, then evict the HMs one by one. 5th, 4th, etc. Not doing an interview, then re-open, wait, another interview, etc. Also gives people time to cast their votes. People had hardly any time to cast their votes, 15 mins into the Live Show then wham, closed.

Multiple voting has very little bearing on the result as they will eventually cancel each other out.

Example : Mrs A votes 30 times for Siavash. Mr B votes 30 times for David and so on.
No, it depends on the fan base, and who a particular HM appeals to. Whilst your idea is nice in theory, it's still very vulnerable. A person who is popular with the casual viewer but less so with hardcore multiple voters, will get less votes than their actual popularity would suggest. There are weirdos and fanatics voting LOADS of times to try and fix results, forums are obviously a place to organise this. Slowly and slowly, as voting figures dwindle, results are being swayed by fanatics and hardcore multiple voters; often in differing view to the general public, who vote much less.

[Penelope]

My own theory is that Siavash got second because of some misguided loyalty from Freddie and Marcus fans, but once it came down to Siavash vs Sophie the audience would literally vote for anyone other than Siavash to win. It was a wake up call for people to pick up their phones and vote for Sophie. I'm sure she already had it won, but it would be really interesting to see how the votes were cast in that last half hour.
I think it's because Siavash fans are a relatively small bunch who vote very hard and abuse the multiple voting system. He doesn't appear to be that popular with the general public. Although I will say, Siavash was more popular with the general public than Freddy/Marcus.

Forums, often with viewpoints that differ to the casual viewer, are having a larger and larger impact to results with hardcore multiple voting, especially as total voting numbers dwindle. I think this disparity is also causing many casual viewers to switch off.

The voting system needs changing, else you can have a group of fanatics voting 100's of times each. Rachel Rice fans are an example of this.

[Luanda]

My own theory is that Siavash got second because of some misguided loyalty from Freddie and Marcus fans, but once it came down to Siavash vs Sophie the audience would literally vote for anyone other than Siavash to win. It was a wake up call for people to pick up their phones and vote for Sophie. I'm sure she already had it won, but it would be really interesting to see how the votes were cast in that last half hour.
I think it's because the Siavash fans are a relatively small bunch who vote very hard and abuse the multiple voting system that BB have. He doesn't appear to be that popular with the general public. Although I will say, that Siavash was infact more popular with the general public than Freddy/Marcus a few weeks back.

Forums, often with viewpoints that differ to the casual viewer, are having a larger and larger impact to results with hardcore multiple voting. I think this disparity is also causing many casual viewers to switch off.

I think the voting system needs changing, or else you can just have a group of fanatics voting 100's of times each. Rachel Rice fans are the best example of this.

I think you are making too many assumptions there, Penelope. Voting by indiviuals numerous times will not markedly alter the outcome.

[RCW1945]

I wish one of you "weight-watchers" would explain exactly what you mean by the term, preferably with an algebraic example.
And would Tom explain what he means when he, so easily, dismisses the BBO figures (which I agree are questionable) as a percentage of a percentage. Give an example, please.
And can we decide whether this thread is about mathematics or emotional cod psychology.

[Penelope]

I think you are making too many assumptions there, Penelope. Voting by indiviuals numerous times will not markedly alter the outcome.
It does when voting numbers are dwindling, a relatively small number of fanatics then have the power to have a bigger say in the result, even if there are FAR more casual viewers who disagree with their often 'alternative' ways of thinking.

Your theory about it being OK, only holds when millions of votes were cast - Which is no longer the case.

This is actually very bad for the show, because you then have casual viewers losing interest when results end up contrary to what they wanted. Although they should be voting rather than sitting there just watching, but alas ...

Rachel's win - I don't believe she would have won without multiple voting
Ulrika's win - I don't believe she would have won without multiple voting
Rachel vs Stuart - Close Call without multiple voting IMO
Siavash's 2nd - Fanatics/Weirdos on forums multiple voting hard scraped him 2nd rather than 4th/5th IMO.
Freddy's eviction - I think Marcus fans, from what I gathered and read, voted harder than Freddy fans.

But as you can see, if one fan set is more fanatical and prepared to blow cash, or if a HM appears more to a casual viewer, then results can be swung.

BB need to fix this, or else more bizarre results will continue, contrary to general public opinion, and that will cause more viwers to switch off. If they haven't already.

[Luanda]

I wish one of you "weight-watchers" would explain exactly what you mean by the term, preferably with an algebraic example.
And would Tom explain what he means when he, so easily, dismisses the BBO figures (which I agree are questionable) as a percentage of a percentage. Give an example, please.
And can we decide whether this thread is about mathematics or emotional cod psychology.

Weighting is used when raw data needs to be adjusted to take into account differing conditions.

A very simple example is below showing how weight is applied to data when seeking an average.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Basic-Math-657/Weighted-avgs-basis-different.htm

[Vicky.]

If they change it to one vote per person, yes it would be fairer, but wouldnt make them as much money.

I dont think they care about fairness...only how much they make. At the end of the day, thats their primary target isnt it? To make as much as possible.

[Penelope]

I wish one of you "weight-watchers" would explain exactly what you mean by the term, preferably with an algebraic example.
And would Tom explain what he means when he, so easily, dismisses the BBO figures (which I agree are questionable) as a percentage of a percentage. Give an example, please.
And can we decide whether this thread is about mathematics or emotional cod psychology.
The weighting assumes a constant rate of voting in each interval for the respective HMs, it doesn't account for things like 'Maybe Sophie got a big surge of votes in the last half hour', etc. So her % may have been worse earlier in the show, etc.

[Luanda]

I think you are making too many assumptions there, Penelope. Voting by indiviuals numerous times will not markedly alter the outcome.
It does when voting numbers are dwindling, a relatively small number of fanatics then have the power to have a bigger say in the result, even if there are FAR more casual viewers who disagree with their often 'alternative' ways of thinking.

Your theory about it being OK, only holds when millions of votes were cast - Which is no longer the case.

This is actually very bad for the show, because you then have casual viewers losing interest when results end up contrary to what they wanted. Although they should be voting rather than sitting there just watching, but alas ...

Rachel's win - I don't believe she would have won without multiple voting
Ulrika's win - I don't believe she would have won without multiple voting
Rachel vs Stuart - Close Call without multiple voting IMO
Siavash's 2nd - Fanatics/Weirdos on forums multiple voting hard scraped him 2nd rather than 4th/5th IMO.
Freddy's eviction - I think Marcus fans, from what I gathered and read, voted harder than Freddy fans.

But as you can see, if one fan set is more fanatical and prepared to blow cash, or if a HM appears more to a casual viewer, then results can be swung.

BB need to fix this, or else more bizarre results will continue, contrary to general public opinion, and that will cause more viwers to switch off. If they haven't already.

I can see your point but for your assumptions to be correct then multiple voting would only take place for the winners and not for other housemates. Multiple voting would happen across the board and would most likely be cancelled out. Also, fans for a certain housemate would have to pool their resources for doing this. No such orgaisation exists apart from clowns on discussion boards making posts stating, Get XYZ Out!!!

[Penelope]

If they change it to one vote per person, yes it would be fairer, but wouldnt make them as much money.

I dont think they care about fairness...only how much they make. At the end of the day, thats their primary target isnt it? To make as much as possible.
I agree Vicky, but then the credibility of the placings and eviction results will just become worse and worse, as voting numbers dwindle and fanatics/weirdos get their way more and more.

I mean, you could easily get evicted and just believe that public opinion is that you should have stayed, but fanatical voters often with 'alternative' viewpoints, voted hard enough to fix the result their way. Rachel vs Stuart last year was a good example of this. I honestly believe general public opinion was that Rachel should have gone. The crowds wanted her gone. But forum fanatics saved her (mainly DS).

[Luanda]

I wish one of you "weight-watchers" would explain exactly what you mean by the term, preferably with an algebraic example.
And would Tom explain what he means when he, so easily, dismisses the BBO figures (which I agree are questionable) as a percentage of a percentage. Give an example, please.
And can we decide whether this thread is about mathematics or emotional cod psychology.
The weighting assumes a constant rate of voting in each interval for the respective HMs, it doesn't account for things like 'Maybe Sophie got a big surge of votes in the last half hour', etc. So her % may have been worse earlier in the show, etc.

Weighting does not rely on a constant rate of voting. That is exactly why weighting is applied to an equation.

[Vicky.]

LOL I love this, yet at the time of voting people were shouting their mouths off saying that people on forums made not the lightest bit of difference in the big scheme of things :laugh:

[setanta]

I wish one of you "weight-watchers" would explain exactly what you mean by the term, preferably with an algebraic example.
And would Tom explain what he means when he, so easily, dismisses the BBO figures (which I agree are questionable) as a percentage of a percentage. Give an example, please.
And can we decide whether this thread is about mathematics or emotional cod psychology.

Weighting is used when raw data needs to be adjusted to take into account differing conditions.

A very simple example is below showing how weight is applied to data when seeking an average.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Basic-Math-657/Weighted-avgs-basis-different.htm

I'd forgotten how much I hated Maths in school. Thanks for that :tongue:

[Luanda]

LOL I love this, yet at the time of voting people were shouting their mouths off saying that people on forums made not the lightest bit of difference in the big scheme of things :laugh:



They don't. People vote for who they want to vote for. Opinions are formulated from many different sources including forums. Only the most naive would vote solely on what they read on a forum.

[Penelope]

I can see your point but for your assumptions to be correct then multiple voting would only take place for the winners and not for other housemates. Multiple voting would happen across the board and would most likely be cancelled out. Also, fans for a certain housemate would have to pool their resources for doing this. No such orgaisation exists apart from clowns on discussion boards making posts stating, Get XYZ Out!!!
It takes place for all HMs obviously, but some fansets are just more weird and crazy, and vote harder. Like a cult, so to speak. It's contrary to public opinion though, so basically they are having a stronger and stronger hold in fixing the result their way, as voting numbers dwindle.

It doesn't really cancel out if some fansets are more fanatical than other, or if a HM appeals more to a casual viewer than a fanatic. But bottom line, it's just not a very fair system.

Put it this way, it makes it very concievable for HMs next year to be evicted or finish 4th/5th knowing that general public opinion may be on their side. Which then renders the entire process, kinda pointless.

[Vicky.]

LOL I love this, yet at the time of voting people were shouting their mouths off saying that people on forums made not the lightest bit of difference in the big scheme of things :laugh:



They don't. People vote for who they want to vote for. Opinions are formulated from many different sources including forums. Only the most naive would vote solely on what they read on a forum.

Yeah I know, I have a sneaking suspicion that penelope is another account of a member who spent ages pointing out that people on a forum make no difference, as we are all freaks and weirdos...I just find it funny that that view is now totally reversed thats all.

And Penelope, if i turn out to be wrong, I will apologise.

[Penelope]

LOL I love this, yet at the time of voting people were shouting their mouths off saying that people on forums made not the lightest bit of difference in the big scheme of things :laugh:

They didn't this year because Sophie won easily, but in closer results it does make a difference. And especially next year with figures dwindling, it'll make a bigger difference.

But ultimately if there's disparity between the general public and the forums, yet FMs are fixing results, then that renders the whole thing pointless.

The most marked example is Rachel's 51% win over Mikey. If it wasn't for multiple voting, IMO she'd have 40% tops. As a guess. The fanatics in DS voted like 100 times each.

[Luanda]

I can see your point but for your assumptions to be correct then multiple voting would only take place for the winners and not for other housemates. Multiple voting would happen across the board and would most likely be cancelled out. Also, fans for a certain housemate would have to pool their resources for doing this. No such orgaisation exists apart from clowns on discussion boards making posts stating, Get XYZ Out!!!
It takes place for all HMs obviously, but some fansets are just more weird and crazy, and vote harder. Like a cult, so to speak. It's contrary to public opinion though, so basically they are having a stronger and stronger hold in fixing the result their way, as voting numbers dwindle.

It doesn't really cancel out if some fansets are more fanatical than other, or if a HM appeals more to a casual viewer than a fanatic. But bottom line, it's just not a very fair system.

Put it this way, it makes it very concievable for HMs next year to be evicted or finish 4th/5th knowing that general public opinion may be on their side. Which then renders the entire process, kinda pointless.

You are making massive assumptions again about the mental state of some voters. I think you have to remember that most people who voted have probably never even been a member of a BB forum. You are over estimating the power of a forum.

[Vicky.]

You dont know that.

Personally I found her very bland, but a lot of people I knew voted for her because she was a nice normal girl. Same as people I know who voted for Sophie.

How do you know the general opinion was that Mikey should have won? And that he would have if it ewasnt for multiple voting?

[Penelope]

Yeah I know, I have a sneaking suspicion that penelope is another account of a member who spent ages pointing out that people on a forum make no difference, as we are all freaks and weirdos...I just find it funny that that view is now totally reversed thats all.
I didn't say made no difference, clearly if FMs voted mega hard, that would make a difference, especially with dwindling voting figures.

But then the whole eviction/winner thing is kinda pointless, if it's fixed by multiple voters and fanatics anyway. I mean I'm having a hardtime believing that Rodrigo has less fans than David tbh.

[RCW1945]

Luanda
I thought by now you would have realised that I know what mathematical weighting means and do not need links from you.
What I need from you and others is a clear explanation of how "weighting" applies to the situation under discussion here.
For example your link refers to weighting averages (a well-known mathematical process) and your 2.57 post refers to weighting an equation ( a mathematical process unknown to me and I would suggest most other mathematicians).
What exactly, in the BB results are we weighting, certainly not averages or equations!!
I think you should admit that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about and retire gracefully.

[Vicky.]

Yeah I know, I have a sneaking suspicion that penelope is another account of a member who spent ages pointing out that people on a forum make no difference, as we are all freaks and weirdos...I just find it funny that that view is now totally reversed thats all.
I didn't say made no difference, clearly if FMs voted mega hard, that would make a difference, especially with dwindling voting figures.

But then the whole eviction/winner thing is kinda pointless, if it's fixed by multiple voters and fanatics anyway. I mean I'm having a hardtime believing that Rodrigo has less fans than David tbh.

So you are admitting that this is in fact a multiple account then?

I have already said several times that i believe the reason for davids 3rd placing was because the bookies had such long odds on him to win. people put a tenner on him to win, they got like a grand back. it was the betting people that bumped him up, i think anyway.

[Luanda]

Yeah I know, I have a sneaking suspicion that penelope is another account of a member who spent ages pointing out that people on a forum make no difference, as we are all freaks and weirdos...I just find it funny that that view is now totally reversed thats all.
I didn't say made no difference, clearly if FMs voted mega hard, that would make a difference, especially with dwindling voting figures.

But then the whole eviction/winner thing is kinda pointless, if it's fixed by multiple voters and fanatics anyway. I mean I'm having a hardtime believing that Rodrigo has less fans than David tbh.

So Penelope, in a nutshell you are saying that voters who voted for people you didn't want to win were either engaged in organised vote rigging or were crazy.

Rational.

[Penelope]

You dont know that.

Personally I found her very bland, but a lot of people I knew voted for her because she was a nice normal girl. Same as people I know who voted for Sophie.

How do you know the general opinion was that Mikey should have won? And that he would have if it ewasnt for multiple voting?
Because Rachel was a lot more popular on forums than Mikey, yet in the end the result was very close, yet the forum users vote a lot more than the casual/non-forum viewers. I mean people on DS were voting like 100 times each. This makes the entire thing a bit pointless, if you're trying to fix a result. I mean your chosen HM wins, but not by public opinion.

Of course, I can't prove this, but then with such a system, anything is possible. It's just a poor system, especially with voting figures dwindling next year.

It's becoming less and less about public opinion, but moreso about who puts up the cash. Obviously Rodrigo fans didn't vote hard enough this year.

I would never believe that David is more popular than Rodrigo, sorry.

[Penelope]

So Penelope, in a nutshell you are saying that voters who voted for people you didn't want to win were either engaged in organised vote rigging or were crazy.

Rational.
No, I'm saying that the system is open to abuse and fixing a result contrary to public opinion. My views on who wins or gets evicted is not relevant. But clearly if people are voting 100's of times, then the whole thing becomes pointless.

[RCW1945]

You could also avoid the diversions into multiple voting or who loves/hates Siavash.
The problem we are discussing is purely mathematical.
Unfortunately it is, at present, insoluble.
Not only are we lacking essential data but also any knowledge of the methodology used including essential definitions of terms (a problem which you lightly dismissed in a previous post).

[Vicky.]

So because Rachel was more popular on the forums than mikey it was the forum members alone that bumped her up to 1st place? I doubt that.

A lot of people admit she was a bad winner, but that does not mean it was fixed.

And as for people voting 100 times for her, you do realise that people say a lot of things on forums that arent true dont you? And for every person who multiple voted for rachel, Im sure someone else multiple voted for Mikey.

Another problem with Rodrigo was that he was barely featured at all in the final week of HLs, while david had nerarly an entire episode dedicated to him the night before the final...that along with the betting oppurtunities that I mentioned will make a big difference.

[Penelope]

So you are admitting that this is in fact a multiple account then?

I have already said several times that i believe the reason for davids 3rd placing was because the bookies had such long odds on him to win. people put a tenner on him to win, they got like a grand back. it was the betting people that bumped him up, i think anyway.
So the whole thing is a joke then, it's becoming less and less about public opinion, but eagerness to fix the result. I mean it's a pretty shallow form of victory anyway, if I was a HM next year I'd obviously be thinking "this means jack anyway, it could have just been rigged by fanatical multiple voters, or betting scammers."

[Luanda]

Another example of weight used in proportional representation. This would be used when applying weight to the BB voting however it does not take into account the time constraints where additional weight would be applied.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Basic-Math-657/Weighted-avgs-basis-different.htm

[Penelope]

So because Rachel was more popular on the forums than mikey it was the forum members alone that bumped her up to 1st place? I doubt that.[/quote]
I think it was. Because she won with 51% against Mikey, yet had far more support on forums than Mikey. Casual viewers and non-forum viewers don't vote as hard.

A lot of people admit she was a bad winner, but that does not mean it was fixed.
It has nothing to do with that, but the fact that people voting plenty of times are fixing a result contrary to public opinion.

And as for people voting 100 times for her, you do realise that people say a lot of things on forums that arent true dont you? And for every person who multiple voted for rachel, Im sure someone else multiple voted for Mikey.
No, because casual viewers and non-forum viewers don't vote as hard. And Mikey appealled to these, more than forumers. So it's conceviable that public opinion was that he should have won, but he just got slightly less votes overall.

[quote]Another problem with Rodrigo was that he was barely featured at all in the final week of HLs, while david had nerarly an entire episode dedicatd to him the night before the final...that alon with the betting oppurtunities that I mentioned will make a big difference.
Definitely, but it still throws the whole thing into big doubt. I'm pretty sure most people would accept that Charlie and Rodrigo have more supporters than David, in terms of actual numbers of humans. Maybe David got his nannoo nannooo Alien fans to vote. :tongue:

[Luanda]

So because Rachel was more popular on the forums than mikey it was the forum members alone that bumped her up to 1st place? I doubt that.[/quote]
I think it was. Because she won with 51% against Mikey, yet had far more support on forums than Mikey. Casual viewers and non-forum viewers don't vote as hard.

A lot of people admit she was a bad winner, but that does not mean it was fixed.
It has nothing to do with that, but the fact that people voting plenty of times are fixing a result contrary to public opinion.

And as for people voting 100 times for her, you do realise that people say a lot of things on forums that arent true dont you? And for every person who multiple voted for rachel, Im sure someone else multiple voted for Mikey.
No, because casual viewers and non-forum viewers don't vote as hard. And Mikey appealled to these, more than forumers. So it's conceviable that public opinion was that he should have won, but he just got slightly less votes overall.

[quote]Another problem with Rodrigo was that he was barely featured at all in the final week of HLs, while david had nerarly an entire episode dedicatd to him the night before the final...that alon with the betting oppurtunities that I mentioned will make a big difference.
Definitely, but it still throws the whole thing into big doubt. I'm pretty sure most people would accept that Charlie and Rodrigo have more supporters than David, in terms of actual numbers of humans. Maybe David got his nannoo nannooo Alien fans to vote. :tongue:

Blimey Penelope you make massive assumptions and by doing so you weaken your own arguments.

[Vicky.]

Your proof that non-forum viewers dont vote as hard? Nah didnt think so.

More assumptions. As usual AhmedFan.

[RCW1945]

Luanda
You seem to have posted 2 or 3 times the same link to weighted averages.
It does not become more relevant to this problem by repetition.
There are no averages involved here as I explained earlier.

[MissKittyFantastico]

Why is AhmedFan posting as Penelope?

Did his other account get a permanent ban or something?

[Penelope]

Your proof that non-forum viewers dont vote as hard? Nah didnt think so.

More assumptions. As usual AhmedFan.
I am making assumptions yes, I'm not denying that, but I still think I'm making decent points that are more likely to be true, than not. You have to admit that forum users tend to be more fanatical and likely to vote hard, than a casual viewer at home who only watches highlights.

I don't have a source, but on DS someone quoted that the average voter votes 1.3 times on Big Brother. I'm not sure if that's true, or whether it's a way of saying that BB get votes that total 1.3 x as much as the no. of viewers.

But anyway, when you compare that to Rachel Rice fanatics doing 're-dial sessions from 8pm to 9pm', it kinda puts the entire Big Brother process into perspective.

[Vicky.]

Why is AhmedFan posting as Penelope?

Did his other account get a permanent ban or something?
Temp ban, for calling everyone freaks and weirdos...the usual.

[Luanda]

Luanda
You seem to have posted 2 or 3 times the same link to weighted averages.
It does not become more relevant to this problem by repetition.
There are no averages involved here as I explained earlier.
#

Nonsense. I have posted two links and they are from different websites.

Edited : My apologies I am wrong. I Ctrl-V 'd the wrong link, it is here.

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/civs/proportional.html

[Vicky.]

But anyway, when you compare that to Rachel Rice fanatics doing 're-dial sessions from 8pm to 9pm', it kinda puts the entire Big Brother process into perspective.

Again apparently.

People say a lot of things on the internet that arent true.

[MissKittyFantastico]

Why is AhmedFan posting as Penelope?

Did his other account get a permanent ban or something?
Temp ban, for calling everyone freaks and weirdos...the usual.

Is it not against the rules to make another account whilst serving a ban?

Seems to me that AhmedFan is a bigger hypocrite than I thought, being so desperate to come and spew his bile on a forum that he can't even wait until his ban has passed.

Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

[Penelope]

People say a lot of things on the internet that arent true.
But they can do this if they want, and it's far more likely for fanatical forum users to do it, then casual HL viewers at home who really don't care all that much about voting to skew results. There's loads of casual viewers who don't even pick up the phone, nevermind vote once or twice.

As a fanatic I've voted 100 times before, so I don't see why Rachel Rice fanatics were lying. I think they voted loads.

But ultimately, people CAN vote loads, and that's the crux of it.

[Luanda]

People say a lot of things on the internet that arent true.
But they can do this if they want, and it's far more likely for fanatical forum users to do it, then casual HL viewers at home who really don't care all that much about voting to skew results. There's loads of casual viewers who don't even pick up the phone, nevermind vote once or twice.

As a fanatic I've voted 100 times before, so I don't see why Rachel Rice fanatics were lying. I think they voted loads.

But ultimately, people CAN vote loads, and that's the crux of it.

You do realise that you spent all that money on voting 100 times and it didn't make one iota of difference to the result. You can be sure that somebody else did exactly the same for other housemates. It is useful to have more than a one-dimensional view of voting.

[Vicky.]

You do realise that you spent all that money on voting 100 times and it didn't make one iota of difference to the result. You can be sure that somebody else did exactly the same for other housemates. It is useful to have more than a one-dimensional view of voting. Well exactly. You get over the top fans of any housemate.

I dont normally vote, but i have been voting 5 times an eviction ever since kris was up. No doubt that makes me part of the multiple voting crap. But for my 5 votes, you can guarantee someone somewhere else voted 10. it all cancels itself out.

[Luanda]

I can't really see how voting numerous times, if you have had a bet, is particularly useful. You would have to vote literally thousands of time in order to make a difference. If one was to do that then the potential winnings would have to be astronomical. If that was the case - ie making a huge bet on an outsider - then the wager would most probably be reported as suspicious.

The best way of scamming the bookies is to pay an insider on the phone lines and get them to divulge figures but the chances of that are very slim and if you are caught you will be p*****g in a bucket at night for a long time.

[Shasown]

As a fanatic I've voted 100 times before, so I don't see why Rachel Rice fanatics were lying. I think they voted loads.

But ultimately, people CAN vote loads, and that's the crux of it.

Yes but Sree still got evicted didn't he?

[RCW1945]

Luanda
Apology accepted.
The Condorcet article is very interesting per se but totally irrelevant to our problem.
It involves voting under a completely different set of rules in which each voter is allowed to weight their votes.

[Luanda]

Luanda
Apology accepted.
The Condorcet article is very interesting per se but totally irrelevant to our problem.
It involves voting under a completely different set of rules in which each voter is allowed to weight their votes.

Agreed but the same concept is used on BB. One has to take into account the fact that once a housemate is evicted then people may vote on second or even third choices. I'm not saying these rules are used on the BB vote, all I'm saying is when weighted figures are used then these concepts come into play.

[Shasown]

The weighted figures on BBO which were the ones Ahemedfan originally posted on were inaccurate. If you read the blurb on the linked page I CBA to post here you will see the adjustments were made to show :

Every year at the end of a series of Big Brother, Channel 4 insist on issuing percentages for the Finalists which simply don't add-up. This makes it difficult to judge how close the result was in reality. For example, here are the figures released for the Big Brother 10 public vote:

Rodrigo 11% (5th Place)
Charlie 13.2% (4th Place)
David 19% (3rd Place)
Siavash 26% (Runner-up)
Sophie 74.4% (Winner)

...which adds-up to 143.6%. See what we mean? The reason the figures don't add-up is because when 'Final Five' housemates leave the House, the vote counts are all taken at different times and the voting continues.

So, we've taken the trouble to 'weight' the figures for you, and the result comes out something like this:

Rodrigo 11% (5th Place)
Charlie 13.2% (4th Place)
David 14.4% (3rd Place)
Siavash 15.7% (Runner-up)
Sophie 45.7% (Winner)


You will notice that the two lowest placed H/M werent adjusted however in order to give a correct indicator they should have been (it would have been a lower percentage because the amount of votes they received didnt change however more votes were recived for the other contestants, therefore Rod and chucks % would have dropped as part of the overall total votes received.)

If they were werent adjusted then all the other percentages would be incorrect too.

In order to give proper % for all housemates you would need to know total votes cast for all and then votes cast for the exiting housemate at their exit point. If you wanted further information like % of each housemate at each exit point you would need the actual number of votes cast at that point.

They did at one point change the "weighted" results to this but reverted back to the original:

Rodrigo 11% (5th Place)
Charlie 11.8% (4th Place)
David 14.7% (3rd Place)
Siavash 16% (Runner-up)
Sophie 46.5% (Winner) "

Again another set of guess-timates!

[RCW1945]

"when weighted figures are used "
For the nth time, there are no weighted figures in this situation.

[Luanda]

"when weighted figures are used "
For the nth time, there are no weighted figures in this situation.

They were weighted from the original raw data. I have no idea on what they based the weightings though.

[RCW1945]

You mean those guestimates (cf Shasown) by BBO. Apart from starting this discussion they are irrelevant to the discussion which is about real data (which sadly we don't have).
Also, when a vote travels down that phone line it is labelled A, B or C etc.
That is the only information it carries. The previous voting proclivity of its sender is absolutely mathematically irrelevant.

[RCW1945]

Luanda
If you really do not want to accept anything I say, but persist with your misunderstandings, I suggest you go back to the OP and read all of Shasown's posts because s/he seems to have a sound grasp of the situation and expresses it clearly (many times).

[Luanda]

Luanda
If you really do not want to accept anything I say, but persist with your misunderstandings, I suggest you go back to the OP and read all of Shasown's posts because s/he seems to have a sound grasp of the situation and expresses it clearly (many times).

I was actually agreeing with you.

[Luanda]

Deleted. Multiple acounts

You are still making loads of assumptions.

[XxShortyxX]

I read about this on DS, basicly Sophie won it by a landside and the others were nowere near betting her.

[RCW1945]

Keep up, Shorty, keep up!

[GhettoSuperstar]

I was so surprised David came 3rd (and close to 2nd), thought he was gonna be 5th!

[RCW1945]

elphindos
Where on earth do you get such fascinating and accurate data from. You must tell us all.

[RCW1945]

elphindos
Can you spell irony?

[elphindos]

Deleted, multiple accounts

[Shasown]

1 Vote per person would be fairer yes however it wouldn't yield the same amount of money for CH4/Endemol, would it, do you really think they would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

[RCW1945]

" IMO, at least to some extent and in some cases. "
That's getting better.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion even if it is founded on nothing but wild generalisations and backed by no concrete facts.
The problem with your first post was that you stated several "facts" with no evidence at all. Did you read this long thread which is all about the lack of real data?

[Shasown]

" IMO, at least to some extent and in some cases. "
That's getting better.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion even if it is founded on nothing but wild generalisations and backed by no concrete facts.
The problem with your first post was that you stated several "facts" with no evidence at all. Did you read this long thread which is all about the lack of real data?

read it, he started it.

[RCW1945]

It has gone on so long Shasown, that you almost persuaded me that I did start it!

It is a little known fact that last year the Welsh assembly passed an act giving each grandfather resident in Wales 10 free BB votes and for obvious reasons most of them voted for Rachel.
A similar bill was presented to the Scottish parliament but they rejected it as too costly.

[RCW1945]

elphindos
"could potentially" and "could well" are not usually used to presage hard facts.
They are used to present suppositions. Your suppositions, which are not facts.

[Shasown]

They don't allow multiple voting in elections for a reason. :whistle:

Yeah also I Know you are aware of this elphindos but they dont allow multiple accounts on here, especially when the reason is to get round bans:wink:

[RCW1945]

It is pure semantics to claim that "could happen" is a fact in any reasonable meaning of the word. A fact would be the claim that it did happen and evidence that it indeed had happened.
As to your point about multiplevoting, I have no view on that, it was not a significant part of your first post and is not the subject of this thread.