[rquote=2551048&tid=146645&author=RCW1945]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.
[/rquote]

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.

[rquote=2551065&tid=146645&author=Luanda]

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. [/rquote]

Errr beg to differ, call me a pedantic barsteward if you will but
would appear to disprove your little outbust just there!

[rquote=2549056&tid=146645&author=Shasown][rquote=2548976&tid=146645&author=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. [/rquote]

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

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

Scotched!

[rquote=2551193&tid=146645&author=Luanda][rquote=2549056&tid=146645&author=Shasown][rquote=2548976&tid=146645&author=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. [/rquote]

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

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

Scotched![/rquote]

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!

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

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.

[rquote=2551251&tid=146645&author=Luanda]Your Scotched remains valid as you don't know which "t" the poster was referring to.[/rquote]

Dead simple pal you lost I won.

DYLAC

[rquote=2551701&tid=146645&author=Shasown][rquote=2551251&tid=146645&author=Luanda]Your Scotched remains valid as you don't know which "t" the poster was referring to.[/rquote]

Dead simple pal you lost I won.

DYLAC

[/rquote]

Your status remains as Scotched until I am told otherwise.

Dream on sonny

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.

[rquote=2542919&tid=146645&author=JRC__x]SOPHIE IS THE BEST WINNER EVER! :hugesmile::hugesmile::hugesmile::hugesmile::huges mile:[/rquote]

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

[rquote=2542924&tid=146645&author=Chels.x]I thought David was going to come second.[/rquote]

He normally does. :elephant:

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

David got 19% of the vote according to teletext.

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.

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

[rquote=2543020&tid=146645&author=Shasown][rquote=2542994&tid=146645&author=AhmedFan2004][rquote=2542986&tid=146645&author=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)

[/rquote]
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.[/rquote]

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.[/rquote]


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 ,,,

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.

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.

Why can people not understand the concept of weighting?

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.

[rquote=2554927&tid=146645&author=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 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.[/rquote]

You've been on Google again, Shasown.

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

"t"

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

[rquote=2554994&tid=146645&author=thebeast]Does anyone know how many people actually voted for the final 5.. were a million votes cast all together? more less? anyone know? lol[/rquote]

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

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.