[rquote=2555034&tid=146645&author=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. [/rquote]

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.

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

[rquote=2555061&tid=146645&author=setanta]Sorry for breaking up your argument here, but when will we see the official voting figures?[/rquote]

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

[rquote=2555059&tid=146645&author=Luanda][rquote=2555034&tid=146645&author=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. [/rquote]

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. [/rquote]

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!

[rquote=2555124&tid=146645&author=Shasown][rquote=2555059&tid=146645&author=Luanda][rquote=2555034&tid=146645&author=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. [/rquote]

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. [/rquote]

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.[/rquote]

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;

,,

[rquote=2555159&tid=146645&author=Luanda][
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;

,,[/rquote]

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.

Sophie got 74.4% acctuly.

[rquote=2555228&tid=146645&author=bigbrothermad123]Sophie got 74.4% acctuly.[/rquote]

Of the allowed votes of the final stage only.

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.

[rquote=2555438&tid=146645&author=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.
[/rquote]

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.

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.

[rquote=2555239&tid=146645&author=Shasown]
Of the allowed votes of the final stage only.[/rquote]
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.

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).

[rquote=2556715&tid=146645&author=Penelope][rquote=2555239&tid=146645&author=Shasown]
Of the allowed votes of the final stage only.[/rquote]
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.[/rquote]

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.

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?

[rquote=2556903&tid=146645&author=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?[/rquote]

It is immaterial if the numbers have been weighted correctly.

[rquote=2556905&tid=146645&author=Luanda]

It is immaterial if the numbers have been weighted correctly. [/rquote]

They cant be weighted correctly without more information.

The weighted figures there are nothing but estimates.

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.

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.

[rquote=2556914&tid=146645&author=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?
[/rquote]

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.

[rquote=2556918&tid=146645&author=VickyJ][rquote=2556914&tid=146645&author=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?
[/rquote]

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.[/rquote]

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

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.

[rquote=2556917&tid=146645&author=VickyJ]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.
[/rquote]

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.

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.

[rquote=2556924&tid=146645&author=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. [/rquote]

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.