would it be better if we voted to save rather than evict?
 

better for Ch 4?????

yes! then all the good people would stay in making it more entertaining, I dont know why C4 hasnt done this yet?!

Tonnes better.

Only if there were more than 3 up. Head to head evictions would stay the same.

Take Jen & Rex. People who voted to evict Jen would vote to save Rex and vice versa.

Channel 4 make more money with the evict than to save... They wont change it.

Channel 4 don't make any money from voting.

I remember they tried it in CBB3 and it didn't really work out much different.

I thought this year they were going to do more vote to save?

Yes they do make money and 10p from every call go to charity. If it went to save then not many would phone, it be more the fans of whoever is up who will be phoning, while with it being to evict it generates more public voting.. More money=more to charity.

Definatley, I personally prefer voting someone to win rather than to lose.

yes it would be better because the good housemates would be still there! i.e steph, jen and rebecca!:rolleyes:

The money they would make goes to charity and its at least 10p, not 10p.

Yes, but like Tom said it can only work in 3-way evictions. It would make no difference in a head-to-head. For example in Jen Vs Rex, people who wanted Jen out would just vote to save Rex. However, it could make a whole lotts difference in a 3-way, Rebecca's for example. This week vote to evict, Rebecca's fan vote was split between Darnell and Mohamed - while Darnell/Mohamed fan's targetted Rebecca, which lead to her eviction. If it was a vote to save, it would have been the other way around.

Well normally you would want to evict someone than save them, so if it's a housemate you both hate, you can't really vote for one to "save", that's why they make much more money from using "evicting". :thumbs:

This is just an example of how a vote to save could keep entertaining housemates in. Forget likeable, it keeps the entertaining ones in.

In BB Australia last year, they had a vote to evict and a vote to save and it was always interesting to see how the votes panned out. In the 7th eviction, seven housemates were nominated, one of them was a housemate called Emma who was without a doubt the biggest character in the house. She wasn't very likeable but she was good to watch. When the votes were counted Emma received the highest eviction percentage with a massive 73% out of 7 people. But, when we saw the save percentages Emma was in the lead with 32% of the vote. Had it been just a save vote, Emma would have been safe. This is just an example of how a save vote could have saved that series of BBAU, which went on to rate as one of the worst ever.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2db5gd4.jpg

Voting to save would lose Stuart, Mikey and Rachel.
Voting to evict would lose Luke and Mo.

Keep it on evict.

it wont matter..i think...
it would still be pretty much the same....
say last night was a vote to save.....
all the people that voted rebecca last night would have voted for mo and darnell!
and the votes that mo and darnell got would vote to save rebecca...which isnt much!
so its pretty much the same!

I like the whole evict thing anyways I wouldnt want to change it

Yes, Get All The Boring Ones Out!

It is an extremely flawed idea but people fail to realise that. We as a nation are miserable. Money or no money from voting, Channel 4 gets more voted from the word 'Evict'. It is negative. Nice. Hatefull. It inspires peolpe to vote.

A vote to 'Save' sounds cheesy. Only hardcore housemate fans would vote to save.

Simple psychology.