OMG Raiven was in the jury! Here's her top 5/bottom 5:
Gush, I am so tired today that I am all the time making some mistakes in forums Apologies for missing that 1 point for the chicken song. And I am not saying "chicken" song to offend Israeli fans or Netta. It is a fact that she is doing the chicken sounds.
Anyways, today I was thinking about juries and their role in ESC. Now, when I saw your post how Raiven voted, I must say that I do not agree with her ranking of Netta. Also the Portuguese song was not that badly sung after all. So, why am I making these observations? I just want to say that I really do not understand according to which criteria judges rank entries. In all seriousness, I'd expect that they would judge more homogenously, rewarding good singers, downgrading bad singers for the "technical" aspects of performance. However, when you look at these results, judges votes in particular, you cannot get but the impression that they use the same criteria as average televoters. So, this brings us to the question, why get 5 people the right that their votes outweight the votes of masses, if they judge the acts by the same criteria as we do???
You know, I am not musically educated nor talented, but I could hear that Cesar from Austria made a couple of technical errors, the same goes for the Australian entry. So, if I can hear that they were not pitch perfect, why judges don't punish them for it? Lea was dancing, moving, jumping, walking, but she was almost always on point, but she was graded by juries as though she was the worse singer. I really don't understand the role of judges.