2014 Jury Transparency Revamp!

[A-lister]

Yes it was. Countries were divided in 5 pots, according to their voting patterns.

Ehm, the producers chose the running order this year... I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes the countries were allocated based on voting pattern pots, but the running order wasn't random like in previous years... and one of the main flaws of 2013 and its lack of transparency is the fact that producers chose the running order.

 

[LalehForWD]

I know only a fraction of the details behind, but wasn't the juries brought in to balance the dominance of the east? Wasn't it suspicions of phone campaigns to favor some artists (ie Dima Bilan)? Surely don't want that back.

 

[LalehForWD]

Also, what is the effective difference with the new rules compared as before? AFAIK most countries publish their juries right after the contest. The ones that don't doesn't necessarily have anything to hide, perhaps just taking care of the personal integrity of the ones involved. The new rules may of course promote a greater openness which is always a good thing.

 

[DanielLuis]

Ehm, the producers' chose the running order this year... I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes the countries were allocated based on voting pattern pots, but the running order wasn't random like in previous years... and one of the main flaws of 2013 and its lack of transparency is the fact that producers' chose the running order.

The first comment you replied to about this issue, by adel, talked about allocations. Allocation is when the semi-finals each countryw ill participate on is decided. The running order is, well, the running order. Misunderstanding (I thought you were talking about allocations)

 

[A-lister]

Also, what is the effective difference with the new rules compared as before? AFAIK most countries publish their juries right after the contest. The ones that don't doesn't necessarily have anything to hide, perhaps just taking care of the personal integrity of the ones involved. The new rules may of course promote a greater openness which is always a good thing.

There's a big difference in hiding the split results by country or reveal it...

 

[A-lister]

The first comment you replied to about this issue, by adel, talked about allocations. Allocation is when the semi-finals each countryw ill participate on is decided. The running order is, well, the running order. Misunderstanding (I thought you were talking about allocations)

Aha I get it! I guess I misunderstood Adel's post then if he talked about allocations... hehe I guess that happens when you read something too quick

 

[DanielLuis]

Also, what is the effective difference with the new rules compared as before? AFAIK most countries publish their juries right after the contest. The ones that don't doesn't necessarily have anything to hide, perhaps just taking care of the personal integrity of the ones involved. The new rules may of course promote a greater openness which is always a good thing.

No country ever published the voting of the individual jury members. And only 5 or 6 even published their split results. So it's much more transparent.
As for your previous comment, some people either underestimate the power of block voting, or pretend it doesn't exist (even though to be honest, since 2009 the televoting results have been much more fairer, as block voting decreased even there)

 

[DanielLuis]

Aha I get it! I guess I misunderstood Adel's post then if he talked about allocations... hehe I guess that happens when you read something too quick

No problem Misunderstandings have to happen eventually

 

[QwaarJet]

This is a start, but there is still some way to go before restoring Eurovision's credibility.

 

[VikingTiger]

Very good news! The lack of openness and transparency has really been a problem for the competitions credibility. The fact that we will know the names of the members of the juries and their individual votes is a huge leap in the right direction! Each broadcaster then needs to put together a jury that meets the given criterias. I still have a big problem with the number of jury members. Only 5 members is way too few...

I never had a problem with the big five, so I dont mind that there wont be any changes in this.

 

[Leydan]

This has me really excited because i cant wait too see the results from Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Russia etc. All of those ones with dodgy voting.

 

[anto475]

^ Exactly. Even though I'd do the sequence slightly different, the average viewer is certainly not too dumb to understand the difference between a public and an 'elite' vote. Neither would he mind knowing that e.g. his country's middling position results from a Top-5 placing by televotings and a bottom-5 placing by the 'jury'. This being said, I assume the EBU heads are well aware of that and that it's also the actual reason why we didn't get in the past (and most probably shan't have it next year either).

You have to remember that the majority of viewers don't take the contest as seriously as us fans do. It's not that they're too dumb, but rather, they just don't care. I mean a country could send the worst song possible and get 12 points from every country, and nearly all the viewers will lose interest within five minutes after the contest is over. Anyone with an interest in the voting can go onto the website and look up the two results.

Why do we need to show the two results? If one country came fifth in the jury and tenth in the televoting and ended up seventh overall, the result that matters is that they came seventh, not any other result. Something as the presentation of the results needs to be as simple as possible, and putting up three sets of figures is just needless clutter. Besides, how would it all fit? I mean maybe if the EBU could make sure that no one watched on anything less than a 38" TV. And then there's the radio broadcast which is a whole other can of worms.

 

[Matt]

I disagree, you underestimate the public's intelligence. It's thinking like this that partly brought the juries back.

There's no problem in showing two separate screens next to eachother and then combine the highest points the spokesperson gives.

This has nothing to do with intelligence, no clue where you picked that up. It's timing, ever country has very little time to reveal their votes, just think about how quick the 1 to 7 points disappear, now having a jury vs televote breakdown during the results....it's virtually impossible to create something that would make sense visually. Example, the British points (1 to 7) were visible for FOUR seconds....the Austrian ONE second...basically it's always less than 10 seconds....there just isn't the time for it.

 

[CC92]

^ Exactly. Even though I'd do the sequence slightly different, the average viewer is certainly not too dumb to understand the difference between a public and an 'elite' vote. Neither would he mind knowing that e.g. his country's middling position results from a Top-5 placing by televotings and a bottom-5 placing by the 'jury'. This being said, I assume the EBU heads are well aware of that and that it's also the actual reason why we didn't get in the past (and most probably shan't have it next year either).

You have to remember that the majority of viewers don't take the contest as seriously as us fans do. It's not that they're too dumb, but rather, they just don't care. I mean a country could send the worst song possible and get 12 points from every country, and nearly all the viewers will lose interest within five minutes after the contest is over. Anyone with an interest in the voting can go onto the website and look up the two results.

Why do we need to show the two results? If one country came fifth in the jury and tenth in the televoting and ended up seventh overall, the result that matters is that they came seventh, not any other result. Something as the presentation of the results needs to be as simple as possible, and putting up three sets of figures is just needless clutter. Besides, how would it all fit? I mean maybe if the EBU could make sure that no one watched on anything less than a 38" TV. And then there's the radio broadcast which is a whole other can of worms.

Well, I beg to differ. The votes of millions of people naturally have another value than those from a group of 200. It won't be an issue for a long time after the contest but while the show is on the question 'how has Europe liked my personal favourite and who was their winner?' is certainly of interest. Guess why in previous years the EBU have waited several weeks before releasing the split results – hardly because no one cared. Anyway, under the terms of the rule changes this strategy is no longer an option. Moreover hiding full numbers also a lack of respect towards the artists IMHO.
However, I am not sure whether you really understood my picture of a possible visualisation. I do not suggest two separate points allocations. What I am opting for is showing a summarised table right after each spokesperson has announced their votes, about in the style of how it was done in the 2004 semi illustrating the results of the non-qualifiers. This wouldn't take any additional time.

 

[A-lister]

This has nothing to do with intelligence, no clue where you picked that up. It's timing, ever country has very little time to reveal their votes, just think about how quick the 1 to 7 points disappear, now having a jury vs televote breakdown during the results....it's virtually impossible to create something that would make sense visually. Example, the British points (1 to 7) were visible for FOUR seconds....the Austrian ONE second...basically it's always less than 10 seconds....there just isn't the time for it.

I meant that the two screens would be shown prior the spokesperson giving the points, and then graphically combined with the top pointers while the spokesperson gives the points out. I don't think it's impossible or would look messy, it all depends on how it would be executed. I have an idea in my head but I cannot work in 3D graphic programs so I'm unable to demonstrate how I mean other than in words.

What I meant with underestimating was mostly your point about people not understanding what was going on nor care, I think people would understand and would care, again it's all about how it would be executed.

 

[DanielLuis]

I meant that the two screens would be shown prior the spokesperson giving the points, and then graphically combined with the top pointers while the spokesperson gives the points out. I don't think it's impossible or would look messy, it all depends on how it would be executed. I have an idea in my head but I cannot work in 3D graphic programs so I'm unable to demonstrate how I mean other than in words.

What I meant with underestimating was mostly your point about people not understanding what was going on nor care, I think people would understand and would care, again it's all about how it would be executed.

I kind of am visualizing your idea but I think it'd still be in such a short amount of time that there wouldn't be enough time to analyse everything.

 

[A-lister]

I kind of am visualizing your idea but I think it'd still be in such a short amount of time that there wouldn't be enough time to analyse everything.

Well, I don't think the point would be to give time for some sort of in-depth analysis or so, but more to give some sort of idea of how they (the points) may differ (or not) between the juries and televotes... for those who want to analyze they'd have to check in after the show when it's all released in details.

 

[MrGerbear]

I think it would be kind of pointless to have that much information on screen for a short amount of time. I agree that it can be done, but it'll probably just fly over most everyone's heads.

 

[CC92]

I think it would be kind of pointless to have that much information on screen for a short amount of time. I agree that it can be done, but it'll probably just fly over most everyone's heads.

As do the small points already now, don't they?

 

[MrGerbear]

You already have all those country names and numbers on the screen. Do you seriously think adding more numbers would make things less confusing?