Contact us

Crunching the numbers

Mlyn

Banned
Joined
March 19, 2014
Posts
2,261
Location
.at
9fukmk4vn1.png


This would have been the first semifinal result under the old voting rules. Portugal would have qualified easily, San Marino would have been pretty far from qualifying.

It's kinda interesting how the Netherlands were a jury favourite in Armenia until they emerged a favourite for the win, hence they got dropped in the final by the same jury.....
 

Mlyn

Banned
Joined
March 19, 2014
Posts
2,261
Location
.at
Take away the scores from second semi under the old voting system

grusf8irwkt.png
 

esc87fan

Well-known member
Joined
April 21, 2013
Posts
19,247
Location
Canada
So the 10 qualifiers for SF2 would have stayed the same under this system, interesting
 

manggaleh

Member
Joined
November 17, 2013
Posts
116
We have access to every jury and every televote. So, I weighed every other song outside any Top 10 with 11, to outdo the negative voting effects and to enable average results.

For example Hungary:

qnokv2jifml8.png

I though it's work like this:

I thought about calculating it but it's too much work. Maybe we could each take a country or two, do the calculation for it and then put the results together?

This is what I was doing
Step 1: Pick a country
Step 2: Convert the top ten of each jury member into the ESC voting system (12-10-8-7, etc)
Step 3: Add their votes together
Step 4: Convert the top ten from the total into the ESC voting system (12-10-8-7, etc)
Step 5: Convert the televote top ten into the ESC voting system (12-10-8-7, etc)
Step 6: Add points from Step 4 and Step 5
Step 7: Convert top ten from Step 6 into ESC voting system (12-10-8-7, etc)
 

FilipFromSweden

Well-known member
Joined
March 27, 2012
Posts
6,658
The '' new '' system made Valentina qualify so it was waaay worth it :D
 

Mlyn

Banned
Joined
March 19, 2014
Posts
2,261
Location
.at
Hello, children of the universe,

I'm bored y'all so take this: Winners' mid-voting points vs. 2nd half voting points....

2004 (2nd half with 16 countries)

:ua: 138 - 142
:rs: 142 - 121
:gr: 132 - 120


2005 (2nd half with 19 countries)

:gr: 100 - 130
:mt: 84 - 108
:ro: 88 - 70


2006 (2nd half with 18 countries)

:fi: 163 - 129
:ru: 130 - 118
:ba: 125 - 104


2007 (2nd half with 22 countries)

:rs: 127 - 141
:ua: 102 - 133
:ru: 89 - 118

2008 (2nd half with 23 countries)

:ru: 130 - 142
:ua: 91 - 139
:gr: 123 - 95


2009 (2nd half with 22 countries)

:no: 193 - 194
:is: 105 - 113
:az: 77 - 130

2010 (2nd half with 19 countries)

:de: 134 - 112
:tr: 96 - 84
:ro: 82 - 80

2011 (2nd half with 23 countries)

:az: 85 - 136
:it: 53 - 136
:se: 87 - 98

2012 (2nd half with 22 countries)

:se: 160 - 212
:ru: 115 -144
:rs: 116 - 98

2013 (2nd half with 19 countries)

:dk: 135 - 146
:az: 100 - 134
:ua: 113 - 101

2014 (2nd half with 17 countries)

:at: 123 - 167
:nl: 113 - 125
:se: 93 - 125
 

Mlyn

Banned
Joined
March 19, 2014
Posts
2,261
Location
.at
After hours of compiling and aggregating I can give you now the final results according to the 50/50 rules:

- Each juror gives points from 1 to 12
- The sum of jurors translates into the juries' 1 to 12 points
- The 1 to 12 points from televotes and the juries' points combined translate into the final points

Here we go:

1 :at: 301
2 :nl: 227
3 :se: 205
4 :am: 183
5 :hu: 119
6 :pl: 106
7 :ru: 107
8 :ua: 97
9 :ro: 96
10 :fi: 69
11 :no: 67
12 :dk: 63
13 :ch: 55
14 :az: 53
14 :mt: 53
16 :by: 51
17 :es: 50
18 :is: 47
19 :me: 42
20 :de: 41
21 :uk: 37
22 :gr: 33
23 :it: 28
24 :sm: 10
25 :sl: 9
26 :fr: 4
 

Mlyn

Banned
Joined
March 19, 2014
Posts
2,261
Location
.at
The jury result would have been the following then (incl :ge: televoting)

1 :at: 218 (228)
2 :se: 195 (197)
3 :nl: 189
4 :hu: 132
5 :am: 116 (128)
6 :mt: 112
7 :no: 109
8 :fi: 105
9 :az: 94 (101)
10 :dk: 91
11 :es: 88
12 :ro: 65
13 :ua: 62 (68)
14 :is: 60
15 :ru: 60 (68)
16 :uk: 58 (61)
17 :de: 56 (61)
18 :me: 47
19 :by: 46
20 :gr: 46 (50)
21 :it: 38
22 :pl: 33
23 :ch: 23 (24)
24 :sm: 21
25 :sl: 13
26 :fr: 11
 
Top Bottom