Skip to main content

Big Brother 2005 on official YouTube channel (Live streamed Sept 12-14 + Sept 19-21)

kamui said:
I think they made it unnecessary complicated by the way they've presented the results. They had two results graphic, kinda like this:

SaveEvict
6%21%
30%36%
26%16%
38%27%

And then the final results, which were like:
SaveEvict
10%
17%
31%
42%

And it used to throw me off as well on how somebody that had 36% evict votes and 30% save votes could end up with 17% of save votes.


But it's because the save votes in the first graphics are based on the total number of save votes and same for evict votes (e.g. Person 2 got 30% of all save votes, not 30% of their total votes being save votes). And then the second graphic is calculating the percentages of the votes that didn't cancel each other out.



@jessy_girl it might become clearer if we take an example with the actual number of votes, not percentages.
SaveEvict
1121
5437
4716
7028

So there are a total of 182 votes-to-save and 102 votes-to-evict.

Housemate 1 got 11 votes-to-save, which means they got (roughly) 6% of all votes-to-save. They also got 21 votes-to-evict, or 21% of the total votes.
Housemate 2 got 54 votes-to-save or 30% of all votes-to-save.. and so on..


Now we calculate the difference between all the votes and get these final results (with a + meaning it's more votes-to-save and a - meaning it's more votes-to-evict)

11 - 21 = -10
54 - 37 = +17
47 - 16 = +31
70 - 28 = +42

After calculating the differences and cancelling out votes, 100 votes remain.

Housemate 1 got 10 votes-to-evict or -10% of the overall remaining votes.
Housemate 2 got 17 votes-to-save or 17% of the overall remaining votes.
And so on...

Since housemate 1 has the smallest number, they are evicted. In the case of a double, housemate 2 is also evicted, because it's the next smallest number of votes.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the bit where she asked you not to explain it??? 🤣 🤣 🤣

The correct answer is that Ten made more money with this system.
 
kamui said:
actually yes... lol. sorry @jessy_girl



Definitely.. I've read for both the Dutch and the German version that this was the main motivation behind their switch from vote-to-evict to vote-to-save.
Click to expand...

Please don’t apologise! I do appreciate the effort you gone to, I fear this is just something my brain just can’t make sense of. I will add it to a long list of things I don’t understand.

I will actually read your reply properly because I like the details, maybe I will finally get it.
 
jessy_girl said:
Please don’t apologise! I do appreciate the effort you gone to, I fear this is just something my brain just can’t make sense of. I will add it to a long list of things I don’t understand.

I will actually read your reply properly because I like the details, maybe I will finally get it.
Click to expand...
I was confused too at first but the way I understood it was that every save vote a housemate got cancelled out an eviction vote. So if anyone ended up on the save side of the graph that just meant they got more save votes than evict votes and vice versa. And any % close to 0 would indicate their save votes and evict votes were almost equal in value.

But yes I agree with Timmy it was clearly just a way to get more money. I never liked how vote to evict remained in the finale, voting to evict the Runner-Up just feels counter-intuitive to me, and even tho it didn't change that Aleisha won it still robbed Camilla of her victory.
 
Zcsund1234 said:
I was confused too at first but the way I understood it was that every save vote a housemate got cancelled out an eviction vote. So if anyone ended up on the save side of the graph that just meant they got more save votes than evict votes and vice versa. And any % close to 0 would indicate their save votes and evict votes were almost equal in value.

But yes I agree with Timmy it was clearly just a way to get more money. I never liked how vote to evict remained in the finale, voting to evict the Runner-Up just feels counter-intuitive to me, and even tho it didn't change that Aleisha won it still robbed Camilla of her victory.
Click to expand...

You know what, that almost makes sense. I think my brain sees numbers and just checks out but here you are using words and maybe I get it.

And yes I agree, I guess they wanted to keep it consistent but it should have just been voting to win surely, it felt like such a messy way to run the finale. But realistically not about consistent at all and just revenue.
 
jessy_girl said:
And yes I agree, I guess they wanted to keep it consistent but it should have just been voting to win surely, it felt like such a messy way to run the finale. But realistically not about consistent at all and just revenue.
Click to expand...
See BBUK had the best balance, vote to evict until the final where 5/6 finalists faced a vote to win. That way vote to evict was still utilised but didn't overdo it and since there was such a variant in choices to vote to win the genuinely boring characters didn't win.
 
kamui said:
I think they made it unnecessary complicated by the way they've presented the results. They had two results graphic, kinda like this:

SaveEvict
6%21%
30%36%
26%16%
38%27%

And then the final results, which were like:
SaveEvict
10%
17%
31%
42%

And it used to throw me off as well on how somebody that had 36% evict votes and 30% save votes could end up with 17% of save votes.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah I remember now that they still displayed it as Percentages rather than just actual numbers of votes and trying to mentally add up wtf are we we looking at and how it all works out. Data presentation 101 people ease of readability of the darn thing LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top