SIMPLE MATHEMATICS - Page 2

Originally posted by: MissSkeptic

@bold - The main problem is that the general perception is that once the numbers are audited then it is 100% accurate. But auditing has never guaranteed that the numbers are 100% "correct"...What audit provides is reasonable assurance that the numbers are true and fair. Further, there are many scopes in audit and the level of assurance provided is also dependent on the scope of audit...And audit is done on based on certain methodology and sampling basis unless the scope actually requires you to look at the whole population (very unlikely cause of many factors mainly time costs and risk)...

Absolutelty...and sampling plays an importnat role..plus we have no clarity what weightage is being assigned to the various voting mediums...and how are the samples being taken..are the samples even random...i wud expect quota sampling to happen..but again i dont think they go for that...its a tedious expensive execise..random sampling is easier...and that is an ineffective sampling in this case..

And the main important thing is that auditors are not required by the standards to detect fraud...we are just supposed to exercise professional judgement and design audit procedures to give us reasonable assurance to opine on the financials...therefore those accounting scandals may happen

and were undetected by the audit firms but if they have done all the procedures necessary to provide them with sufficient evidence to opine on the financials then the audit firm has discharged its duties appropriately...

Of course those accounting scandals happened also because of independence issues between the audit firms and management of those companies where sometimes the relationship has a huge influence on the opinion provided...But this issue has been addressed and more stringent compliance regulations/rules are introduced by the Board governing the audit firm to ascertain the firms independece...

Personally I feel that the phrase seems to be discrediting the whole audit profession when in fact one does not even fully understand the scope and duties of an auditor...

ah!..no no not that intention...but the point I am trying to bring forth is..that these firms and i mean include i banks and ocnsulting firsm...many a times numbers are displayed or interpreted..or aligned with a methodology that would give a benefit or skew the result towards any 'favourable' responses...

However, at the same time..in this context the logic assumes voting ranks are fair... that is why I am not calling them a lever of politics..

Originally posted by: Wicked-Anoshka

Thanks so much for explaining that to me🤗 ghar ja kar padungi and will reply..doing grocery..

Originally posted by: enigmatic_zephy

lol..you know how to politely tell a person they did not help..😆...argh..hope someone else does a better job at it...i am so bad at explaining stuff..

sry..i am like those geniuses..who are horrible at explaining stuff...and good at writing on multiple balckboards..😆

Originally posted by: kaushikbasu

@TM A couple of points. Auditing is mandated as per law for wherever money is involved so the producer must have the voting by SMS audited, but that does not mean he is bound to have the online voting audited. Also auditing looks if the total number of votes matches what is provided. But then there is no way anyone can ensure that channel or production house members have not voted, which is ethically wrong. But then I have to disagree to some of your points.

Certain things are not very clear. Some say and absolute marking is done as you suggested that in case of 6 contestant top scorer gets a 6 and top voted gets a six and then ranked accordingly. So the sum total of both decides on the actual ranking.

So linear scales were used in Indian TV shows for quite some time..I myself was asking for clarification to a few people who commented here...and are into auditing purpose..if linear scale is still followed or not...but atleast in past that was the trend..there was a complete report on this..

Some say it is much more complicated than that. They say as per some formula a weighted average is done e.g. say a person gets more than 100000 votes he maybe given a weight age of 1 while one getting 75000 might be getting a weight age of 0.5. which means the calculation thus becomes much more complex.

That's what , i raised that doubt somewr...i hv mentioned it in one of the posts in this thread...that at times its a range..but i do not have much clarity on that...

and by simple mathematics..i dont mean actual simple mathematics..but that..logically voting alone is not the greatest lever...as people understand..because at the end of the day weightage is 50-50...😆..and max manipulations happens in marks...( giving benefit of doubt to all) 😃

But either way the production house has the trends on how a celebrity is voted hence they can manipulate the markings accordingly, if all parties agree.

Yes. For my analysis I am assuming voting to be a fair process...and hence it can't be a lever of manipulation...so even if voting were to be not fair..then too marks remain a stronger lever...

So people should understand that voting is not what riles others..or voting alone is not the reason behind a person's success/no success...

However, it would be awesome if osmeone in the forum could throw more light on this..how exactly are the ranking conversions done..

Originally posted by: ANNMT.

so u mean louren is getting less votes so they r giving her gud marks , drasti is getting high votes so now they r giving her less markes ...to much locha hai yaar

Originally posted by: MissSkeptic

@bold - The main problem is that the general perception is that once the numbers are audited then it is 100% accurate. But auditing has never guaranteed that the numbers are 100% "correct"...What audit provides is reasonable assurance that the numbers are true and fair. Further, there are many scopes in audit and the level of assurance provided is also dependent on the scope of audit...And audit is done on based on certain methodology and sampling basis unless the scope actually requires you to look at the whole population (very unlikely cause of many factors mainly time costs and risk)...

And the main important thing is that auditors are not required by the standards to detect fraud...we are just supposed to exercise professional judgement and design audit procedures to give us reasonable assurance to opine on the financials...therefore those accounting scandals may happen

and were undetected by the audit firms but if they have done all the procedures necessary to provide them with sufficient evidence to opine on the financials then the audit firm has discharged its duties appropriately...

Of course those accounting scandals happened also because of independence issues between the audit firms and management of those companies where sometimes the relationship has a huge influence on the opinion provided...But this issue has been addressed and more stringent compliance regulations/rules are introduced by the Board governing the audit firm to ascertain the firms independece...

Personally I feel that the phrase seems to be discrediting the whole audit profession when in fact one does not even fully understand the scope and duties of an auditor...

Originally posted by: enigmatic_zephy

cool...that wasn't the intention...cynical of the business world as such..ethics is kind of grey area...but i do know given my exp in these firms...not audit per se..but numbers are usually displayed and interpreted in a manner to benefit the client or self..even if that is not the best way out...be it analyst reports on firms ( you know there is a reason why most stocks are always buy 😛), consulting-market projections..e.tc..

ah shucks..i was actually hoping you wud be able to throw some light on the conversion ratios...but out of curiosity, if you ever come across someone in ur firm or some info on how voting is considered...plz do tell...abt this process..its always a pleasure to know ...