Himesh defends SMS Voting !!!! - Page 6

Originally posted by: qwertyasdfgh

If Amit acted with the newer directors cos he more or less gave up his opinions, for one, his son was being good for nothing and secondly he was going in debt.. So everything is not like what it appears...

😊 😊 😊

😊

Agar Bhaskar bhai dekh nahi raha hota (mujhe unhe dukhi karna nahi hain)then just for this comment alone..i would have gone....😡.. but unka sunday evening barbad..karneka irada nahi hain.. to isiliye mein chhord raha hoon... fir kabhi kisi aur jagah..iska jawab dunga..rain check !!!

aaj ke liye itna hi kaafi hain..ki I disagree !!!

😆 (yeh Bhaskar bhai ke liye..) dekho hum haas rahe hain..qwerty ka yeh comment dekh ke bhi..😕😆

Originally posted by: adi_0112

That's exactly what I am trying to say ysiad,

Don't leave it entirely to the public.. the choice may not be the best and just having a panel of judges selecting may cause financial crunch..

So have a combo of both.. i would say.. 45% public and 55% panel of neutral judges..

and may the best man/woman - girl/boy win !

1. in real life, dont we leave it up to the public? if they decide to buy Yesudas, it's their choice. ditto for HR. if we give 5 different styles of singing the same song to a judge, wont two judges come up with their own personal preferences, as much as the public would?

2. do we seriously think the judges have some infallible ability to judge what is truly beautiful and appealing. arent they as susceptible to the biases as the public? to the usual suc*ing up/ emotional play/ respectful/ sweet talk?

3. havent we also had different judges focusing on different things- sur vs "eyes closed" vs originality vs copying? left to themselves, they found different things as important ones to focus on. what does that suggest? they are all looking for different things, as we all are.

4. and if we start putting grade sheets for different criteria, is that how we make choices with beauty, paintings etc. (count up our scores for the nose, eyes etc.)? so no real answers even if we go the judges way.

also as said before, the entire choice is a misleading one. it sort of makes it appear as we are losing out on something when we are not... in fact, reverse is true- with public involvement, we get more, not less...

thats True.. Himesh Rocks.

😆

Yeh vinit to kabhi apni Photo paste karne ke liye Betaab hi rehtaa hai

Originally posted by: adi_0112

Sahi bola bhai.... el bangle haath me leke uske 2 ends to dhoondne ke barabar hain...😆😆😆

Qwerty..chal woh banjo sharib luv wala thread chalke thoda time pass karke aate hain...😆😆😆

😆

Waha bhi shuru ho gaye to wapas teesre thread dhund lena ghumne ke liye...

Originally posted by: qwertyasdfgh

CB I think good judges are better than public cos their assessment will be more technical then junta.. and although the junta finds somebody good.... the judgements by the judges would eventually be the reason the junta wont help the singer succeed.. Its like when people go to the paiting exhibitions.. you cant decide the worth of a painting with its appeal.. for you are not going to pay 100 of thousands for that painting just for its appeal but people who can assess the technicality will pay for it. Same holds for unpolished gems.. unless u can assess it worth after you have polished its just going to be a stone.. so technicality would help more than the whimsical, spontaneous and ephemeral appeal it creates for the masses for all the wrong reasons....

u've identified the problem yourself- good judges. werent the 4 magical mentors good judges of sorts? did we see the whimsical decision-making process they inflicted on us when they were in it together, pruning down from 32 singers to 16? thumbs-up, thumbs-down. arbitrary. in old sgmp, didnt we have one judge handing out 35, 60 points to two singers (i think it was the world series), someone else giving 90, 91. they may understand their own genre of music, but good decision-makers or thinkers or judges they need not be.

now take the 45-55 split mentioned here. we wld then have someone lose with 40% support from say 5 judges, and with over 60% from the public, which is an overwhelming majority in most 2-way contests. given how over history we've seen even guni folks from various epics throw tantrums and act on their whims, i find the discreteness of judge selection and whimsical acts very scary. sort of like the Central Plans with a few members we've had for diverting huge resources to different parts of our economy, much of which have been total disasters.

as for these competitions, sooner or later, these folks will be thrown in front of the public. if winning the sgmp based on judging was such a badge of honor and spur to later populist support, we'd have the umpteen winners of previous sgmp making it as big as the c2005 contestants. i dont think we've had that many. what became even of most of the winners of previous world series?

in any case- wat wld u rather have- public involvement or judges, financial support and name-recognition for the contestants or a prestigious trophy handed by a judge most folks cant identify with, gathering dust. to suggest some kind of a split is compromising on either of these two admitted extremes. somewhat like a lowest common denominator at play. we cld then have someone win the competition who neither shone with the public nor with the judges, but just because his mathematical total was the highest.

also Qwerts, u might BELIEVE the public is all messed up. but we DO KNOW that the mentors/ judges were messed up- we saw that with them not even being able to agree during the initial round selections where they were all acting in cahoots. if selecting best singer was such a mathematically straight process, shldnt they have had more unanimous decisions?

Originally posted by: Bhaskar.T

😆

Waha bhi shuru ho gaye to wapas teesre thread dhund lena ghumne ke liye...

😆

I normally don't agree with CB, but here I have to. The analogies raised by Adi over SMS decisions during educational or medical decisions is totally off topic and baseless. Those are important issues related to national interest, which need to be dealt with by experts. While this show, honestly, is just a form of entertainment. Zee TV is an entertainment channel.

Yes, over the past so many years they focused on music and provided real music to the people, but if Subhash Chandra now wants to attract in a larger audience and make some money in order to keep his channel afloat, I don't blame him. This is a cut-throat world, and Adi, you being someone who works in the corporate world should understand the business side of it.

And it's not like SRGMP didn't manage to sustain itself earlier. It did - it had a few sponsors. But that still didn't attract a lot of people other than a niche audience. I can state for a fact that the majority of the people in THIS forum didn't watch the old SRGMP regularly. And we're actually considered to be a music-loving forum. If we are that disinterested, then think about the rest of India.

SMS voting is not just for the financial income. That is important, but not the only thing. It attracts people. It makes them feel they are a part of it. It makes them feel important, makes them feel they should watch the show every week, because if they don't they will be responsible for their favorite participant being eliminated. It's a great feeling of being part of the decision-making. Sponsors were there earlier too, but the TRPs weren't.

Now let's think about a solution. I have two suggestions. One, limit multiple voting. Only one vote per week, or one vote per day, should be allowed from every cell phone or landline number. That will mean the opinion of the entire public as a whole, rather than a few individuals or groups who send in the bulk of votes.

Another suggestion is the involvement of both judges and public. I don't know if you people watched Nach Baliye (dance show) but I like dthe format. The judges gave their points, and based on that, all the participants were ranked. 10 points for the highest ranked person, 9 points for the 2nd highest, 8 for the 3rd highest, and so on. Similarly, the people also voted for their favorites, and based on that, the participants were ranked again, by the same style - 10 for higest, 9 for the 2nd highest, and so on. These two rankings were combined, and the person who got the highest combined points was number 1. The person with lowest combined points was eliminated.

This is a much better idea, rather than working with 45-55 percentages and all that math. And yes, Nach Baliye was quite successful.

Originally posted by: X-rebel

😆

Yeh vinit to kabhi apni Photo paste karne ke liye Betaab hi rehtaa hai

ye to hai😆