I propose a system where large contests performed in front of audiences and then judged by a group of experts should also be judged by the people being entertained. It should be set up electronically to the back of every stadium seat and every time it was time to vote a light would flash on the seat and the big stadium screens would say when as well and how long before the votes were collected. A computer would then average all the votes and then post the results alongside the judges showing the collective opinion of the audience. The crowd vote would be equal to one of the judge votes since the collective knowledge and experience of the crowd is at least equal to if not greater than the judges (unless it's a small crowd)and the crowd sees everything and usually misses nothing. This system can also be used in sporting events where the crowd can yay or nay a referees call if it is deemed too questionable. There would have to be rules set up so that it doesn't tie up the game too much or be used for cheating.
-- Spaceman Spiff, Feb 28 2008

Involving the crowd more in crowd events is a great idea, is sometimes done a little bit, and we'll see more of it, no doubt. That said, I see at least two problems:

// the collective knowledge and experience of the crowd is at least equal to if not greater than the judges [...]
// the crowd sees everything and usually misses nothing
This is a popular fallacy that should really have a name. (Anyone know?) While one individual in the crowd is probably seeing something, and is probably smarter than the judge, at any one time, that doesn't mean that the crowd as a whole is smarter and "knows" what their individual constitutents have seen - especially when they have no communication except neighbor-to-neighbor. (Ever play "telegraph"?)

The people in the crowd root for their team. Wouldn't they tend to also vote in favor of their team? Wouldn't that make the whole decision process one of counting fans of team A vs. fans of team B, with all other decisions just following? The peer pressure in a block full of rabid, semi-drunk sports fans must exceed - what's the unit for peer pressure, anyway?
-- jutta, Feb 28 2008


Exactly. The Indians or Chinese (or whoever had the largest voting population) would always win.

"what's the unit for peer pressure, anyway?"
The browbeat (bb)?
-- phoenix, Feb 28 2008


Granted I probably got carried away with the crowd knowledge bit but when I watch contests of skill I can usually tell when a mistake was made even though I know nothing of the event cause it doesn't seem right like when you listen to music and a note is just a bit off key you can usually notice that something is wrong even if you don't know what it is. The crowd may not vote for anything technical or artistic but for simply how entertaining was it to me? Since organized contests and sports are mainly for entertainment reasons the stadium audience should have a vote as they are paying for the event (except for the olympics I think). The person would have to be at the stadium to vote so China, India and other large population countries would be unable to cheat in that way unless they brought a stadium full of people to do just that.

As for sports the reff thing was thrown in there and probably wouldn't work at all but it could still be used for other things like poking fun at the visiting team.
-- Spaceman Spiff, Feb 28 2008


Coming from a contry with a huge population with internet acess would give you a huge advantage. Cultural influences in constume and music choice would punish performers from atypical cultures that "look funny" to internet users while being technically competative with teams who don't seem foreign to the majority of internet viewers.
-- WcW, Feb 28 2008


Gooooooogle is is China this year too. Cutural Revolution II?
-- WcW, Feb 28 2008


"The person would have to be at the stadium to vote..."
So the country with the wealthiest (most easily traveled) population always wins?
-- phoenix, Feb 28 2008



random, halfbakery