Gunge Grand Prix 2016: Finalists Revealed! Final Vote Live!

Good evening all,

The semi-finals of the 2016 Gunge Grand Prix are now complete. The results are as follows:

Jenna Louise Coleman 71%-29% Karen Gillan

Demi Lovato 50.24%-49.76% Myleene Klass (ONE vote in it)

So your 2016 Gunge Grand Prix Finalists are:

Jenna Louise Coleman

Jenna Louise Coleman

Jenna Louise Coleman

and Demi Lovato!

Demi Lovato

Demi Lovato

The final vote is now live and will close at around 10.40pm UK time on Monday 3rd October, so get your votes in now! You’ll also note that I’ve hidden the results, just to ramp up the tension further…

My aim is to reveal the winner on Tuesday 4th October, so keep your eyes peeled for the big announcement!

With voting now drawing to a close, I’m also interested to hear people’s opinions on how this stage of the competition has worked, with a view to making improvements for 2017 (yes it will be back). Please comment below with your thoughts; Fewer or more ‘contestants’? Should there be restrictions on how many nominations people can make? Group stages before straight knockouts? Any other ideas? Comment below!

Thanks for supporting the return of this event, now get voting for your winner!


This entry was posted in Stories. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Gunge Grand Prix 2016: Finalists Revealed! Final Vote Live!

  1. I would:
    – Half the number of contestants, thus reducing the total number of rounds by one.
    – Limit people (read: me and Pridz) to 30 people or fewer in total
    – Let people submit a picture with their nominee if they so wish
    – Do something about the same people being nominated under different names. I know one person was almost in the GGP twice thanks to that, and there are a few who I think were put in with outdated names. Jenna Louise Coleman’s a perfect example, seeing as in her last series of Doctor Who she was credited as “Jenna Coleman”. Rihanna was at one point nominated as “Robyn Fenty”, before being withdrawn. Lindsay Ellis hasn’t been “The Nostalgia Chick” (which was only a character anyway – it’s like saying this final is between Clara Oswald and Mitchie Torres) since January 2015. I’m not sure what the solution is, but it’s something that needs an eye keeping out for, I think.

    I’d also make a few stipulations regarding photos. They should:
    – Be of a decent resolution. I did come up with an actual minimum resolution I’d use at one point but can’t remember what it was now.
    – Be clear (as in not blurry, dark, grainy etc.)
    – Show the celebrity from the top of the head down to at least the waist.
    – Be among the first eligible ones found when searching ” 2017″.


    • AW says:

      Pretty much everything Vanilla said sounds good to me. Especially limiting the number of nominations you take from each individual – how many Sky Sports News presenters do we need?

      I still predict that Jenna will win, and based on past performances, she’ll win with 65% or more of the votes.


      • yuck53 says:

        Some of those changes seem like practical ways of streamlining what the GGP is trying to do and be. Not sure why we’re being asking for such dramatic changes now though. The basic format is highly established now.


        • Each of my suggestions addresses what I thought was at least one problem that the GGP had this time and/or had in the past. Specifically:
          The first two points I’ve talked about in other comments. Not gonna repeat myself, just scroll.

          I thought quite a few of the pictures this time around were unflattering and/or useless, and in the past some have even been inaccurate. A person isn’t going to nominate someone they don’t know the appearance of, so the inaccuracy issue goes immediately. Even without the stipulations, it also wouldn’t be in the nominator’s interest to attach a bad photo either. This helps to create a level playing field, ensured further by the stipulations.

          The “different names” thing I think I also covered sufficiently well above. It’s just a way of preventing confusion, really.

          Just because the GGP has been fine this time and in the past doesn’t mean it can’t be better.


      • MCPridz says:

        pretty much all of them cuz there hot only think one didnt get in


        • That’s missing both mine and AW’s points entirely. The point is that the GGP’s nominees should reflect the community.

          Sure, the Sky Sports presenters may be hot, but that’s just your opinion. I for one don’t know any of them, none of them particularly piqued my interest, and personally, I think there are far hotter and more “deserving” people to be there. I assume AW does too, given that they specifically called out those nominations.

          I know I’m probably one of the worst people to point this out. I was just as guilty of filling up the nominations as yourself, if not moreso. I have no doubt that people probably saw names like Emmi Silvennoinen and thought there were more attractive/”deserving” people to be there too. Still, I don’t feel guilty for it. The option was there, after all.

          Basically, I’m saying to remove the ability for one or two people to really dominate the signups, and encourage a bit more thinking about who people really want to nominate.


  2. MCPridz says:

    I also think the long lul after the first round didn’t help, which has also made it go on for too long this time around, and people got disinterested


  3. wamfan101 says:

    I’ve enjoyed the whole thing. Might I suggest hiding the results from, say, the quarter final onwards, and hiding future draws from last 16 onwards to keep some more surprise elements to it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. custard2009 says:

    Thanks to all of you for your comments so far, they’re all greatly appreciated. Ultimately I will look to put a survey together and that will help determine the future direction of the competition. For now though I will try and address some of the comments above:

    1) Personally I’m in favour of reducing numbers, as it does feel as though the opening rounds do drag a bit. The alternative to reducing numbers, as I’ve alluded to in my post, is to have groups of 4 with 1 going through from each, so you go from 512 to 128 in one round. It’s only a thought but may be worth considering.

    2) Restricting the number of nominations per user is something I’m keen on. I think 30 may be too high a restriction with a field of 256 as you could only have 8-9 people deciding the list, but it would work with a field of 512. Ultimately, I want as many people to have a say in the final list as possible, so I think it is important restrictions are bought in.

    3) The names and photos can be difficult. I’ll admit there were people who I didn’t recognise and that made finding photos difficult, and finding decent photos of the obscure photos was also difficult. I’d be more than happy for nominees to submit their own photos. Names are slightly easier as a quick google search will often flag up links. When dealing with such numbers there are likely to be the odd mistake, luckily these were flagged up reasonably early and dealt with asap.

    4) I get the point regarding the need for the list to reflect the community, hence restrictions on numbers of nominations. I felt the same way about the number of wrestlers/fighters nominated. Ultimately though it is all down to personal opinion, and if someone wants to nominate 10 sky sports news presenters, they are entitled to do so.

    5) The lull after round 1 was entirely my fault. Between April and August I have sporting commitments which take up large swathes of my time, and it meant I was struggling to keep on top of things. In 2017, I plan to start the competition in February (taking nominations late January) at a quieter period of the year for myself to ensure a similar situation doesn’t occur. This definitely had an impact as round 2 ended up being rushed and meant some matches had single figure votes, due to so many being posted at the same time in a bid to catch up.

    6) I’m open to hiding results earlier (maybe even all the way through?) if it helps to voting numbers and interest up.


    • 1: As long as round 1 doesn’t drag again, I’m not too fussed on how it happens. That and the break did kill the momentum, and by extension interest.

      2: To me, 30 seemed to be a good middle ground, even after reducing to 256. A lot of people seemed to do three lists of ten, a few more and a few less. Maybe 20 for 256, 30 for 512?

      3: Nothing to comment on there.

      4: Someone nominating 10 metalheads/Sky Sports girls/wrestlers/whatever is fine as a representation of one person’s taste. The issue is when that ends up dominating the nominations. This year, the GGP had a lot of wrestlers, metalheads (YOU’RE WELCOME), voice actresses and sports presenters, while less niche occupations like live-action actresses, popstars etc. lost out. I’m not saying these people have no place in the GGP,, but I am saying that I am not the entire community, nor is anyone else.

      5: Nothing to say on this one other than don’t let it happen again and/or get help sooner, I guess?

      6: This, so much. If nothing else, As well as everything else, it dissuades unfair manipulation which (as far as I know) hasn’t hit the GGP, but has apparently hit series like Davina’s House Party, Suzi’s Slop Drop and Comeuppance.


  5. pml89 says:

    Alright, I’ll give my thoughts, both from doing this job previously, and observing this time.

    There is already a system in place to help stop nominations being dominated by a few people. The 10 people per day thing meant to stop the domination without stopping nominations being made. If people know the day nominations open, they all have a fair chance to get their nominations in. This also prevents the situation where nominations stop because the only people nominating have reached their quota (unlikely, but possible). If they get more nominations, that’s because they were the engaged people, and they were the ones making that effort.

    I hid the results, (and got annoyed when someone tried to reveal the them at one time), for a number of reasons. Firstly, it kept an air of mystery about the proceedings. Everyone seems to think Jenna is a shoe-in because of previous votes (from 2013 experience, I tell you that it could still easily go the other way, jenna dominated every round that year too). It also hid number of votes, and how the vote was shaped. I always had the excel sheet at the end (well one got lost in a hard-drive wipe, but still) to show it was fair and honest (or how Mila Kunis escaped). I fully recommend hiding results. Similarly, hiding future draws keeps more mystery of how soon potential favourites/rivals could meet.

    I’m not really in favour of reducing numbers. 512 works because of the power of 2 thing, and the fact that it allows enough ladies to be nominated that in most cases, people shouldn’t feel too bad about someone missing the cut. The group stage idea is intriguing, maybe you should experiment with it, after all, you’re running it now. It adds danger of early favourites being paired together, but that risk is always there.

    The double name thing is impossible to police during nominations. They come so fast, and most of the time, you don’t know where the doubles have come from. The only real time it can be caught is by checking for pictures. More vigilance is nice, but not foolproof. Plus if people start submitting their own pictures, this stage of double checking is removed.

    Picture rules came from me. I had particular rules of how I wanted the pictures to be. Where possible, I always searched for {NAME} {YEAR} as the search. I tried to get a large sized picture, and aimed for landscape pictures (good for formatting reasons) that showed a smiling face. It wasn’t always possible, especially with more obscure names, but I did my best (and had a conversation about it at one point). I understand the reasons for people submitting photos of their nominees, I wanted to keep my own quality control on things (especially the formatting ones).

    There are some formatting changes I’d recommend. It is possible to make both pictures the same size and appear side by side. This allows neither to look bigger than the other (also why I loved getting landscape photos). Also it would be best to add links in a stickied post for ease of use. The drop-down menus are tricky to use (especially on mobile), and in the early rounds, where there are lots of votes, for someone with a broken mouse wheel, near impossible. I was lucky that I could go on the dashboard as an editor, and click on the links to the pages there, but it does mean someone without those privileges would struggle (and possibly give up). A linkable list is extra effort, but it makes things so much easier. If necessary, ask someone to help in making the links.

    The time out was just bad luck/planning. that comes with practice, knowing when things are gonna be. Don’t be afraid to ask for help earlier, often someone will be available and willing to help.

    I’d also find a way to increase interest as the rounds progress. I found a way of adding new pictures after the quarter finals (as well as post announcing the quarter finalists). I also increased the time allowance for voting (ok, the two day thing early on may have been a mistake, and since you could only vote once anyway, it didn’t matter, but I tried). You’ve made a change to final here (hiding results), I’d just suggest more grandeur for the finale.

    And lastly, I want to congratulate you, custard2009. I remember saying good luck, and I know from experience the difficulties with running this sort of thing (especially since it’s for free, purely for hobby in your spare time). It’s not easy, and you’ve made it through, and you’ll have learned tricks for next year. Thank you for bringing the GGP back, I’m glad to see it wasn’t forgot about after I stopped, and gave something to remind me of previous times. So on behalf of everyone, thank you.

    P.S. DEMI LOVATO FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  6. SnarkyFlapjack says:

    Many thanks for all your efforts running the competition, custard2009. This cannot be easy to organise and it has been well-run throughout.

    Thoughts below:

    1) I think combining round 1 and 2 into a group stage is worth considering. From an admin perspective this sounds an awful lot easier than creating 384 separate polls, and avoids the problem of wading through all the wrestler vs. rock singer match-ups to find the ones you actually care about (I kid, guys).

    2) Don’t have a huge problem with nominations but some form of restriction sounds good – I think part of the issue this year was that nominations opened up just prior to midnight which allowed people to get multiple nominations before most people even saw the post. Perhaps restrict it to 10 per person for the first week to let everyone have their say, then open it up to 10 nominations per day?

    3) Hide the results throughout and disable multiple voting. This increases the tension and helps deter voting abuse. Some of the voting patterns looked downright strange – the Taylor Swift vs. Charli XCX vote swung from 70% for Taylor down to 30% overnight, and then gradually worked back up to 35% again.

    4) Allowing people to submit a photo is an appealing idea, but I think this may introduce more problems than it solves (what happens if multiple people nominate the same person?). I tend to disagree with Vanilla and PML here with respect to what makes a good photo, as I feel that people with a face portrait photo always tend to do better in the voting (at least in the early rounds where there are more unknowns). A close-up portrait photo makes people easier to identify and there’s a reason why this is generally the standard for photography.

    5) Bigger posts on the front page would help, with lists of the match-ups and photos once we reach the quarter finals.


  7. AW says:

    So, in previous years there has been a story contest tacked on to the end of the GGP, using a specific WAM show or gunging device and the winner as the “victim”. Are there any plans for that this year?


  8. yuck53 says:

    Hmm, OK. Having thought about this I’m ready to give my two cents for what they’re worth.

    First, then on the idea of reducing the number of contestants, while I’ve always been at best lukewarm to the GGP and the huge number on contestants have made it very hard to keep up with to the point I’ve given up such a move would constitute a huge format change at this stage.

    It takes a lot of imagination to even try to think the GGP could work as a concept, anyone got any idea how to make a series of eliminations for someone to be gunged resulting in one gungee and 511 escapees exciting as a process?

    Nevertheless, imagining for a moment this could survive and have a audience, a drop in the number of nominees would suggest a huge budget cut such as to suggest the format isn’t really doing so well. Probably not a good argument, but a feeling about the possibilities of what makes the GGP attractive to those who vote.

    Reducing how many nominees people can make naturally follows from this. Whatever number is set a lot more people seem to follow and vote in the GGP than are prepared to make nominations. If you get the number wrong there’s a danger of making the target number of candidates unreachable.

    I’ve always thought people should be able to nominate a photo of their candidate as it would save time and help immediately show who they’ve voted for. The downside is as people mentioned, two people nominating the same candidate with difficult photos (though we’d hope that this happened minimally as we want to keep repeats down in general), also that photo could subsequently be taken down or some people might decide not to post a photo, this could unbalance the nominations and give an advantage to those with early entry photos.

    Also several photos in the same post could constitute a flood of data which could confuse the reader and make it harder to find who has and hasn’t been nominated (though you expect it to help reduce repeats because people should recognize who they’re nominating).

    I have to agree that nominating people with the same name is hard to police but at least some stipulations and guidelines can be made to help people check and use names consistently. I’ll let brighter people decide how to work that.

    I have little comments to make on the specific photo stipulations except about the guideline for trying to find recent photos. Not because I don’t think it’s good in principle but because search engines are different and computers are stupid (must find better word). If you put ‘2017’ in the search box but someone has posted a ten-year-old photo of your named celebrity on a new webpage with (c)2017 at the bottom somewhere the search engine may well find that photo.

    As far as I can tell results are always hidden from me on nearly all polls but available to authors. I think they should be hidden in all circumstances as much as possible in order to keep the playing field level.


  9. TG says:

    I agree that the first round, in its present form, is too long (it contains one more poll than all the other rounds combined, such is the nature of powers of two). A group stage is something I’ve wondered about previously. It is possible to set up polls that allow voters to choose multiple options, up to a certain number (such as I used for the GYOB and NHP scene votes). So one way to speed up the first round without cutting numbers would be to have group votes with, say, the top two or four from each group going through. Though then you would need to decide whether to place the women into separate pools so that members of the same group wouldn’t meet again until the final stages…

    I would definitely make all polls private. As noted above, there has been some suspicious behaviour in some of the polls. Showing the scores makes it a lot easier for dickheads to manipulate them.

    Regarding nominations, perhaps reduce the daily limit to say five? And limit each person over a rolling 24 hours, so they can’t nominate one batch just before midnight and another batch just after. There’s only so much you can do to “give everyone a chance”, however; if somebody only visits the site once or twice a month, they don’t have much grounds for complaint if they miss the nominations.

    Anyway, well done Custard2009 for getting through it all. Let’s hope plenty of people get involved in the storywriting part of the contest…


    • yuck53 says:

      Hmm, the concept of the group stage is something I have so far not commented on as I find it hard to imagine what is being described in my head. Nevertheless I like the idea of trying it before reducing the number of contestants.

      As I mentioned a sudden reduction would carry the possibility of negative implications even if done for constructive reasons. Introducing a group stage simply looks like the format is being refreshed which I feel has more positive implications.


  10. There is nothing to comment on with regards to a “group stage” as how it would work hasn’t actually been explained. My interpretation is that you’d have groups of four contestants, with each one being paired off against the other, and the winner of each tie scoring 3 points, 1 point for a tie (as rare as they are), nothing for a loss. Isn’t the point supposed to be to speed things up rather than make them drag even longer than they already do?


    • TG says:

      No, I think the point is you’d have all four in a single vote.


      • yuck53 says:

        Both of those seem possible although TG’s is simpler and more in the spirit of what custard suggested which was to slash the number of nominees by three quarters in one round instead of half and that’s what would accelerate the process. But their may be other ways of dong that that he has in mind.

        But what do I know I don’t even understand why 512 has a special ‘power of 2’ thing compared to the other rounds which also reduce the current pool by half.


        • pml89 says:

          512 is a power of 2. That means if you continue to half it, you eventually end up at 1, perfect for finding a single winner, and using a simple bracket tournament system. 512 is also a nice number in allowing enough people to be nominated without too much clutter, and without feeling that someone missed out. It is a lot, especially since you can only schedule up to 100 pages (to get all polls to go live at the same time), and it’s that balance that we’re trying to work out.

          Liked by 1 person

↓ This is where you write something ↓

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s