Perhaps using a gradually increasing time penalty would be satisfactory.
For example:
times under 100 seconds = 1 point penalty per second

101-200 seconds = 2 points penalty per second

201-300 = 3 points penalty per second

and so on...

Quote:

---

I suspect there are very few people on this site who could rack up 100 Expert wins without research.

---

Ahem.

I'm at 96 right now, and haven't researched any of them. I don't really think I am that unusual - many of our members came to this site precisely *because* we are good at this sort of thing. I'd be up to about 120 if I were a little faster (I can rarely get in at less than 50 seconds) and, again, I don't think that is very unusual. Quite often there are twenty to thirty perfect scores by the end of the game, most of them with the kind of times that show they were not researched.

It depends on the category... the really specific ones or more 'unpopular' (for lack of a better word) ones are often won with times of 200+ seconds (often meaning most of the times that those categories come up, which they don't all that often, because usually they're the "Cannot be changed" ones. Things like Manga, maybe Fantasy lit, specific bands (like this thread started stemming from the Metallica round... not that obscure of a topic but something that not that many players are going to know very very well)

Agony - I wasn't trying to imply that 100 wins without googling couldn't be done but that there are few players who could do it - so far only about 30 people have the Jack of All Trades badge in almost a year of the Expert Game which to my mind shows that it's really difficult whether you research or not. I know there are players who can do it but I have to disagree with you - I do think you are unusual if you have managed to get 96 Expert wins without googling - the 96 wins on its own is unusual. I can accept that all the people who already have the badge also did it without googling - but I would still argue, in the context of this site, 30 people is very few.

Can I just point out something glaringly obvious but not mentioned so far, as far as I can see.

This has been made out to be an issue of knowledge v. googling. For most of us that have been on this site a long time, we get high scores not because we have specialist knowledge but because we have seen the SPECIFIC questions before and our brains have memorised them. Let's not kid ourselves that somehow we are purists cos we ain't.

I would also reiterate the point that, for some of us, simply reading questions we haven't seen before can take a long time. I can often take 120-150 seconds on a 15 question set if the questions are long and unfamiliar.

This could have turned out to be a whole lot bigger can of worms than it did. As for googling, I think it has no place in the timed games. In the untimed I say google away. My congratulations to those with 100 or more Expert wins. I got up to 68 and have hit a brick wall. I don't really care to be lumped into the Champion category in games I've previously won, but accept that decision. Those games have really become a speed demon contest, and my speed is moderate at best. Fortunately in three of the more obscure and less played topics I won, I've been able to win again as a Champion. Lastly, this place is going to attract intelligent competitive people. If there is way to game the system, maybe not many, but some will find a way. I don't know how you can prevent that sort of thing all the time. As for me, I don't possess the kind of technical acumen to pull that off. I have to be satisified with my scores, the good, the bad and the ugly.

There is another undiscussed aspect to the subject and that is people who learn the quiz subject ahead of time at the beginning of the hour, go to two or three sources of knowledge, "bone up" on the topic and then take the test with the reference sources still readily available toward the end of the hour (suggesting that penalty systems should vary also through the hour).
This defines two different types of test taker populations: the "hit me with your best shot" type and the "let me get ready" type.
Time penalties do not effect the googler in this regard more than they penalize a 'cold' taker of the test who may search out one or two responses.
Also to be remembered is that, along these lines, the Who's the Expert Game advertises 6 hours/Subjects ahead of time in the title area 'Upcoming'.

lesley, my position is that no time penalties should exist at all. If you get 9/10 in 35s and I get 9/10 in 150s you win, but why should my reward be reduced? You get the ten points either way while mine goes from 8 points down to 4! (Even though I knew the information just as well as you did)

If there are to be penalties, my point about shifting penalty structure through the hour is based on that issue that 6 hours notice is given on a topic. If you aren't ready to submit your response in the first five minutes and have to take that additional hour to look things up, penalty. If you've prepared and need to look up an answer the penalty should be minimal because you did prepare. If you enter at the end of the hour and start looking things up, it indicates you haven't prepared. At the end of the hour if you only take a minimal amount of time, there is no penalty. And for those of us who take a little longer to respond, if we knew to take the test at the beginning of the hour, it could reduce the amount of penalization.

I do not recall the specifics of the discussion but I think when Terry announced the lead time for the quiz topics, it was so that researchers could go look things up ahead of time. And now, because they are doing the look up during the quiz and hour, and getting times like some of the ability limited of us, they are bringing penalties to our enjoyment.

So, if I get home from work at (say) 5.30pm and jump straight on the computer to play a quiz before the expert category ticks over (5.45pm) you want to penalise me? I think THAT is unfair

Just because I choose to play late in the hour doesn't mean I have spent the last 6 hours 'researching' the topic.

Sorry, I love FT but I have a life.

First ten minutes of the hour - no time penalty.
Minutes 11 through thirty - 1/3 the maximum time penalty structure.
Minutes 31 through fifty - 2/3 the maximum time penalty structure,
Minutes 51 through sixty - maximum time penalty structure.

I don't understand. Why should the time you play change your time penalties? Seems illogical to me.

I'm with Lones78 - I often hop onto Funtrivia on my way to a secure site (our work internet connection won't go straight to an https site) and play a quick quiz of the hour. And now I have to make sure it's one of the ones at the start of its hour or I'll be penalized? THAT doesn't seem fair.

As someone who still hasn't worked out how some amazing times are achieved (it takes me about 45 seconds just to page down and randomly click an answer, without any reading or thought, for a 15-question quiz, yet I often see times under 20 seconds!), i have just leaned to ignore it and pit myself against my own previous standards. And I will probably never win a Jack of All Trades Badge (my current total is 3 wins), but I can enjoy playing the game.

Initial Question: Can something be done about people googling to get high scores in the expert game.

Problem example: Games of obscure topics where "smart" players without resource assist are being beaten by players with high time recorded responses getting all the answers correct, suggesting that the time penalty isn't great enough.

Suggested correction: increase the time penalty structure.

My suggestions to counter raising the time penalty structure:
1) Do away with time penalties as they seem to fail at what they were intended to accomplish;
2) Vary the impact of the penalty through the hour(This comes from consideration that fair topic schedule lead time is already given in the Expert game; that some are still googling during the game [for more than one question]; a suggestion to go timed/untimed for the game; consideration for the 'information gathering challenged' of us to play on a level field without penalty).

These are observations of the problem and suggested methods to deal with it. I'm not trying to be illogical. It is called brainstorming and, in a brainstorming session, no idea is discarded until it has been proven to be non-germane to the issue.

Terry has made it pretty clear that he doesn't really see a problem here, and is unlikely to go to any great lengths to correct it. There has never been any intention to make sure all games suit all players. A rough stab at fairness, and an attempt to make sure there is something to do onsite for every level of ability, is about the best we can do.

Thank goodness! I think the balance of activities is perfectly acceptable as it is. You can't remove a disadvantage for one group without removing an advantage for another group, and you really can't please everyone all the time.

The only new rule I'd like to see is one to relax and enjoy what you do, without having apoplexy about what other people may or may not be doing.

Hear, hear! I have accepted the fact that there are some games I will never win (I simply cannot work out how people complete some quizzes in less time than it takes me to simply scroll down and submit, without even making a blind guess) and don't play them often. As it takes me nearly two hours every evening to play the games I want, take the newest quizzes that look interesting, check out the Authors Chat Lounge and my team message boards, then cruise past Ask FunTrivia to see if anything researchable is in view, I can just ignore them with no difficulty!