#517151 - Thu Mar 18 2010 03:03 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: AntonLaVey]
|
Champion Poster
Registered: Mon Jul 09 2007
Posts: 29436
Loc: Ottawa Ontario Canada
|
But then wouldn't a lot of people just choose to play untimed for unfamiliar topics, and still win with times of like 300 seconds?
_________________________
Editor: Television and Animals
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517154 - Thu Mar 18 2010 03:42 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: spanishliz]
|
Champion Poster
Registered: Mon Jul 09 2007
Posts: 29436
Loc: Ottawa Ontario Canada
|
But... that's true of the situation right now. A Googler isn't going to win if there's someone who is familiar with the category, you don't need to separate it into timed/untimed for that... And then on the timed side you could have people winning with like only 8 answers right simply because they can breeze through 15 questions in 25 seconds.
_________________________
Editor: Television and Animals
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517156 - Thu Mar 18 2010 05:19 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: guitargoddess]
|
Mainstay
Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 859
Loc: California USA
|
Quote:
But... that's true of the situation right now. A Googler isn't going to win if there's someone who is familiar with the category, you don't need to separate it into timed/untimed for that... And then on the timed side you could have people winning with like only 8 answers right simply because they can breeze through 15 questions in 25 seconds.
The top two scores in the Metallica topic a couple hours ago were Googlers. I am familiar with that topic and was only 5th or 6th when I played. I guarantee you if they hadn't Googled, they wouldn't be top two. I wouldn't have won, but there was at least one person ahead of me that didn't Google who would have won.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517159 - Thu Mar 18 2010 06:03 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: guitargoddess]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
I do not see it considered here and I would like to mix the issue of poor vision into the discussion.
My vision is poor. I know some topics very well but when the quiz results post, I am often down in the standings below some who have gotten fewer correct. That lower rank is not due to Google time but to difficulty in reading time.
But I still take timed tests because in several of the areas, avoiding the timed tests and only doing untimed hurts my team's score. No time, no team points (especially Mind melt) So even if I know I'm not going to be in first place, I play the timed version.
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517160 - Thu Mar 18 2010 06:07 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: guitargoddess]
|
Explorer
Registered: Thu Dec 25 2008
Posts: 63
Loc: Florida USA
|
I know this might make me look like a hypocrite for saying this since I've googled to win a bunch of titles in the past but I think what needs to happen is a time penalty kicking in after a set time like in Gold Member Madness. What is it in there, 180? If so, that's a good number. (Actually, it might need to be a lot lower since each second is 2 points deducted, like 140)
Some people have googled to win a good 100 titles, which they probably didn't even need since they already have Jack of All Trades.
@nasty_liar: Yeah, I've seen questions that were comprised of 3 paragraphs and without identing. Those need to be purged.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517162 - Thu Mar 18 2010 06:17 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Terry]
|
Explorer
Registered: Thu Dec 25 2008
Posts: 63
Loc: Florida USA
|
No, it's only 2 points/sec.
If the 2 point penalty is held onto then a good time for something like 10 point penalties will be around 140-160 seconds.
Edited by Prison (Thu Mar 18 2010 06:18 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517164 - Thu Mar 18 2010 06:36 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: MotherGoose]
|
Champion Poster
Registered: Mon Jul 09 2007
Posts: 29436
Loc: Ottawa Ontario Canada
|
MG, it's kind of obvious when people who normally get 15/15 in less than 40 seconds show up in "harder" categories with 15/15 in 258 seconds. Computer/internet connection failure is always possible of course, but it's a little coincedental when it ONLY happens on the more specific or obscure categories and never in the ones where it's basically just a speed contest.
_________________________
Editor: Television and Animals
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517166 - Thu Mar 18 2010 06:44 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: guitargoddess]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
Prison,
I am lucky if I can finish any quiz in less than 120 secs. And you want to start add er subtracting more points from my score?
There should be some browser signatures that can be recognized to assess penalties and not the time it takes to read ten, fifteen, twenty or twenty-five questions.
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517167 - Thu Mar 18 2010 06:51 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: mehaul]
|
Explorer
Registered: Thu Dec 25 2008
Posts: 63
Loc: Florida USA
|
I was hesitant to think about a score destroying penalty enforced after what appeared to be a short time. However, what could happen is that the Expert game could follow the GMM time penalty and remove the old 2 pt/sec one.
Long questions which eat up the clock can be purged so that's knocking off several seconds.
I'm not sure whether a "browser signature" can be easily implemented, if at all. Besides, what could determine a person's placement into this category? Taking more than a certain # of seconds?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517169 - Thu Mar 18 2010 07:17 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: BxBarracuda]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
Does one really even have to Google for some answers?
Couldn't I open two Fun Trivia windows and have one set to surf the FT encyclopedia? All the questions' answers are there, aren't they?
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517171 - Thu Mar 18 2010 07:25 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Terry]
|
Explorer
Registered: Thu Dec 25 2008
Posts: 63
Loc: Florida USA
|
Indeed. Gotta help my team.
In this case, we're not shutting anyone else out from a title or anything. However, if you feel a similar time penalty needs to be placed I won't protest.
Edited by Prison (Thu Mar 18 2010 07:34 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517173 - Thu Mar 18 2010 08:00 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Terry]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
England is my worst subject. I had to carefully read each question, I only triggered a quick hit on a Notting Hill question and still took 177 secs to complete my level's version of the quiz. Did I lose poits by taking so long? I had seven correct.
Edited by mehaul (Thu Mar 18 2010 08:04 PM)
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517176 - Thu Mar 18 2010 08:59 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: WesleyCrusher]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
Then how about registering visually impaired players and not imposing penalties for high times to those players?
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517178 - Thu Mar 18 2010 09:14 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: mehaul]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
Without google: Alternative Rock
I had to read all the presented lyrics carefully to be able to get a correct response (9/15) and it too 235 secs (around 15 secs per question)to end up with21 points. The player above me in the results only had 4 correct and got triple my points at 65!(at 3 secs per question)
I knew more than double without look ups than that person but got 1/3 the points or recognition.
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517180 - Thu Mar 18 2010 09:19 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Terry]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
I accept the fact that I'm not going to be the fastest and I really can understand the difficulties you cite. The penalties for high quiz times though are discouraging. All they serve to accomplish is to put the physically able further ahead.
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517181 - Thu Mar 18 2010 10:00 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Terry]
|
Mainstay
Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 859
Loc: California USA
|
Quote:
Ok, next hour I'm making the following changes to expert:
- graduated time penalty like GMM. Very little penalty for under 120 seconds. Anything over that and the penalty increases at a steeper rate. By 200 seconds it should be entirely prohibitive.
- questions are limited to 2-3 lines.
We'll see how it goes. If it works well for Expert, we'll do the same thing with Team Heroes, which is effectively the same game.
This is awesome. Thanks. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517182 - Fri Mar 19 2010 01:50 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: AntonLaVey]
|
Mainstay
Registered: Thu May 22 2008
Posts: 998
Loc: Delft<br>The Netherlands
|
Just brainstorming here: I was wondering whether the flash format can be used in the expert game, with a 10 second time limit for every question.
_________________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517183 - Fri Mar 19 2010 02:00 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: triviapaul]
|
Mainstay
Registered: Thu May 22 2008
Posts: 998
Loc: Delft<br>The Netherlands
|
Some more brainstorming: Registered visually impaired members could get a slightly altered visual version of the site (scrambling, randomising letters, blanking out, etc) that would make it very unattractive to seeing people. I am thinking about white letters on white background or such. In winners lists they could be marked with a (VI).
_________________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517185 - Fri Mar 19 2010 05:57 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: agony]
|
Administrator
Registered: Thu Sep 04 2008
Posts: 2831
Loc: Germany
|
Hmmm... how about a completely different idea: There actually is a very simple way of preventing any googling during a game (short of using a second computer which definitely creates HEAVY inefficiency in getting results fast) - a Javascript event called OnBlur can detect the user switching away from the page and do something - ideally submit the quiz (so you can go and google, but by the time you come back, there's no more place to put your answer)!
Now before this gets implemented, however, we should make sure that we meet all interests. We want knowledge to beat research, but players also sometimes want to play with research, especially when playing a very weak topic to help out in Heroes or when confronted with it in GC hardcore and needing 10 correct but knowing only 6.
So - here's the deal. You can decide *game by game* whether you want the anti-googler switched on. If it's on, the Javascript snippet stops you from googling and it will also submit a code with your quiz (to stop cheaters from starting the quiz in "pure" mode but switching JS off in the browser and happily googling away). And if that correct code is received at the other end, your right answers are worth 125 instead of 100.
So with this in place, you can get an 1825 out of a GC set you are really proficient in (15 right in 50 secs). 12 known still gives you 1500 (minus time), the same as you'd get for googling 15 (but that takes longer), so the best you can even hope to beat with perfect, lightning-fast googling skills is a moderately fast 11. On the other hand, when your choice is to randomly click 15 buttons or at least try to research and learn or get that 10 in random Sports statistics for GC Hardcore, play "softie" mode and get 1000-1200 instead of 500.
With that setup, we'd not need the ever-steeper timers anymore, at least not to the extent they are now.
Just make sure that with the protector on, the game screen has a different background color or similarly obvious visual - you should always know in mid-game which variant you are playing. Or, at second thought - just make the protected mode the default and simply let the OnBlur event forfeit the bonus instead of submitting. You start out with it active at all times and when you switch out, away go those points.
Checking off criteria:
- Knowledge rewarded over research skill. Yep.
- Players can choose their mode of play. Yep.
- Knowledgeable, slower players at minimum disadvantage. Yep.
- Adding Fun to the FT games? I'd say so.
What do you all think?
Wes
Edited by WesleyCrusher (Fri Mar 19 2010 06:00 AM)
_________________________
FT Editor and Administrator
Guardian of the Tower
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517188 - Fri Mar 19 2010 09:14 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: WesleyCrusher]
|
Administrator
Registered: Sat Mar 29 2003
Posts: 10717
Loc: Western Canada
|
To me, Wesley, that all seems unnecessarily complex.
The way things are set up right now, a moderately fast person who knows the subject will beat a Googler who does not. A slow person who knows the subject can be beaten by a Googler who doesn't. A very slow person who knows the subject slightly can be beaten by a very fast person who doesn't know it at all and just guesses.
It seems to me that if you are very slow, for whatever reason, playing timed games is not the best use of your competitive time. You need to be moderately knowledgeable and moderately fast to win a timed game, and that seems reasonable.
Saying, in effect, "timed games are not fair to me because I am slow" is the same as the googlers saying "knowledge games are not fair to me because I don't know anything." If you are very slow, or must look up every answer, then you're just not competitive in this game. You can still play, but not win, or you can do some of the other things available onsite.
I'm not unsympathetic to the problem of being a competitive visually impaired person. My son is legally blind, and had to resign himself early to the reality that there are some things he just cannot do quickly. Technology can be some help - increased font size and increased contrast help with some games. A good memory and the ability to cut to the heart of a question also really help. In real life he gets large print exams and some extra time to write them. In virtual life, online, he competes as best he can with sighted people and cherishes the times when his quick wits win out over someone else's good vision.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517190 - Fri Mar 19 2010 09:49 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: agony]
|
Mainstay
Registered: Fri Sep 07 2007
Posts: 699
Loc: Bedford England UK
|
I think we've agreed that there are a lot of explanations for slow times, and nobody can know for certain why someone else is slower than they are. Rusty fingers, steam-driven computers, bad eyesight, mid-quiz crashes. I've been in the middle of a quiz and answered the phone. I've even left a quiz to let someone in to read a meter, then gone back to the quiz. I do like the idea of keeping questions down to a few lines. Questions the size of small novels are borderline OK in timed quizzes if you've seen the question before, and can remember what you're meant to be looking for. Sometimes you plough through one of these never-ending questions, and find that you can ignore everything except the last sentence - and they're not OK at all! Going back to the original question, I don't know why people get so angry about other players googling. Once you start thinking about tweaking software to impede googling, you may as well forget the idea of open online quizzing, and just do the quizzes in a classroom. With invigilators. "... he competes as best he can with sighted people and cherishes the times when his quick wits win out over someone else's good vision." Good for him! Edited to add: Terry's post wasn't there when I started typing mine!
Edited by lesley153 (Fri Mar 19 2010 09:51 AM)
_________________________
I appreciate people who are civil, whether they mean it or not. I think: Be civil. Do not cherish your opinion over my feelings. There's a vanity to candor that isn't really worth it. Be kind. ~ Richard Greenberg
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517191 - Fri Mar 19 2010 10:26 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: lesley153]
|
Mainstay
Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 859
Loc: California USA
|
Quote:
I think we've agreed that there are a lot of explanations for slow times, and nobody can know for certain why someone else is slower than they are. Rusty fingers, steam-driven computers, bad eyesight, mid-quiz crashes. I've been in the middle of a quiz and answered the phone. I've even left a quiz to let someone in to read a meter, then gone back to the quiz.
True, but when players with a track record of being fast take four minutes on a 15 question game, there is Googling involved. I'm just saying.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517193 - Fri Mar 19 2010 11:38 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Terry]
|
Administrator
Registered: Thu Sep 04 2008
Posts: 2831
Loc: Germany
|
Hmm... it seems that idea was just too radical. Okay. Maybe a much simpler idea than all this technical stuff that would also help address at least one legitimate concern of slower players: Since it's usually unlikely a slow player with a handicap of some sort will win a division (there's almost always a faster player who knows just as much), why should we make them lose FT points for being slow as well? Can't we simply calculate the participation bonus as if the time penalty were a flat 1 in all games? You still couldn't win by playing slowly, but at least you'll get your points. Rest of the post is just a technical remark. Read or ignore at your own peril Wes ----------------------------- On the technical side, the problem would actually be quite solvable - OnBlur checks if the focus is gained/lost by the element whose property you check. If you check on form, you'd have the desired effect - all activities inside the quiz form are legit, all outside are not. Also, the "no Javascript" issue would be countered by the coded number the script is to return - essentially, you'd pass the script a random large number when generating the page, let it run a few calculations not easily or quickly simulated manually and check back the result on submit. (Challenge-response authorization). Without Javascript running, you'd always get back a default and it could be handled with game logic from there. The only unsolvable issue is the laptop next to the main screen, but I'd really like to see someone post any score worth mentioning that way. Consistently switching attention and hands between two screens sets of input devices is not something I could associate with fast googling. So, possible, likely yes. Maybe we could use it for one specific GM game someday instead of a sitewide control - the "what you really know" game .
_________________________
FT Editor and Administrator
Guardian of the Tower
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517194 - Fri Mar 19 2010 11:58 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Terry]
|
Head Honcho
Registered: Wed Dec 31 1969
Posts: 16910
Loc: USA
|
It's an interesting thought Wes, although I'm pretty certain it would cause more problems than it would solve. The biggest is that you'd need to play with javascript enabled in your browser, otherwise players could just turn it off before playing to google.
Then there's the problem of someone accidentally clicking outside of the window, or hitting alt-tab for some reason, or some other system dialog box that pops up which takes away focus, etc. I can just envision a stream of complaints coming in "It told me I cheated and googled, and all I did was get rid of a norton virus popup box!! Give me my points back!!".
Perhaps if we were building a site for only SATs or something that sort of thing might be useful, but considering the risk/reward of it.... it doesn't look good.
As for giving slow players more points, perhaps that could some day happen for all games, but that's really a different issue. Slow players do have nearly 100,000 untimed quizzes, thousands of crosswords, a monster quiz, quiz creation, question quest submission, and other games they can play to earn enormous gobs of points, so I don't think we're lacking in ways for slow players to earn points!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517198 - Fri Mar 19 2010 12:39 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: WesleyCrusher]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
Thank you Wesley for the attempt to more specifically spell out the idea I raised of a browser signature. It would be nice if we could attach a cheat monitor to every player like a wii controller. None of it's going to happen though. We slow players are going to have to suffer penalties because a few smart players sometimes cannot accept not being the best and take advantage of the situation.
So why impose penalties at all? Prison is arguably one of the most knowledgable players on the site and he admitted to googling. And for him to have the privilege of doing that once every twenty games (or less), I get penalized in almost all I play.
The stand that there are so many games not timed to play is like saying you can play around out here but only the real players get into the back room. I've said I know I'm not going to win. I accept that. Is the reason to play only to win? Or, is learning and fun part of the mix? Get rid of time penalties. they were a solution to a problem that can't be beat.
Edited by mehaul (Fri Mar 19 2010 01:26 PM)
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517200 - Fri Mar 19 2010 04:00 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: whee]
|
Explorer
Registered: Thu Dec 25 2008
Posts: 63
Loc: Florida USA
|
Oops - I went to bed right before Terry posted his request of testing out the time limits.
If that offer still stands, I could give it a try.
Edited by Prison (Fri Mar 19 2010 04:01 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517202 - Fri Mar 19 2010 09:26 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: WesleyCrusher]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
If you want a research/reward game wouldn't that type of effort be a 'not to be submitted until' a minimum amount of time had passed? Things you definitely spent time looking up whatever the lookup vehicle is (be it here, google, bing, wikipedia or kindle with an encyclopedia loaded on it) Set it up so all responses have to be submitted in two to three hundred seconds, none earlier, none later and actual amount of the time irrelevant. make them twenty five questions games and run a cummulative % correct value to determine a top ranking once a day/week/month.
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517209 - Sat Mar 20 2010 01:19 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Midget40]
|
Administrator
Registered: Sat Mar 29 2003
Posts: 10717
Loc: Western Canada
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517211 - Sat Mar 20 2010 01:40 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: bubblesfun]
|
Champion Poster
Registered: Mon Jul 09 2007
Posts: 29436
Loc: Ottawa Ontario Canada
|
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)
_________________________
Editor: Television and Animals
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517213 - Sat Mar 20 2010 03:37 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: bucknallbabe]
|
Explorer
Registered: Wed Apr 02 2008
Posts: 67
Loc: Kent UK
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517214 - Sat Mar 20 2010 06:08 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: glendathecat]
|
Participant
Registered: Tue Nov 10 2009
Posts: 19
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517215 - Sat Mar 20 2010 06:09 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: glendathecat]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
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'.
Edited by mehaul (Sat Mar 20 2010 09:05 PM)
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517217 - Sat Mar 20 2010 10:59 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: lesley153]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
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.
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517218 - Sun Mar 21 2010 01:38 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: mehaul]
|
Mainstay
Registered: Fri Sep 07 2007
Posts: 699
Loc: Bedford England UK
|
Quote:
no time penalties should exist at all
I see! Interesting point, and I failed to spot the difference between your idea and the original post. I thought the discussion was just about an increasing scale of time penalties.
The timed games have always had a simple built-in time penalty - lose a point for every second you take to answer. I don't see the need for graduated penalties in the timed games, and it doesn't make sense to me to have extra penalties in some of the timed games but not all of them.
It doesn't make sense to abolish them either, because then you would be losing an element which makes these contests more attractive to the more competitive players. The only solution I can think of is for people to play what they want and what they can manage.
I would also like to see players doing what's right for them, and not trying to control the behaviour of everyone else on the site. Either you have controlled quizzing conditions, or you have open online quizzing. You can't have both.
Granted it can be irritating if you think you're putting in more effort or whatever than someone else, but nobody's going to die if lesser mortals don't match up to our immaculate standards. And that's the reason for my impatient explosion in my last post - sorry!
Disclaimer: it's 7.30am, I've been in bed for three hours, wide awake, and given up trying to sleep. If what I've written here doesn't make sense, please tell me. I shall try to do better. [yawn]
_________________________
I appreciate people who are civil, whether they mean it or not. I think: Be civil. Do not cherish your opinion over my feelings. There's a vanity to candor that isn't really worth it. Be kind. ~ Richard Greenberg
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517219 - Sun Mar 21 2010 01:43 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: mehaul]
|
Prolific
Registered: Mon Apr 27 2009
Posts: 1362
Loc: Forrestfield Western Australia
|
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.
_________________________
In the process of thinking up something deep and meaningful to have as a signature line... 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517220 - Sun Mar 21 2010 03:00 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Lones78]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
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.
Edited by mehaul (Sun Mar 21 2010 11:13 AM)
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517221 - Sun Mar 21 2010 03:41 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: mehaul]
|
Prolific
Registered: Wed Oct 31 2007
Posts: 1421
Loc: London England UK
|
I don't understand. Why should the time you play change your time penalties? Seems illogical to me.
_________________________
Editor: People and General
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517222 - Sun Mar 21 2010 05:23 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: Snowman]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Tue Jan 20 2009
Posts: 2301
Loc: Briar Hill Victoria Australia
|
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.
_________________________
(Editor, Humanities, Literature and Books For Children)
That's all, folks!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517224 - Sun Mar 21 2010 11:39 AM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: bubblesfun]
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 3753
Loc: Florida USA
|
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.
Edited by mehaul (Sun Mar 21 2010 04:09 PM)
_________________________
"...Tomorrow's come a long way to help you."
Tim Davis 'Your Saving Grace' Steve Miller Band (1969)
"...Yesterday's at least a mile back."
Dale Peters 'Dreaming in the Country' James Gang (1971)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#517226 - Sun Mar 21 2010 02:48 PM
Re: Expert Googlers
[Re: agony]
|
Mainstay
Registered: Fri Sep 07 2007
Posts: 699
Loc: Bedford England UK
|
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. 
_________________________
I appreciate people who are civil, whether they mean it or not. I think: Be civil. Do not cherish your opinion over my feelings. There's a vanity to candor that isn't really worth it. Be kind. ~ Richard Greenberg
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index