GG, your example leaves out the time stamp of ".... at the close of the 20th century" and when you add that tidbit, the stated fact is put into a specific time and will not change in the future.
Okay, all agreed that the original was WRONG and the exact wording of the correct way can be done later?

But time-stamping is something else we try to avoid-- it makes questions go very stale very fast. Sure, it solves time-sensitivity, but it makes for really dry questions which become more and more arbitrary for future players. There's nothing worse than a 'How old was so-and-so in 2005?' question. It's not 2005 now; you're going to make me do math?




This looks fine to me. 1947 is long-past. Even if they did/do divorce, they didn't in 1947.



Time-sensitive. Needs the word 'who' or 'while' in there before 'married'.

In my example, Elizabeth is Queen, and Philip is not King, so yes, she did serve, and still currently is. I've not changed anything, save the gender of the person. Any Brit, etc., if I am wrong about that, please let me know! She will hit 60 years next Monday as Queen of the United Kingdom! Are you telling me a woman cannot serve as head of state? That would mean the (current) longest serving monarch did not serve as a head of state either...Queen Victoria. So the gender changed, does that make it an invalid question?

Thank you, Kyle. That was the exact point I was trying to make; they also didn't divorce in 1952, though.

The Queen did not "take office", she ascended to the throne.

And seriously, sticking in a bit about who someone was married to seems to me to be totally irrelevant unless the point of the question relates to the marriage; if it doesn't, leave it out.

"Who did the Princess Elizabeth, later Elizabeth II, marry in 1947?" is a valid question. However her marriage has no relevance to her becoming monarch, she is The Queen and and only she is The Queen.

The rest of this discussion seems like a pointless waste of time, time-stamped time or otherwise.

I think the marriage bit was a little more important to the original question being asked about because the spouse was more famous than the subject of the question.

The rest of the marriages used in this discussion were just for examples...

I'm sure you're right GG but once real examples start being used to illustrate a pedantic point about semantics - or a semantic point about pedantry - then the fallacy of arguing a theoretical point until the point is lost becomes apparent. There should be general rules but the application of them may vary according to circumstance. If I write a quiz with a date-related question I might discuss the best phrasing in that instance with the editor - but a lot of the recent posts, though not all, simply obfuscate matters. People who have common sense will do the right thing, people without it won't.

Can't speak for other editors, but I'll allow a certain amount of date stamping, if the date referenced is a logical end-point. "During the 20th Century" is likely to be OK, "until May, 2003" isn't. In order to accept date stamping, I need to be convinced that the date used has some significance; it can't just be the date the quiz happened to be written on. It's a case by case basis - I believe it's a mistake to assume that there can be some general, always correct rule that every quiz, every time, will abide by.

And, yes, if there's something you'd like to ask but aren't sure if it will be accepted, discuss that individual question with your editor.

I agree fully with agony on certain date stamping being acceptable and some not. e.g. "During the first ten seasons" rather than "As of season ten". It's "as of" that we REALLY want to avoid; there are better ways to phrase a question so that it won't become incorrect.

One thing that I see a lot in TV quizzes is something like "This was a great show and it still airs in reruns in today". 'Today' is a no-no. Something like "The show was so popular that reruns continued to run into the 21st century" is better.

I agree with Agony on this. Very specific dates can be very banal for players, but general dates (ie. 'In the 20th Century' or 'In the Middle Ages' or 'During her teens', etc.) are typically fine. It may also depend on subject matter. Quizzes about online games are very difficult to write because of their time-sensitivity, and no amount of time-stamping will make a quiz about games with patches and builds any easier to follow.

I apologize, flopsy, if I have offended you or any other British citizen. Like gg said, it was only used as an example.

Can I be offended, Dave? Can I claim compensation? The point is that there is a way to word questions which avoids problems of time dependency. It just needs a bit of thought and rewording to tie the question to a date which can't change, like the date on which a couple married.

That was the point I was trying to drive home, and the Queen was the first person I could think of. As I stated above your post, I do apologize if I gave a bad example.

No offence taken at all, Dave, and I'm pretty sure The Queen wouldn't care either.

I was only trying to make the point that the whole discussion was futile once it had got past a certain stage because generalisations are only useful as guides and individual cases will still need working out.

Actually, as she became a US citizen she is both. And technically speaking, no-one is a current Czechoslovakian and hasn't been since 1993. She does, however, remain Czech-born.

There is a point when splitting hairs like this becomes irrelevant. As long as the question is comprehensible and will remain so regardless of the time at which it is read then it passes muster.

I feel that this really must be kept in mind. Some authors, I think, are looking for a hard and fast rule book, where there is one right way to do things that will always be right.

Of course, there are rules, and following them will mean your quizzes are seldom rejected. But there is always that odd question, just hovering on the edge of acceptability, and we have to look at the whole picture to make a decision. That's why authors with hundreds of well rated quizzes still get the occasional rejection, that's why editors must put their quizzes through the editing process just like everyone else (and sometimes get rejected).

Is something like this -- a 10 year rule? 20 year rule? -- the official policy for such facts?

Because if not, an absolute ban on time dependency seems way too stringent. It seems like it would be a lot better to have a 'time dependent' button under reporting errors for low-potential time dependency issues, rather than avoiding every possible thing that has to do with anything living/currently existing entities/all absolutes and so forth.

The problem we try to avoid is needing to fix things in the future. If we ask a question like 'when is this movie coming out?' or 'when will the next election be held?' or even 'where are the Olympics twelve years from now?', we end up needing corrections on it later on, regardless of how far ahead it is. We've been a site for upwards of twelve years, so it's entirely possible we'll get to that date.

Besides, things can change. Say the Olympic Committee chooses Brazil one year and, by chance, Brazil has an epidemic and cancels the games. We can't foresee these types of things.

Also, letting some slip though for leniency's sake may only encourage more people to submit these types of questions. There are plenty of ways to work around this type of thing though, and many questions out there that could be asked in its place.

The Category Guidelines for the Sports category have quite useful tips to avoid time dependency.

There is a point though where we do take the chance with something not becoming incorrect in the future. Facts do change, sometimes. There are things that we KNOW will become stale (like the stamping things with "as of 2012" - in 2020, chances are no one will care about the state of something as of 8 years previously; or "later this year" - it's not going to be 'this year' forever), things that there's a fairly likely chance will become stale or incorrect (like how many children someone has or who they're married to). But then there are other things that MAY possibly become incorrect in the future, but the chance isn't great enough to be preventive about it - like how many planets are in the solar system or what the capital of a certain country is. Can change, sure, but it's likely to be safe for a fair while and we can deal with these things down the road if need ever be.

Agreed, absolutely!

One major problem with questions like 'Who had the most [whatevers] as of 2011?' is that even a couple of years from now some players are likely to wonder, 'Why 2011? Has this already been overtaken by events? Was there something freakish about the situation in 2011? What was the quiz author's game?'


Editor, History and People

Yes, and are questions of this sort acceptable?

Yes, such questions are in order: nobody expects you to predict every change of knowledge. After all, there have been cases of countries that have moved their capital cities, changed the names of provinces and so on. There have even been cases of countries unexpectedly breaking up.

Please avoid:

1. Things perfectly likely to change - a point that may have been given insufficient attention in past. For example, new questions asking about the British monarch who reigned longest are not acceptable as Elizabeth II may well reign for longer than Victoria. It is a distinct possiblity.

2. Things likely to become boring and obscure in the near future. Obviously, during a drought the local water bosses have their 'fifteen minutes [or even weeks] of fame', but when the drought is over their names and comments are forgotten. The same generally applies to the minor ailments of politicians, celebrities and so on.


Editor, History and People

Not if she keeps jumping out of helicopters.



Sorry, couldn't resist.

And is there an official or reasonable metric like a 10-year or 20-year rule, or is it more to the discretion of the writer and editor?

There's no hard and fast rule. Ultimately it would be up to the editor's discretion but as a general guideline, just try to think of how likely it is that what you're asking/saying can change at ANY time in the future (I mean, no one is really thinking about 100 years ahead, but certainly 10-20 years, yes).

The likelihood of change has to be taken into account too. While the odds of discovering a new planet are slim (although it could happen), the possibility of a given celebrity divorcing and remarrying is not!