At the top of the Accepted Submissions page there is a note that says, amongst other things "If a question turned out to be way too hard, for example, feel free to submit a correction requesting a change to make it more approachable."

I have done this with several of my older more obscure questions and just wanted to know if these modified questions go back into the New Questions game?

I believe so - I know that I've had questions out for modification, and their numbers changed after they went back in.

Well, just got a definitive answer. I sent an error report on a single question yesterday, and here it is today with the correction made. Since player-reported errors and author modifications are handled exactly the same way, they for sure do go back into play.

Is the level of modification any part of the equation? Meaning, if there are just minor spelling or grammar issues to correct, can the editors decide to keep it out of re-evaluation. I have had one change I know of that never returned to the battlefield of player rating. It had to have the Interesting Info expounded upon because one player noted other instances of the same info occurence (ex: I said Elvis wore blue outfit for the show - which doesn't rule out his wearing other colors in other parts of the show - and I had to update my info to reflect the other colors) After the info update, the Q never got more evaluations.

I am not sure how the system decides about the recycling. If an editor decides the correction is something they cannot make themselves, and take it out to send to the author for fixing, I would assume it goes back into the new mix when it goes online again.

Most of the corrections I see are for typos or other minor errors that can be handled by the editor, and the author never sees them, unless they regularly read through all their questions and see the change. And for some questions the correction is not valid, so the question just gets re-saved as is. I have no idea how the system decides in that case - possibly recycles for a change to the actual question, and leaves where it is if it is only the extra information, because that will not affect the difficulty? Just guessing, though.

I am referring specifically to the instruction to modify questions to make them "more approachable" - i.e. more likely to achieve the ideal 55-95% range for correct guesses.

For modifying one's own questions, once they have been accepted, one sends a correction notice with the proposed alterations. This may be as minor as adding a word to the question, or as major as almost completely rewriting it - I have done both! Editors, not authors, make the actual changes to the questions.

The implication of the instruction is that these modified questions will re-enter the new questions pool and be played again. If this is not the case, then there seems little point in modifying questions.

Or am I missing something?

Even if they don't reenter the New Question pool, they will be in the hourly games and getting plays, albeit possibly more slowly, which do affect their difficulty rating, so it is not pointless.

Thanks for that information.

I have just had a look at the stats on one of my modified questions and realised that they have changed very slightly.

I suspect the just go back in for as long as they would have originally - that is, if it's pulled out after 40 plays, it will go back in for a few days to make up to the couple hundred they usually get. If it's pulled after 290 plays, it won't go back in for as long.

The system doesn't see any difference between a question that has been pulled because there is something wrong, and one that the author has suggested a change to.

Just a point for consideration for authors that want to 'modify' their own questions: There is no way to tell that this is a question that is being replayed so people (like me) who remember questions will see it and think "that's not an original question" and mark it accordingly - I personally mark questions that are not original as poor. So you could end up losing some ratings as well. (If only I could remember the answers like I do the questions I'd be set LOL)

That seems a rather harsh attitude. Are there others who would act in a similar way? If so, there seems little point in following that part of the Question Quest instructions that specifically encourages revisiting questions that may not have good ratings "to make them more approachable".

I have seen that comment made by others. It's probably not worth rewriting a question just to make it more popular, given that some of the new opinions would be worse.

It is still worthwhile reworking a question to make it easier for players, if the correct percentage is lower than you want. As well as some who may rank it lower because they think they've sen it before, there will be new players who will rate it with fresh eyes. And you might make it into the target zone for level of difficulty.

It was the difficulty rating that I assumed the editors meant by the term "approachable".

But I must say that I find the concept of "marking down" a question rather bizarre. One does not generally penalise someone for trying again...

The point is that players don't realise you are trying again to improve the question, they just see a question that they think is a lot like something they have seen before, and not original and creative. I personally would not mark it as poor on that basis - it may be an improvement on the other questions along the same lines that I have seen before, either in the way it is asked or in the extra information provided - but there are clearly some who do so.

Would the poor rating even count again if that player has seen your question before and rated it before?

I always rate something that I think I've seen before as "average" so that it doesn't skew it one way or the other.

Those 'done overs' shouldn't be in the New Question Game. They should be in the Revised Question Game, IMHO. Just as GG said, do you get to have one person rate twice? How do you decide a new, unexposed set of raters to take the improved version? Quizzes are only allowed to be rated once and revisions are done to them without going back to 'New Quizzes'. If the change is that sufficient to alter a lot of opinions about it, generate a whole new, re-worded version of it for the NQG which would get the ratings run a month or two down the pike. Rem there is no demerit for a bad question, your total toward the QQ badge just doesn't increase on a bad rating. (quiet aside: it is different when a good rated Q isn't counted, though)

Well, you have to bear in mind that people change it to become easier so that the difficulty rating has more % correct, so not getting them put back into the game would be pointless for that. Though to be honest, I'm one of those who just leaves it be and writes a new one instead.

I'm sometimes baffled by the questions which appear in the game, which I know can't be new. Last week the set I got included a question from a player who hasn't been on the site since December 2009. The question can't possibly be newly written so I can only assume that it was revised by an editor and re-entered the game - more than two years later. I used to be fairly harsh on questions which appeared to be repeats but I have softened my views because I'm no longer sure what is going on. I have also played questions which appear to be almost direct copies of my own questions (from quizzes) but this could just be co-incidence. I've decided it's kinder to just rate the question as it stands and give the author the benefit of the doubt.

I have started doing the same, rossian, rating questions as if they were totally new on their own merits. Nevertheless, I do usually flag the similarity via a comment as a question correction note, just so the editors are aware.

I've noticed the same thing too, and I don't think it has anything to do with corrections or revisions. I stopped writing for the QQ for a long while and only started up again recently, but I never stopped playing the New Question Game. From time to time, I noticed my own questions showing up in the New Question Game that were played and rated over a year ago without any corrections or revisions. I assumed that the game does pull out older questions from time to time, possibly to even out the category mix. Only Terry knows for sure.

I am pretty certain the very action of an editor hitting "save" on the question marks it for a round through the NQG, even if the correction note was totally bogus and the editor just had to save the unchanged question to clear it. Unlike for quizzes, editors don't have a dedicated "clear corrections" feature. We check the corrections, make changes if necessary and save (which clears all pending notes).

I think too that older questions went for another round through the game just for more ratings, not necessarily that they were saved again. When the New Question game first started questions were only played about 175-200 times each but then that increased a lot. I think at one point older questions started being played again to make up some ground to be more comparable with the questions that are now getting played more like 350-400 times.

This means that those players who rate the question 'poor' or 'average' because they believe it's a copy of a previous one are being unfair. It seems the authors of these questions are being penalised over something that is totally out of their control. I'm not sure that there's anything that can be done, but maybe the players who do this could reconsider based on the information provided by these editors.

My point exactly. The instructions encourage us to aim for the 55-95% correct window and to revisit questions that fall below this to make them more approachable.

If this results in players giving a poor rating to what might otherwise have been a good question, then, indeed, authors are penalised unfairly for their efforts.

Perhaps there should be a function for the editors to clear the modification correction once made, as indicated, or maybe the instructions for New Questions should be revisited.

The few questions that I have revised have mostly been those with a good rating but low percentage correct - i.e. questions that the majority of players considered average to interesting, even though the majority of players answered incorrectly. By changing one or two words in the question, or changing one of the answer choices, one can frequently give a much better chance for players to guess the correct answer - the question is "more approachable".

If these questions are going back into the New Questions game, then perhaps the rating box should be removed.

Whoa. The subject slipped from fixing to get a better % correct into that means a better good/bad rating result. The two things are not connected. Getting a higher % correct may mean the Q's been dumbed-down so much that people think it not worthy of the time taken on it.

A couple of members have mentioned it only takes a split second to do ratings. Au contraire, the answer page is where we encounter the interesting information. To read and understand how the information explains or expounds upon a question and decide if it has value should take more time than less than a second. If the Q change being talked about is entirely within the Information section, it shouldn't effect the % correct number at all. It should effect the good/bad perception.

I just went to play the New Questions Game and noticed this (my bolding) in the game home page title box at the top of the page:::
(start copy)
Welcome to FunTrivia Skunkworks : The New Questions game.
This game is a little different. Questions you see in this game are appearing for their first time ever on our site, so everyone is on a completely level playing field -- no memorization is possible!
(end copy)

I don't see how resubmissions can fit that description. If they are to be allowed back for further review/rating, then the game title area needs changing.

The question was always getting a better % correct, the worry is that it may happen at the expense of a previously-established good/bad rating. Generally, trying for a better % correct involves changing the actual question, and not the extra information. That being the case, it actually is a new question (the point raised in your next post) that is similar to a previous question.

Saying that rating only takes a couple of seconds presumes that everyone reads the extra information already, and rating takes a single click longer once it had been read and considered. Players who only consider the question and answer as important will naturally take a lot longer if they actually have to add the time required to read the information onto their time.

I was referroing to the post before mine where it was said:::

See, it went from the subject being % to the matter of goodness.

That took the reason for making corrections for % correct as being responsible for the good/bad ratings the way I read it.

If you are rating, you should be reading the II. A good Q&A may have completely bogus II with it. I think my second posting above is more important to the discussion anyway. There shouldn't be any small changes showing up for members to rate a second time according to the games' mission statement. We each see a Q once and that's it. I wouldn't mind seeing a redone area to rate fixed, spayed or neutered Q&As. My stance of only once through I think is fair to the Qs that only need the once through. But I understand and agree that an author be given a chance to improve their product. It's just that the NQG shouldn't be the clearinghouse for those.

Just for clarification here - I did not say I marked a question as 'poor' if it was a similar question - or asked in a similar way - I said I rated it poor because it was the SAME question as one I had read before (certain wordings are very memorable) and no I definately don't think that is harsh - it's called plagerism and people should not be given the benefit of the doubt for that.

I have brought this issue up a couple of times before because I don't want to penalise someone who has their own question being 'rerun' so to speak but no-one seemed to think it was worth looking into. I think it needs to be flagged as a 'rerun' so those people rating it are aware of the fact.

As for the 'similar' ones well that depends on how simliar or if it has been tweaked into a better question - And how many different ways it has already been asked. We all enter our questions in the search box to see if it is original so we know when we submit it whether we are asking original questions or not. If its not then don't expect to get the top ratings for it from people that have played on the site for ages anf know how unoriginal it is.