Another point.. if you do the math, you'll find that FT editors have not only written very well in general, but the sheer volume of quizzes that the editors have created in general dwarf most other quiz authors.

1600 quizzes have been created by only 5 of the editors!

The fact that our editors in general write both a LOT and WELL almost assure them of having a lot of quizzes ranked high.

I did foresee such an accusation of unfairness though, and set a constant "quality rating" for all editors.
Terry

I really have a problem with Jazz's math here. If he says that the rating of 10 is given to the top .1% of quiz makers and there are 6000 quiz makers total, how on earth would the editors be able to give a rating of 10 to 600 people?! The way I do math 600 people would make 10% of all quiz makers, not .1%. The .1% would be actually 6 people...

Lanire...oops, you're right...I'll modify my post, thanks for pointing out my fuzzy math.

So, uh... how do we find out our ratings?

[Strikes pose with right pinky-finger touched to left corner of mouth, thumb to the left, in the manner of Dr. Evil.]

Oh you made me laugh out loud xaosdog! Funny!

And I am not even a fan of aforesaid AP!

Xaosdog, aka Dr. Evil, unfortunately you cannot know your rating, it would obviously be imprudent of the editors to make quizmaker ratings public.

Based on the quality of your quizzes, you'll just have to imagine what your rating would be...I'm sure that sort of daydreaming will put a smile on your face...

Ah well. 'Twas worth a shot. I'll just go on making quizzes without knowing precisely how they are being received.

Evil quizzes, of course.

Well, I think we see so many editors' quizzes ranking so well is because they would have to be excellent quizmakers to be chosen as editors in the first place.

What a fuzz about those rankings

I had a quiz in the music section (id=47086) that was ranked very high (top 1000) and all of sudden dropped to 24393, allthough nobody has played it since the previous ranking...

Am I upset? Nah, some of my other quizzes have climbed enormously since the new ranking.

Actually, I don't really care, it is nice to see your quizzes are played a lot and I love getting some (positive) feedback.

Remember, most of us are here for the FUN in funtrivia. If you want competition, go to work

What's not fair is that you have all the fun while I'm asleep!

American bias, perhaps you'd have had a case a while back, but now, as we are very international in the backroom, we can cover most versions of English and we have many non native speakers of English who contribute. If all tales were told, many non native speakers beat the others to the quick in care with their English!
In the editing room, the American bias is non existent. Perhaps in sheer bulk of submissions of course you'll have more North American stuff, but that's the way it is.
I played Trivial Pursuit in England last summer and know how you feel! But rest assured that in the ratings of quizmakers there isn't any particular bias for US English or trivia. I'd wager that if you want your quiz to succeed you would be clear about it if it were Brit specific or US specific, otherwise you cut out a large audience.

Editor bias: statistically the popularity ratings etc were up before the editor's pick became a feature, so there weren't just editors up there. But the ones who are up there, earned it by consistently good work all across the boards.

I for one am overjoyed that the editor's pick (the thumb) exists, how else could I find a perfectly brilliant quiz on an obscure subject that would not get a second look because of its difficulty rating or less popular topic and put it in view?

The ratings are an additional plus to that system as it is helpful when you have someone who almost never requires grammar and spelling assistance and presents finished interesting work, to reward them for their hard work.
If you have a popular subject that quickly climbs to the ratings because people performed well on it, you have no idea if the editors had to pull teeth to get that person to get the quiz into shape. This is where it comes in handy. Some of the quizzes required about ten interventions, this is ok, we'll help anyone, but on the other hand, shouldn't the people who read the instructions be rewarded?
Xaosdog, I'd love to have you stand in in music for two days, you'd know what I mean.
Why should someone who consistently never reads the rules and requires massive assistance, not because he or she needs it, but because they haven't bothered, get rewarded?
I'm not talking about younger people who need a bit more help, just people who really aren't careful.
I always used the analogy in music, this is the equivalent of not putting the city or zip code on an envelope and expecting it to get to its destination. And that you don't do people any favors encouraging that.
The highly rated ones are the folks whose work you are happy to see in the lineup. They could be writing on Britney Spears pierced navel or women in Provençal poetry, you know they aren't going to slack off. You might catch a spelling error, or give a suggestion, but you won't have to inform them of the use of capitals.

I'll let those more gifted than I talk stats, but I'm seeing real improvements since the new system was installed.


Xaosdog, Dr Evil, I'm sure you can adopt a pretty mean Rodin pose when you want to....
Is it just me or do stats really haunt people, like male people?
Another subject another place.