Do the quiz ratings really mean anything? It seems to me that in most cases players give their rankings based on how well they do, rather than how informative the quiz was.
I've just done a number of 'vocabulary - definitions' quizzes, and most had little or no interesting information, yet were relatively highly rated. Conversely, I regularly come across 15, 20, 25 question quizzes with detailed interesting info' for each question, which are rated low. As it takes at least twice as long to create a 20 question quiz, than a 10 question, the 20 Q should realistically be rated much higher, but this is rarely the case.

I *try* not to let my scores on a quiz determine how I rank it. But, I'm sure lots of folks figure that the better they do on it, the better a quiz is.

(I hate to give a bad ranking to a quiz, and only do so if it's got a significant number of problems -- errors, typos, etc.)

You'll find that a quiz that is really written well will rise in the ranks no matter what. It won't matter how many questions there are. Quantity isn't necessarily quality after all. It probably won't matter how many people take it either. I have a few quizzes rated tough that have good rankings so I guess sour grapes didn't affect anyone's vote.
A ten question quiz might take longer to write well than a twenty question quiz or, God forbid, a twenty-five question quiz that's full of filler material.

When you teach you see the horrors of giving a page requirement as few people realize that length of a paper is not as important as what you write.

As to the higher ranking/success on quiz correlation, I'm not so sure this is true. I see quizzes that have been consistently ranked high, though they aren't terribly easy to succeed on for the average quizplayer. And some of these quizzes have over two thousand people taking them.

I'm not into the mathematical aspects of this as I tend to view this as making paper boats with a friend, letting them float in the gutter a while and seeing which one comes in first and then doing it again.
As an editor, I tend to help people make a better boat and get the same thrill when it floats well.
The system we have here is fun as it allows well built boats to float and everyone to have a good time.

I currently have a pair of sunnies on a quiz rated "Impossible", so there is obviously not a direct correlation.

I think there may be more of a correlation between writing questions the takers feel they should be able to answer as opposed to the questions the are able to answer. For example, the worst rated quiz I have ever played concerned the story arcs of a popular television series. The answer to each question was an episode number within a named story! I imagine that most of us don't think that way about watching stories on TV, so these sorts of questions strike the taker as rather dumb. On the other hand, questions whose answers are intrinsically interesting may be better received, even if the taker is rather clueless about the subject going in.

That is indeed the spirit in which it was intended.
We'll get a quiz with twenty-five questions like these:
How many bullet holes did Tupac have when he was found? What make of vehicle was he found in? What was his middle initial when he died? What school did he go to?
How old was he when he died?

I understand where some of the people writing these are coming from, but, it would make a very poor quiz.

So the optimum quiz length is ten questions in my opinion with quality information in the blanks. It does not have to be lengthy at all.
When I make French quizzes, I rarely go over ten, unless I don't have enough information to go up to two ten question quizzes. Then I might do a fifteen question quiz. I didn't have twenty 'ING' expressions for example.

Filler is really obvious though. It's what Spanishliz was thinking of.
Legitimate information is not filler, it's information.

I put a quiz online December 18th. It's been played 45 times, but has not been ranked yet. Is this because too few people have ranked it (which would suggest that less than 2/3 of the quiz takers have ranked it)?

Do you have a feel for how many quiz takers actually rank the quizzes they take?

Rankings are updated once a week, I believe. It's possible that after 34 plays enough people had ranked your quiz, but the rankings had just been updated. So if the last player that your quiz needed to get a ranking rated the quiz after the last update, you'll have to wait until the next round before your quiz will be ranked. Does that make sense?

Bringing this up for Mohammadasad since he obviously had difficulty in understanding my PM to him.

Bringing up

up for LuvsThatTrivia

When Terry mentioned that the best authors get a ranking bonus, what did he mean by that? What qualifies you as a "best author"?

That sounds rather ominous, actually. Could it be that the people who submit supposedly better quizzes are getting higher ratings than they deserve? Isn't that a bit of a Catch 22, meaning that new quiz players don't have a chance to become one of these so called 'better quiz makers'?

No, because once the new quiz authors submit more quizzes that are well-written, they WILL become better quizmakers and their ratings will increase.

Most of the editors, if not all, don't think you can be one of the best quiz authors the first few times you write a quiz - you just don't know all the nuances of making quizzes yet.

<< When Terry mentioned that the best authors get a ranking bonus, what did he mean by that? What qualifies you as a "best author"? >>

As you submit quizzes, editors can increment your "quality" rating. Players who consistently submit well written quizzes will have a greater quality rating over time. Players who don't... won't.

Terry

I suppose that makes since. I was thinking more on the lines of the system judging the quality of a quiz author. Imagine creating the algorithm for that!

Just wondering, why are some of my quizes unranked dispite having been played in excess of 100 times?

New quizzes don't get a ranking until they have been online for a certain number of days, I think 20, regardless of the number of plays. After that time they'll be ranked the next time all the quizzes are ranked.

Spanishliz (editor)

This is something Terry started so that they would stay at the top of their category list for a few weeks, and maybe give them a chance to get played more often. At least I think that's why he did it!

<< I was thinking more on the lines of the system judging the quality of a quiz author. Imagine creating the algorithm for that! >>

I like the human element. Flawlessly written quizzes can be incredibly boring.

Terry

Thanks, for that.