For reasons that I do not understand the QQ (Question Quest) game has become a magnet for Correction Notes. Things which are left unremarked upon in quizzes, get jumped upon in the QQ game, which seem to be minutely scrutinized for errors.

Correction Notes for QQs usually are not seen by the players who wrote the questions. If it's something that an editor can take care of quickly, it is usually handled that way. The only time that it will get sent back to the player is if it's a factual error that the player needs to research more, or some larger issue like that.

I have just finished dealing with a Correction Note that instructed someone (turned out to be me) to remove a comma. Now while the comma was indeed misplaced, I really have to wonder if it was worth the bother to send the note and my time to remove the comma. I've also seen Correction Notes insisting that a comma be added.

The other point I want to make is that Correction Notes are for errors in a question. They are not there for players to send opinions of how something might have been better worded, or even opinions on whether the question should be online at all. I see a lot of these kinds of Correction notes as well.

I also see CNs from players stating that they think further interesting information needs adding. I agree - it is turning into an opinion loaded forum - not a facility for sorting overlooked errors or erroneous information.

It may have something to do with the ease of submitting a correction and the fact that there is a note that only editors will see it - players may be less concerned about "upsetting" the author or getting a response from them as may be the case with corrections on other games and quizzes. Also, it specifically asks for corrections on typos and spellings as opposed to "Submit a correction" which may be being interpreted as incorrect information. It may also be that players know they may the first person to see that question and if they don't do something about it no-one else will - whereas on older questions it used to be that corrections on the original quiz didn't get changed in game databases for a while so there was a good chance that submitting a note wouldn't make any difference. Just some thoughts as to why there are lots of corrections - I realise it doesn't explain the type of correction but if there are lots anyway, some of them may be "opinion" rather than factual.

I just go along with comma issues, but I have sent a lot of apostrophe and spelling corrections. I was under the impression that it was encouraged, to produce questions of a higher quality. If the notices are supposed to be for more important errors, then the option of spotting a typo/spelling error should be removed - if it's REALLY egregious, it will be reported anyway.

Nowhere do I see either skunkee or Nannanut asking that people stop reporting typos and spelling errors, which is encouraged.

Their request was that notes be restricted to such real reports and not to opinions of the "I think..." variety.

The correct placement of a comma is often a matter of opinion. The correct placement of an apostrophe isn't.

If you see a punctuation *error*, please report it.

If, however, a question is clear, understandable, and grammatically correct, but could in your opinion have been worded in a way which you would prefer, consider that your note might not really be all that helpful.

Since it's been a while since this has been mentioned here, I might as well add this note:

Funtrivia is an international site. English spelling and punctuation vary quite a bit worldwide. This site accepts both American English and British English, and regional variations.

So, please don't send correction notes saying that "colour" (or "color") is spelled wrong, or that the quotation mark belongs inside, (or outside), the closing punctuation. They are all correct.

If there is nothing wrong with a question per se, but it is obviously "breaking the rules" as laid out in the guidelines for writers of QQ, should we send a note or not? Just as an example, the guidelines say not to submit "serial questions" and use the ROYGBIV for the colours of the rainbow to illustrate. If I then see several questions in consecutive games that ARE exactly that from a series but otherwise identical, do the second, third, fourth etc merit a note, or is it just to be left to the editors, given that each question on its own is ok.

Kind of along the same lines but what about those questions that are not original?

I've seen quite a few that I know I've played more than once while playing on the site (and I mean more than one variant of the question so there's already a few similar) These must appear when the question is searched so these people are obviously ignoring them and clicking the "this is original" button.

I'm never quite sure what to do with them - I feel like marking them as a 'bad' question but I don't because there's nothing wrong with the actual question it's just that it's against the stated rules so I kind of think of it as a type of cheating.

I agree that may occur on some questions - the example you cite is a more complex question - but I do know it wasn't the case of some of the ones I'm talking about because I entered them myself into the search database to see if I was correct (or if they may not be showing up for some reason) and they came back with 2 or 3 very close matches each. They were definitly there and just ignored.

As an example I'm talking like entering "Who sculpted Mount Rushmore?" and getting responses like:
"Mount Rushmore was scultped by whom?" and "Who created the Mount Rushmore sculpture?" and "Who was the sculpturer of Mount Rushmore?"

It doesn't happen often but it does happen - I was just wondering whether to keep ignoring it or whether it was supposed to be addressed.

There are some instances when questions are lifted practically verbatim from existing quizzes too. I did send a CN on one recently, just because it was one of my questions, from a fairly recent quiz of mine, and I did all the research etc, and was peeved that someone else had just come along, resubmitted it, and was attempting to get credit for it. Again though, I don't know if that is really a valid CN or just my *venting ire* because it was my Q...

I know what you mean, Rowena, a similar thing happened to me recently, except the opposite... A question showed up in a quiz a few weeks ago that was nearly identical to a QQ question I submitted and was played months ago. I know someone writing a quiz can't necessarily know what questions have been asked in the Question Quest, unless they happened to play that question, but the question, even the wording of the Interesting Info seemed really, really familiar. Of course, I don't have access to all my QQ submissions, so I can't check for sure what my question says/how it's worded, so I just let it go (mostly. lol)

Rowena, I've had a couple of similar experiences, for example, a question lifted from the I.I. on a question in one of my quizzes. The whole thing was very obvious as the question - on an obscure topic - was submitted within a few hours of my quiz going online.

HI GG, was that a question about sandwiches? I'd been working on a quiz about sandwiches for maybe 2-3 weeks and I was a day or two away from submitting it when one of my questions was there in QQ. I thought perhaps I'd be accused of cheating but the workings of my quiz would be online for an ed to check out if the need arose. Perhaps it was a case of great minds thinking alike.

No, no, not sandwiches it was a much more specific question than that. And it probably WAS just a coincedence of great minds thinking alike. I wouldn't have even thought about it if it was just about the same person/event, it's just the very wording of it seemed really, really familiar.

Thanks GG *sigh* I can't bear people cheating. I thoroughly believe in credit where credit is due. There have been times at work when my bosses have thought I'd done something good and I've said "Oh no, that was mostly Mary's work. All I did was... " etc. I do insist on recognition when I have done something worthy of mention though I hope no one copied your work! It's not easy writing a good question/quiz and seeing your work in someone else's quiz would be gaulling.

Rowena wrote:
"If there is nothing wrong with a question per se, but it is obviously 'breaking the rules' as laid out in the guidelines for writers of QQ, should we send a note or not? Just as an example, the guidelines say not to submit 'serial questions' and use the ROYGBIV for the colours of the rainbow to illustrate. If I then see several questions in consecutive games that ARE exactly that from a series but otherwise identical, do the second, third, fourth etc merit a note, or is it just to be left to the editors, given that each question on its own is ok."

I think the instructions have been beefed up since the beginning of QQ. When it first started, I wrote a bunch of questions about colors. I guess they could have been considered a series, but it is just what inspired me at first. The instructions with ROYGBIV as an example of what not to write were definitely not there when I wrote those! Also, I didn't write them all at once, I would write a few questions and then think of another way to do a color question. Now, I wonder if my questions were the reason for the changed instructions. After having written a few of them, I did think that it would have been better to put them all in a single quiz instead of in the QQ. Sometimes it's just a matter of how much time one has available to dedicate to something. A single question is often easier to knock out than a whole quiz... In any case, they have been highly rated for the most part.

In Music, at the beginning we were getting a lot of "Who played drums for This Rock Band?" "Who played bass for This Rock Band?" "Who played keyboards for This Rock Band?" questions, all submitted at one time. Any one of those questions would have been OK on its own; the problem was that their complete sameness would have been very unsuitable for the New Question game. Spaced out over a few games, it's not such a problem. When there is only one editor in a category, it's easy for the editor to stagger the release of these questions, but when several of us are working on the list at once, it's not so easy. That's why the request was made, to stay away from this kind of thing.

I'd say that if the questions are in subsequent games, rather than all bunched up together, it's not a problem and doesn't warrant any action.

Nobody wants to see "What word stands for the letter A in The NATO Standard Military Alphabet?" right next to "What word stands for the letter B in The NATO Standard Military Alphabet?" with "What word stands for the letter C in The NATO Standard Military Alphabet?" following, but most of us wouldn't mind seeing these questions a day or two apart.

In Movies, we get people who submit a string of questions about a specific movie. Many of them are "who played...' ones. These aren't particularly exciting questions on their own, never mind having a big string of them. If they were all put on the same quiz, people would complain!

In the current sets there are some questions that are all phrased exactly the same except for one word which is changed (eg. What is the capital of ___ ? This is NOT the question just an example)

I got three of them in one set, 1 the day after and 2 on the next day - thats six questions from a 'series' over 3 days and they are all by the same author.

I've written two questions very similar but I submitted them about 6 weeks apart because I was following the rules. I think people have a tendancy to be annoyed when they are following the rules but can see others aren't. It's human nature.

Sort of in the vein of Rowena's question, I'm wondering why I've gotten a Literature question on "Harry Potter" books in each of the past two days in the New Questions game. I thought "Harry Potter" book questions belonged in For Children. I'm not going to submit an correction report on these, as presumably the editors are aware of this, but I'm a little confused.

For Children isn't an option when writing Question Quest options, so presumably someone who has a question to ask about Harry Potter needs to put it in Literature. I'm not sure how we end up with For Children Mix quizzes, but I would guess maybe after they've been played and deemed to be suitable (or not suitable), the editors can mark easy/appropriate questions as For Children in order to make the Mix quizzes.

That's right, FC is not a QQ option. Before that was decided, we put a couple dozen questions online, and that's probably where the mix comes from, not sure.