Having just been burned once again by a question in the Mixed Game which was looking for the odd choice out (the question asked which of the choices isn't an adaptation of a certain play), I am wondering if there should be a guideline about writing questions like this.

It seems many authors capitalize "not" when writing questions like this, so as to emphasize that aspect of the question. Now, I admit that I just didn't read the question closely enough, but in the timed games, that's not an infrequent problem. Also, I think that the fact that a contraction was used in this question made this misreading more likely.

I really don't know if I have a position on whether a standard should be set requiring "not" to be capitalized when asking for the odd choice out, except that it makes it easier to comprehend the question in timed games. It just seems that since there are some authors that are doing this, and some that aren't, it might be something worth discussing. Or not...

Some use NOT, some set it off as *not*, and some editors may change away from calitalisation because it is shouting (that has happened in some of my quizzes). I always make it NOT or NEVER, but that is because I only write this type of question when I cann't find a better way of writing it so as to be a positive statement, and my sense of guilt at that failure makes me want to make it crystal clear for players. It would be very hard to enforce a constant standard - and I don't even want to think about trolling through the 100,000 quizzes online that may or may not stress the negative formulation of the question.

Then there are the authors who want to set questions that will make players read carefully and think as they play a quiz. If that is appropriate in the original quiz for which the question was written, then I would feel that the players of timed games would just have to put up with it. But that is just me - I think the quizzes are the most important thing here, and there are probably many other members who never play an untimed quiz.

Recognizing that there are people who will see the question in a timed quiz at some point, I always capitalize "not" when I write such a question.

Those are some of the reasons weighing against a standard, and why I wanted to see if starting a discussion would be productive. Just to be clear, I specifically mentioned the Mixed Game, since all of those questions come from the QQ pool. If such a standard is to be implemented, I definitely think that it should be limited to single questions, since those are primarily designed for use in timed games. I know that they also appear in the QuizBot quizzes, but I think they are primarily appearing in the timed games.

Don't leave out CANNOT. I have seen 'can NOT' used recently. Throw in all the rest of the negatives too: CAN'T, SHOULDN'T, COULDN'T, WOULDN'T, WON'T, ISN'T, AREN'T, WEREN'T, HASN'T and HAVEN'T (did I miss any?). But then you'll get folks who use 'tisn't, 'twasn't and 'tweren't.

I'm against forcing what I believe is an unnecessary standard on authors (and editors). Even in timed games, it is the responsibility of the player to read the question properly. We shouldn't be setting guidelines based on players rushing through quizzes with an eye on the clock rather than the questions, especially when there is nothing wrong with the way the question is formed grammatically and its meaning is unambiguous.

Having said that, I tend to capitalise NOT when I write such questions to make it clear for players -- I just don't feel that I should be obliged to do so.

ps. If any question came in to my queue containing the word "'twasn't" it would bounce back to the author quicker than you can say "illegal contraction".

As an author, I tend to write "NOT" instead of "not" because there have been times where I've rushed through a quiz and missed out that important word. I don't feel that I *have* to do this, and I've yet to come across an editor who forces either way.

IMO, *not* doesn't stand out very well. If people are going to miss "not", they'll miss *not* as well.

I agree completely with what Snowman and AdamM7 have stated, I tend to capitalize NOT when writing this type of question, but it's not something that I enforce as an editor.

As a player I have been disappointed a couple of times where I have misread the question and answered incorrectly because I missed the word "not", but here I tend to blame myself for rushing rather than the author for not being clear enough.

If I use this sort of question I also always capitalise NOT, and I have never come across and editor who has changed it.

While this is one of the few cases where I do allow words to be written entirely in caps(and do not change it), I think it should be an author's choice.
I don't think it's something that should be enforced just because players are skimming the questions in order to improve their speed.

When a correction note comes in on one of these, I will normally capitalise the NOT at that point to avoid any more such notes. I don't think I have ever seen a correction on a question where either NOT or *not* was already used.

I also discourage people from submitting a string of this sort of question to Question Quest, one after the other, on the premise that players would be really annoyed to get three or four of them in the same game. I'll ask that they space them out over several days instead.

I'm another who thinks it's a good idea to capitalize the word, but won't enforce it as a standard. We have enough rules that we need to enforce, and so many new authors find our standards onerous already - no point in adding unnecessary ones.

Just to add another voice to what has already been said: I tend to use NOT in my own quizzes, but believe it's the player's responsibility to read the questions thoroughly and it shouldn't be enforced to emphasize the NOT.

How about putting opinion into Single Questions? I can see its place in full quizzes to allow an author to express themselves more expansively, but the format of Singles should preclude such expansions. In five of the New Questions I had today, I found five to contain opinion (not that the answer was an opinion, but opinion was used to expand the question into more than it had to be).

-...Australians like to think of themselves...(what authority does this come from? It is only opinion)
-...show during the Super Bowl has become as much a focus of attention as the game itself... (not to football fans, to the casual viewer maybe, This is the opinion of the author and was only used to set up the question which could have been asked without it)
-...a famous photograph... (famous to who, many have never heard of or seen it. The question could have been simply 'a photograph' and still worked. Again it was just added opinion)
-...nothing like the feel of the wind going through your hair...(I can think of a few things and did while answering the question. this opinion was just distraction from the question)
-...Friday the 13th has been considered a very unlucky day... (unlucky fine, but adding 'very' makes it opinion)

I do not contest the validity of these tidbits but they were just fluff added to an exercise that was intended to generate concise, short questions to be used in place of the excising of questions from out of quizzes for inclusion in the Mixed Quiz need, or so I thought. If Single question writing is to become an artistic expression contest, please change the rules. Just as we are asked to be creative in generating quizzes and many of us have to learn to do that, the practice of constructing brief questions without the fluff should probably be asked to be learned too. I think all the cited questions which contained the above exerpts were good questions but they could have been better shorter, IMHO. I'm not trying to badmouth any authors' style but trying to keep the Single Questions opinion free.

Edit to add: The other five questions were concise, opinion free and all asked their question with the use of less than 200 characters.

The detailed rules from the New Question Game submission page:



Yes, for the single questions we do tend to discourage authors from writing several paragraphs of information, but there's nothing in the rules that says that the info sections may not contain the author's opinion at all. It would be very dull if authors weren't given some leeway to express themselves.

Of my .3+ ratings (new question game), I'd say all of them except one have some element of "opinion" or potential 'fluff' in the question or II; some have hints, some have words like 'famous' or 'great', and so on. Most of them could be made more concise because a lot of the questions themselves allude to some background info, although a lot of them aren't that long to begin with.

But I think it can be quite dry to simply rattle off questions and facts like a document - words and hints can make it more memorable or easy to make a mental picture. I would find it really boring to have 10 questions like "When was Agatha Christie born?" "Which country was made independent in 1954?" "Where were the 2004 Olympics held?" then followed by II which sounded like a robotic drone. Making info memorable is a good thing IMO, even if it takes a couple of extra words to do so.

There is nothing wrong with expressing opinion in either the question or the I.I. section. I usually ask that the I.I. section not be just opinion though.

I agree that the personal style in which questions are written make them more enjoyable for me. I take them as a learning experience, and the types of edits are outlined above would deprive the questions of their individual flavor. In my opinion, so much editing oversteps the bounds of what editors are meant to do. That said, I have seen questions where strong opinion is stated as fact, and that can be annoying. I would think editors would work with authors to smooth that type of inconsistency out of their questions, where it is habit or an issue.

The question creation page also says:




So some "fluff" is encouraged.

Frankly if all the questions were very short and concise with nothing "extra", I'd be rating them all Poor.

"In my opinion, so much editing oversteps the bounds of what editors are meant to do."

Now, that is NOT (or even *not*) something I would ever have been brave enough to say!

It is a good discussion point though: I'm sure that many authors have scratched their ears at seeing what an editor has done to their quiz.

Having said that, I was impressed (even, dare I say it, very impressed) with editors on a couple of quizzes of mine recently. They added to the quiz with II insights that showed an impressive depth of knowledge of the subject. (Both were in sports, so that narrows down the likely candidates).

I think it's fine that editors should do that - though I appreciate many will simply not have the time.

I also think it's fine that editors should chnage the occasional silly little typos and spelling mistakes themselves, rather than sending a quiz back saying "you have a spelling mistake of chnage in Q10, please fix it".

All that does is waste the editor's own time: after all, he or she will have to check the quiz all over again when it come back just to see if chnage has become change.

(Im nto syang teyh shld jst fx mltple stpd spllings adn gramr mistooks)

May we use "tweren't" ??? LOL

I made no comment about II content, I also believe that the explanation that goes with a 'dry' question should contain some water. I only said opinion shouldn't be in questions.

"What country, known for its 'Mounties' and maple syrup, was home to the inventor of the baseball glove?" and "In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a call for all Muslims to kill the man who authored the novel 'The Satanic Verses'" contain no opinions, shows how adding other FACTS enhance a question and so they should not be used as an example of adding opinion to make a question more interesting. Some are misconstruing adding fact with adding opinion to bring about enhancement. The 'interesting' part should come in the II after the answer is given, not before. That is what the 'Interesting Information ' is there for. Having an answer in mind, the question should be expressed using only what facts can lead there. Inserting opinion at this stage is misleading because people have different opinions (as proven by this discussion). Then, in discussion pose opinions that are associated with the topic. To date, all my favorite Qs 'twere 'fluff-lite' (just an opinion). If the second example above were written ""In 1989, the mighty Ayatollah..." that would be showing the opinion type I am talking about. Most readers would halt their question reading assimilation right there wondering, "Who says he's mighty?"

I think a distinction should be made between questions that ask about opinions, and cases where an opinion is merely used to "dress up" a question. The former is not allowed on FT - questions should be about verifiable facts, not opinions, or they can become a magnet for correction notes. However, I see nothing wrong with a question including some "fluff" to set the premise or context for a question, to include a hint, or just for style, as long as it doesn't introduce uncertainty into the question and answer.

The section that ends a question *is* known as the "interesting information" section, but that doesn't mean that authors shouldn't try to make their questions and answer options interesting as well. If done well, it can elevate an otherwise ho-hum question into something special.

Mehaul, the examples you cited are all fragments of questions, so none of us can tell if the material that you consider extraneous affects the veracity of each question. If all it does is sets the stage for an otherwise factual question, I really don't see the problem. Its inclusion shouldn't be confusing or even misleading, as I think most players are able to separate the wheat from the chaff to get to the crux of the question.

Naturally, this is just my opinion.

Darkspalsh, I hope none of the editors felt this was a criticism on my part aimed at them. Some people in this thread want to remove modifiers because they imply opinion. My experience with the editors is that they are very welcoming of each author's style, but exercise their editing rights where the guidelines of quiz writing are not followed.

I think each author has to be true to his or her own standards. If that means eliminating a "very" from a question because it smacks of opinion, then so be it--in your own quizzes, but NOT (or *not*--wink) in those of others.

I was actually trying to express my admiration for the restraint that most editors have. I haven't yet run into one who wants to make my quizzes or questions sound like they were written by that editor instead of by me.

If any editor felt maligned by my words, I apologize. You do a great job, and keep the spirit of what we quiz writers are trying to achieve while maintaining the standards of the site.

Sue

(sacrificing goat, pipe organ playing in background) Oh hear us kind editors. We do not mean to blasphemme by criticizing your actions and we are aware that you each have individual powers to weild as different from each other as top and bottom. We pray you understand that we have only wondered at the fading distinctions between Quizzicals and Singlecals. The High Priests of Quizzes feel threatened by the Vestial Nuns of the Single Profer and we mere mortals hope there remains a difference 'tween the two. We continue to live in amazement at all that you perform. (as an aside, can we have this goat to eat? It seems a shame to let it rot like all the others we've offered.) Accolades, you may now draw the curtain to cover the shiny, omega-labeled structure which represents all that are in the silver-lined heaven of mushroom clouds.


Edit to add: I just reviewed my last five Single Questions that have been rated. and two of them used the term famous. Once to describe "Bedtime for Bonzo" and the other to describe Billie Holiday as a singer. I recall in the Reagan film that I wondered how well known, and therefore 'famous', a film it was. In the Holiday question I was asked by the editor to explain the use of the term in the II, meaning to tell when and why she was famous (Lady Day, not the editor). In both cases I could have simply dropped the adjective since it was opinion. Well informed opinion, but opinion none-the-less.