UK "WWTBAM" cracking down on Googling PAFs?

[uncamark]

A story from the Times of London posted in the ukgameshows group that may affect all other versions of "WWTBAM"...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1472318,00.html

We all know that it happens all the time on the U.S. versions--is it cheating?  Discuss.

[Jimmy Owen]

It takes so long to find what you're looking for on Google nowadays, it's a non-issue.

[itiparanoid13]

File this under blowing it way out of proportion.  US Millionaire will have to change a LOT more now if they want it.  Now, the person, if they saved ATA and PAF, for a huge question could just use ATA, which will give the PAF the question and then google that.  No way it can happen in the US unless we start getting silly.

[Robert Hutchinson]

The author of the article, Celador, or perhaps both is/are confused. I refuse to believe that A) this has never been noticed by the UK producers in the last six years, and B) even if it has been a concern, that they would not have changed the rules immediately.

[GameShowFan]

We all know that [searching online during PAF] happens all the time on the U.S. versions--is it cheating? Discuss.

No, it's not cheating. It's using your resources. And if the friend is able to figure out the answer, either on his own or by researching, more power to the friend.

The only solution? No more PAF. Bring on the Three Wise People!

'Brian

[Craig Karlberg]

It is technically OK for a PAF to google an answer as long as s/he knows what they're looking for.  As far as first ATA then PAF, sometimes it could work but most likely it doesn't happen because the ATA results usually aren't repeated once the PAF lifeline is initiated.  So, basically, googling's nothing more than a modern reference tool for the PAF to use at their disposal.

[Ian Wallis]

We all know that it happens all the time on the U.S. versions--is it cheating? Discuss.

Is that why so many phone-a-friends don't give an answer before the 30 seconds run out?  That's a pet peeve of mine - that they always seem to hem and haw and ask for a repeat of the question - they do realize they ONLY have 30 seconds, DON'T they?

OK, now that I've vented...I don't think it should be considered cheating.  If the phone-a-friend can get the answer in 30 seconds by using the web, all the power to them.

[tomobrien]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' date=\'Feb 8 2005, 08:01 AM\']Is that why so many phone-a-friends don't give an answer before the 30 seconds run out?  That's a pet peeve of mine - that they always seem to hem and haw and ask for a repeat of the question - they do realize they ONLY have 30 seconds, DON'T they?

[snapback]74537[/snapback]

[/quote]
Sure they do--but it's got to be incredibly nerve-wracking for them and they don't realize how fast the clock is ticking away.

What's odd to me about that article is considering the idea of not allowing the PAFs to confer with other people in the room.  Seems the only way they could monitor that completely would either be to go physically sit with each PAF (virtually impossible) or have PAFs brought to the studio and sitting offstage in separate rooms (too expensive).

[Robair]

If Celador wants to fix this program, what the question writers need to do is come up with more complex high-level questions which can't be looked up easily on the Internet. And road-test them. You'd be surprised how much stuff isn't on the Internet yet.

Or, come up with questions that have multiple meaning words which would generally take longer to sift through the search results you do get.

Or (and this is extreme) send the storm troopers to the homes of the PAFs and cut all their broadband lines on tape day.

[Matt Ottinger]

I think the Times author is using the word "cheating" pretty indiscriminantly.  According to the article:

The rules for contestants state that “there must be no conferring”. Yet this does not cover lifeline friends. Celador is now considering adding to the rules to make it clear that the five friends must not confer, either by using the internet or by having other people with them in the room.

As others have said, Google is a reference tool, same as a dictionary or any other useful source.  Having a group of friends in the room together is also a fairly common practice, at least for the American version.  I know, I've been in those rooms!  

These aren't loopholes, they're resources.  If they change their rules, THEN it's cheating, but virtually impossible to prove.  I also can't imagine that the American version would adopt a similar rule.  I also agree with Robert that it's absolutely impossible that the Celador producers are only now noticing this issue.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Robair\' date=\'Feb 8 2005, 08:51 AM\']If Celador wants to fix this program, what the question writers need to do is come up with more complex high-level questions which can't be looked up easily on the Internet. And road-test them. You'd be surprised how much stuff isn't on the Internet yet.

[snapback]74541[/snapback]

[/quote]
Exactly. And THIS is why I knock would-be MDQ writers for writing questions that are so easily Googled. There are ways to write questions where the answers are either not feasibly Googleable, or at least not Googleable in such a way that the answer pops right up....you might have time to Google a question, but you DON'T have time to search through three or four pages...if you don't have the answer staring at you from the search results, you're not gonna get it out in time unless you get really lucky.

[mmb5]

It also depends on your quality of Googling.  I was on standby as PAF last year and the person decided to call somebody else.  He failed to give him an answer in time.  Once I heard the question and tried it myself and was able to get it in 7 seconds.  I'm not mentioning names/what the question was because I don't want to disparage the people involved.

There was also an early incident where Steve Perry was going for the $1M, it was quite obvious he set up his friend to do a straight Google, but wasted his time doing stupid things like spelling the word "maiden" in the question about Carol Brady's maiden name.

Google is not a fool proof method of doing it.  There are many things that can go wrong in those 30 seconds:

1. The contestant wastes their time reading the question.  You don't need to say A, B, C and D except in situations where the choices may not be familiar.
2. The person on the phone, if doing it for a group, wastes time rereading it.  Be short and snappy.
3. If they go to the internets, they use an inefficient search.
4. And, of course, if you go to the internets, the answer could be wrong.

In several of the PAF sessions I've been in, we would assign reference books to certain people, such as an atlas, an almanac, a dictionary, etc.  The only way to make the PAF purely phone a friend is to have the PAF's there on stage like on 21, and that just isn't going to happen.


--Mike

[starcade]

[quote name=\'itiparanoid13\' date=\'Feb 7 2005, 05:02 PM\']File this under blowing it way out of proportion.  US Millionaire will have to change a LOT more now if they want it.  Now, the person, if they saved ATA and PAF, for a huge question could just use ATA, which will give the PAF the question and then google that.  No way it can happen in the US unless we start getting silly.

[snapback]74488[/snapback]

[/quote]

Absolutely.  Basically, their ATA is on the IM, so they basically get the question at the IM.  Unless the audience thunders back with a big response, they have a lot of time to do it.  They'd have to toss out the IM to do it right.  (And they should do that for a number of reasons, this not being one of them.)

I think it's wrong for Celador to do this unless there are different laws against cheating on game shows in England than here.  I mean, what's next?  No source-books???  All Google is is a big search of sourcebooks.  You still have only THIRTY SECONDS.

[starcade]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Feb 8 2005, 11:56 AM\'][quote name=\'Robair\' date=\'Feb 8 2005, 08:51 AM\']If Celador wants to fix this program, what the question writers need to do is come up with more complex high-level questions which can't be looked up easily on the Internet. And road-test them. You'd be surprised how much stuff isn't on the Internet yet.

[snapback]74541[/snapback]

[/quote]
Exactly. And THIS is why I knock would-be MDQ writers for writing questions that are so easily Googled. There are ways to write questions where the answers are either not feasibly Googleable, or at least not Googleable in such a way that the answer pops right up....you might have time to Google a question, but you DON'T have time to search through three or four pages...if you don't have the answer staring at you from the search results, you're not gonna get it out in time unless you get really lucky.

[snapback]74548[/snapback]

[/quote]

They do still have to keep them multiple choice unless they want to totally alter the game.  And the questions are hard enough as it is!!!

[ChuckNet]

There was also an early incident where Steve Perry was going for the $1M, it was quite obvious he set up his friend to do a straight Google, but wasted his time doing stupid things like spelling the word "maiden" in the question about Carol Brady's maiden name.

And to add insult to injury, all of his lifelines were intact for said question, he used them all, yet still couldn't get the correct answer.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")