Dare to amend the J! format?

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 07:29 PM\']HTML Triple Crown asked:

Econobox? Is this another Zachronym which you use because it's too darn difficult to type "cheap car" or because you're trying to be the Noah Webster of the 21st century?

As much as people here like to complain about Zach, econobox is perfectly legitimate jargon.  At least, it's legitimate enough to be used in places like Business Week.  'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry

[snapback]98296[/snapback]

[/quote]

Just because it's 'legitimate' and has its own Wikipedia article doesn't mean I have to like it or use it in conversation.  (For that matter, many things have Wikipedia articles that really shouldn't, but that's a matter for another day.)  It's no different from the silly language you can find in an issue of Variety.  Why be simple when you can be 'witty,' 'clever' and use 'insider jargon' that no one will understand?  Whatever.


Now, for the actual GS content:
Was running a category on the old Jeopardy THAT hard?  Being too young, I'll take the word of the elder statesmen of the board that the material was not any harder in the old days- in that case, you could see category sweeps left and right.

Part two- was the 'bounce' employed on the old show, or was it very much "top down," or if you bother to change the category, taking the lowest valued clue in that column?

[chris319]

[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 09:30 PM\'][quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 10:29 PM\']As much as people here like to complain about Zach, econobox is perfectly legitimate jargon.  At least, it's legitimate enough to be used in places like Business Week.  'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry[/quote]

Wow.  I stand corrected.  I had never heard the term until Zach used it again, and again, and again, etc.

[snapback]98305[/snapback]

[/quote]
And your apology to Zach will be in a forthcoming post, correct Mr. Klauss?

[MikeK]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 11:23 AM\']And your apology to Zach will be in a forthcoming post, correct Mr. Klauss?[/quote]
Zach's never apologized to us for anything.  Why should any of us do likewise for him?

I admitted I was wrong.  Isn't that enough?

[chris319]

Zach's never apologized to us for anything. Why should any of us do likewise for him?

Why? Because you insulted him up one side and down the other when you were wrong, that's why.

I admitted I was wrong. Isn't that enough?

Not speaking in an official capacity as a moderator, no. I think you need to show some contrition for what you said based on an erroneous premise. I'm not going to penalize you if you don't, but if you're a mensch you'll will.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 11:42 AM\']I'm not going to penalize you if you don't, but if you're a mensch you'll will.
[/quote]
1) It would be a respectful act.
2) Respect is earned.
3) After the multitude of acts of Horanity foisted upon us over the years, that continue to go unabated, I'm thinking I'm willing to overlook a brief event of non-menschery, especially since the basic premise was still completely correct, if not in this specific instance.

/my own damned opinion

[MikeK]

Chris (both of moderator type and non-mod type), you make valid points.  My initial reaction was, admittedly, irrational and unjustified, even though Zach has a legacy of coining his own terms and then constantly using those terms even though 99.9% of the posters don't use them and/or criticize Zach for using them.  I withdraw my original comments and humbly apologize.

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'cool245\' date=\'Oct 2 2005, 06:48 PM\']They should make it where the second and third place person takes home a small cash prize instead of prizes.
[/quote]
When's the last time you watched Jeopardy?

In case you missed the news flash from a few years ago; they DO take home cash and prizes.  Just go eat some Kentucky Fried Chicken, OK?

[sshuffield70]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 09:29 PM\']HTML Triple Crown asked:

Econobox? Is this another Zachronym which you use because it's too darn difficult to type "cheap car" or because you're trying to be the Noah Webster of the 21st century?

As much as people here like to complain about Zach, econobox is perfectly legitimate jargon.  At least, it's legitimate enough to be used in places like Business Week.  'Econobox' also has its own Wikipedia entry

[snapback]98296[/snapback]

[/quote]

I believe I have also used the term many times in 35 years.  Not in computer forums, mind you, but in conversations.  But I think it's been awhile since I've said or typed "econobox".

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 01:15 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 1 2005, 11:02 AM\']In seriousness, I get very annoyed at the common misconception that the original show was more difficult than the current one.  With the handful of shows we have for comparison, it's easy to see that this is just not the case.[/quote]
Just curious--would you base that statement on "batting averages" being roughly the same then as now, or on the content of the material itself, or something else?

As a young whippersnapper, I can't really make a good judgment on what was common knowledge 30-40 years ago. I do think Jeopardy! has moved towards including more pop culture material in the last decade, but A) I'm better at pop culture material, and B) that makes it just as different from J! '85 as from J! '65.[/quote]
It's not based on any mathematical formula.  It's simply the observation of someone who writes (and judges the relative difficulty of) trivia material semi-professionally.  

Of course, you've also brought up my OTHER pet peeve about complaints regarding Jeopardy material.  While it may be true that there is more of an emphasis on pop culture material now than there was in the past (and by no means am I conceding that point), I don't believe that inherently makes the game easier.  Some people (myself -- and yourself -- included) would do better on pop culture material, others would do better on literature, or history, or some other subject.  A well-written movie or TV category is just as valid as a well-written science or geography one, and it can have just as much challenging material.  

Last season, they had a pop culture category of Oscar Ceremony Quotes and not one of the five clues was answered correctly.  Just last week, they had a pure mathematics category that didn't fare much better.  The key is balance, and I think the Jeopardy writers and producers are constantly making small tweaks to find that balance.

[uncamark]

In the midst of all the Horanity, someone did point out something that I should've remembered:  That the reason for few cleared boards in the Fleming days may've just been because you were allowed to buzz in as soon as the card was revealed.  Leading to regular...

"State Mottoes for $20, Art."

"The answer is:  [ding as player buzzes in] 'The Land of Enchantment.'  Conrad."

"Uh...uh...uh..."  [buzz buzz]

"I'm sorry.  Anyone else?"

[buzz buzz]

"What is New Mexico?  New Mexico.  Fran, ma'am, you were the last correct questioner, please select."

As someone else said, when you actually hear the whole clue before you can signal, it makes a difference...

[Fedya]

I don't remember the material from early in the Trebek version's run, and wasn't alive for the Fleming version's run, but were there as many punny clues as there seem to be now?  (Not only that, but the puns are usually put in quotes, giving a pointer that makes the clue easier than if there were no quotes.)

The other thing I've commented on in the past is bottom-of the category clues that effectively ask who was the US President in a given year, which drive me up a wall whenever I see them.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 3 2005, 07:46 PM\']I don't remember the material from early in the Trebek version's run, [...] but were there as many punny clues as there seem to be now?[/quote]
Feel free to see for yourself.

But yeah:
9/17/84 ANIMALS $300: When husbands "pop" for an ermine coat, they're actually buying this fur

9/19/84 ASTRONOMY $600: Planet once thought unique, it no longer runs "rings" around its neighbors

And not only punny, just flat easy:
9/18/84 BIOLOGY $1000: Deoxyribonucleic acid

9/18/84 RELIGION $1000: This word for the Mohammedan religion means "submission to the will of God"

And this just from a cursory glance at the first three episodes. When adjusting for changed dollar values, my scores with the '84 games are about triple my scores with current episodes.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'Oct 3 2005, 10:46 PM\']I don't remember the material from early in the Trebek version's run, and wasn't alive for the Fleming version's run, but were there as many punny clues as there seem to be now?  (Not only that, but the puns are usually put in quotes, giving a pointer that makes the clue easier than if there were no quotes.)[/quote]
The puns and embedded clues have always been a part of the Trebek version, but were not typically part of the Fleming version.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' date=\'Oct 3 2005, 10:11 PM\']And not only punny, just flat easy:
9/18/84 BIOLOGY $1000: Deoxyribonucleic acid

[snapback]98491[/snapback]

[/quote]
I wasn't even 2, but was DNA as big as it is now? I think the first I heard about it was when the OJ situation broke out in 1994.

ObOJ: Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of "the verdict".

ObGameShow: The OJ Trial took its toll on Dawson Feud II.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Oct 3 2005, 09:22 PM\']I wasn't even 2, but was DNA as big as it is now? I think the first I heard about it was when the OJ situation broke out in 1994.

[snapback]98500[/snapback]

[/quote]
Oh yeah.