Stekkos said he thought it would be better if we made our quiz suggestions into new threads, so everyone can vote on them, so here goes.

I think how easy a question is to answer via Google should be one factor considered when giving out the "specialized knowledge" evaluation. As a player, I would much prefer a narrow question that I can find the answer to easily, rather than a broad question that I can't. So here's my proposal for how this could be implemented in a manner which is clear and easy to apply for both evaluators and question posers. If you copy/paste the entire question into Google, and the correct answer appears on the search results page, so you don't even have to click into a link, then the question should pass the "specialized knowledge" test, no matter what. Questions that don't pass this Google test could still pass based on the old criteria. I realize that Google can present different results based on geography, but I expect that would come up very rarely.

Thats what i am talking about, good job ImLittleJon

I wonder why only 3 votes up to now when there are 13 views.....

Also, fellow evalutors please comment if you like or not this idea. Personally i have no problem accepting this IF the quiz admin agrees

Quote: stekkos - 2010.08.30. 17:48:06

Looks unanimous to me...

Looks like that, but i wouldnt call 13 votes a valid poll. Come on people! You have a chance to change something in the quiz. Show some interest!

13 votes is not that bad considering how much traffic these forums get. They should really put that last 5 posts widget into the game itself. That would drive a lot more traffic to the forums.

My initial thoughts are. . . I'm not sure that is a good idea. I can make all kinds of useless, extreme special knowledge questions pop-up at the top of the results page. It does not mean it's a good question or that anyone should bother to knowing it. I think we will get a whole new group of people complaining if we let in trivial things just because they can be googled. It's a quiz (mind) challenge, not a search (computer) challenge.

This also leads to wrong answers from the user-generated trivia sites. (Yes, several of the sites that people steel questions from are wrong.) I just had an example of this: "Around 400 BC, the talented Chinese artisan Lu Ban made the first known ...?" The very first result is the exact worded question. Problem, according to the Drachen Foundation (non-profit educational corporation, devoted to the increase and dissemination of knowledge about kites worldwide) states "The first unambiguous reference to a kite occurs in Chinese literature from about 200 BCE; the kite itself is almost certainly older. We know that kites spread throughout Asia via known trade routes: they were present in Japan and Korea by approximately 1000 CE, and commonplace in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand by the 1500s. But where did the kite first appear? It was likely in the islands and peninsulas of the Pacific, where the needs of seafaring cultures could have driven the development of simple, utilitarian leaf kites for fishermen." Now, I would take the word of an international organization aimed at preserving history and education over the word of a made-up "fun trivia" site that has written countless wrong or misleading questions.

Also, do you realize that the copy and past function for the quiz olympics is going away? So, all the "easy google" questions will need to be known be everyone to compete.

Now, I will say, I have evaluated questions that I thought 'who in the world would know that' only to find an entire page of results with common & credible sources. In those case, I just chalk it up to outside my realm of knowledge, but let the question in. On the flip-side, I have had some questions that seem like they may be interesting and fairly easy to find an answer to, but after frantic searching, I cannot find a correct answer, I have marked that question as special knowledge. So, in a way, the ability to find an answer does come in to play. I just hate to see the quiz flooded with every book/song title known to man, obscure word definitions, quotes by Jim-bob's brother's second cousin, etc. just because they can easily be found on google.

Obviously, I would follow whatever is decided, but that's my opinion.

Quote: ChaoticGemini - 2010.09.01. 07:56:57

A ridiculous question is still a ridiculous question... And it's easy enough to make a caveat that not only must it be found on Google, it must come from at least a semi-reliable source (Wiki, Amazon, ESPN, official author / artist / organization site).

Lexical / Uninteresting is almost as frustrating, but there is truly nothing worse than the Special Knowledge rejection - because, simply put, 80%+ of the quiz is Special Knowledge to some group of people... Deciding where to put that line is what causes more problems than anything else.

For example, let's say I think Sports and Popular Music are General Knowledge. Stekkos thinks Literature and Classical Music are General Knowledge. That's fine, we are each entitled to our opinion... Problem is that Stekkos is a Mod, and I am not. Therefore, when the quiz gets flooded with Arts & Literature, and I get my Sports rejected for being Special Knowledge - we get problems like the ones ALL OVER this Forum.

In a nutshell, that's why we HAVE to involve "Googleability". Just because my Special Knowledge is different than that of the Mods - that doesn't make me wrong... But under the current rules - it does.

I see your point, Gemini. I would just say that we've seen the results of the status quo. Let's try the other way and see how it goes, and if we like the current way better, we can always switch back later.

Death by apathy... Another good idea bites the bucket due to lack of Moderator / Admin response.

Really, is there any point in wasting our time on the Forum anymore?

Quote: Viridel - 2010.09.05. 07:17:48

Umm, I wouldn't say there is much player response either. Four people and half of them a quiz evaluators trying to make things better for everyone.

oh, and as of right now, 16 votes.

Quote: ChaoticGemini - 2010.09.05. 08:42:01

Just further proof that the forum is a waste of time and effort. I also find it interesting / suspicious that the vote count went from 6-0-0 to 10-0-1 to 10-0-3 to 10-4-3. So the first 11 consecutive posters were almost completely in favour, but the last 7 consecutive posters were almost completely against? Smells like the fix is in to bend the results in a certain way.

How about we ask the question this way? When/how/by whom will a decision be made on this issue? Is there a threshold number of votes beyond which the will of the majority becomes binding? Is there a time limit after which the will of the majority becomes binding? Or are the results of the poll more of an advisory kind of thing, where the evaluators will now discuss the question amongst themselves, taking the poll results into account but not being bound by them? In which case, when will/did the discussion take place, and when will we hear the results?

Viridel, what conspiracy theory are you saying?????

Its just a poll, if we or the game admins did not agree we would just say so. Why are you suprised players might actually not like the idea?

Ive voted yes as long as its easy to look up I dont see a problem. plus more of our questions will be accepted as long as we word them correctly of course. also some of our more zealous evaluators will have to accept them.

Quote: stekkos - 2010.09.06. 06:40:39

Ok, if there were an election where one guy was ahead 100,000 voted to 10,000 - then as soon as those results were broadcast, the next polling station made the vote 100,000 to 60,000 - would people not be suspicious?

I'm not saying the CURRENT result is wrong... It's just VERY odd that after being VERY Pro-Yes, it *suddenly* turned Pro-No / Indecisive... In spite of the fact that there have been no changes in outside factors to create such a swing naturally.

The statistical probability of that happening "honestly" is astronomically small.

Even if this was the case, we are currently only 4 evaluators and maybe 4-5 admin/moderators. There is no way to tip the balance of a vote open to thousands of players. Personally i have not voted since i will go with wetever is decided. Personal preference is not a factor for me on this poll.

If you will feel better, make it an open vote. Each player should say what he voted here to have an idea of why the poll is as it is.

When talking about and increase from a total of 110,000 votes to 160,000 then yes, obviously there is something fishy (if there is no external factor) but I mean come on, we're talking about 18 votes here. The chance of 4 consecutive people sharing the same opinion is far from astronomically small. Read up on a how to evaluate a scientific study and I'm sure one of the first things they'll say is that the bigger the number, the more reliable since fluctuations/anomalies always occur.

Quote: Phalanxii - 2010.09.07. 19:07:14

Oh, I get that... And yes, I do understand tabulation counts and standard deviation. But it's not just 4 people - it's 14. Ignoring the "undecided" players, it was 10 straight Yes, followed by 4 straight No. Doing a straight Heads-Tails calculation, the odds of this happening are 0.00006103515625% - 1 in 16384. Ok, not "astronomically" small... But still "odd".

It doesn't really matter. I have now officially given up on the quiz... I'm just going to play the GAME and stay out of all this bullshit - because it gains absolutely nothing except to piss me off. The Admin doesn't care - hell, they don't even read the forum (as is VERY obvious by the Quiz Error thread). So I'm just not going to waste my time, effort or mental health any more.

I just don't care anymore.

It just seems to me the majority of the players just do not care enough to see changes or they do not use the forums. Thats the only clear image i get from this poll

So we've established that very few people use these forums. And of the ones that do, not all care enough to vote. But I don't buy that as a reason not to take any action. Of the people who voted, 2/3 are in favor, no matter how it's implemented. Another 1/7 are more cautious, but might be in favor if they like the details of how it's implemented. Under 1/5 are opposed.

Can we at least get the evaluators to agree to try something out on a temporary basis and see how it goes?