tubechallenge.com

OK, so the other day I stumbled upon Root's long-abandoned overall scores spreadsheet for the Rare Entries quizzes we've been doing over the last year or so, and I thought to myself that it was time to update it.

But instead of following the scoring system Root used before, I decided to make it a little simpler. Mind you, you know what I'm like with "simple" things, so you'll have to make your own minds up.

First of all, the old table made a note of each player's rank in each quiz. I have decided that this is irrelevant, and so have abandoned keeping track of this. The only criteria used is each player's score in each quiz. Which leads us to another problem. Not everyone in the table has taken part in every quiz. We have 30 people who have played RE quizzes, but the maximum number of entries in any quiz is 16 (off the top of my head). The smallest number of entrants was two. So, in order to make it "fair", I have calculated the average score per quiz by taking the total of the scores and dividing it by the number of entrants. Players who have been awarded the average score for a quiz have their score displayed in italics.

This average score for any given quiz is then given to each person in the table who did not take part in that particular quiz. So, in the quiz with only two entrants (scrxisi and nozzacook), 28 people scored the rounded-up average score, which was 11 points. The reason for giving every player a score is because players who have only taken part in two quizzes will have a much lower score than those who have entered fifteen.

As for the overall score for each player, I decided against simply multiplying all scores together, as this results in ridiculously large numbers. Adding the numbers is plain boring. Therefore, a player's overall score is their average score over all the quizzes that have ever taken place. To date we have had 19 quizzes. So each player has their 19 scores added together and divided by 19. After the next one, the player's average will be recalculated over those 20 quizzes, and so on. You will note I say we have had 19 quizzes so far. This is due to Quix XVI never materialising. Maybe Going Underground will actually write it for us one day ...

This method of scoring does present some interesting points. The first is that it encourages people to try to score a low score in each round, as this will bring their average down. On the other hand, players with huge overall scores could sabotage the overall table by deliberately going for a high score in each quiz, thus increasing each quiz's average score for the non-players.

So, with that in mind, here is a link to the new table, as it stands. You will notice that there are two scores missing. One is Quiz XVI, as mentioned above. The other is Quiz XIX, which jamesthegill may still be accepting entries for. The very first column on the left is for the positions as at the previous quiz. As we're starting from scratch, there are no "previous" positions yet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... zRUd3lXT3c

No doubt someone will tell me my system is rubbish, but this is the way I'm doing it, so ner. Even so, I will defend to the death your right to criticise me, so feel free to comment.

Carry on.

Also, note that the "average score" row at the bottom shows the average score for each individual quiz BEFORE that average was then entered next to the players who did not take part. In other words, it is the average of the non-italic scores for each quiz.

Also, notice how close the overall scores are between 14th and 26th places.

Good work, I always thought my scoring systems were a bit crap but couldn't come up with any alternatives.

If in doubt, go for averages - it stops a runaway leader.

Of course, I COULD reset everything from now and start from scratch if people prefer, and simply have the current table as a "historic" one.

And the more I think about it, the more I think I may draw a line under the first 19 quizzes, and start the scoring again from jamesthegill's delayed XIX quiz.

The reason for this is that we have many people on the list who don't play the quizzes, or don't even use the forum these days. This is dragging everyone else's scores down unnecessarily, so maybe a reset every 20 or so quizzes is a good idea. In fact, having just thought of that on the fly, that's what we'll do.

Each set of 20 quizzes will force a reset of the scores. So I'll wait for jamesthegill's XIX results to come in and we'll start again. GU's Progressive Rock XVI quiz will be consigned to history as The Quiz That Never Was.

Hmm, there are some big flaws with this system. The biggest of which is that each quiz has a very different weighting.

I also think it is a big flaw that it is possible to do better in a quiz by not entering it. The primary reason is that this could discourage participation. I think someone that enters a quiz should automatically be better than someone that didn't.
BUT
Then again, how could I have entered the quizzes that were held before I was a forum member? I don't want to be punished for having discovered the forum late!

Also, I am punished for hosting a quiz. My knowledge of Milton Keynes is far greater than my nominal 448,437 score suggests!

I don't know how you could do better, but there are some things to think about!

Some immediate improvements, for clarity and interest-

List the number of quizzes entered by a person next to their score

Give the topic of the quiz in the row underneath the quiz number.

Also, Rare Entries Quiz XI:

tubeguru wrote:Be glad I'm not keeping a running score of all the rounds so far.

tractakid wrote:Hmm, there are some big flaws with this system. The biggest of which is that each quiz has a very different weighting.

I also think it is a big flaw that it is possible to do better in a quiz by not entering it. The primary reason is that this could discourage participation. I think someone that enters a quiz should automatically be better than someone that didn't.

This is just one of those things. Whichever scoring system I choose, it will disadvantage someone in some way.

tractakid wrote:Then again, how could I have entered the quizzes that were held before I was a forum member? I don't want to be punished for having discovered the forum late!

Hence my reasoning that the scores be reset every 20 quizzes or so. If you enter all of the next 20 quizzes, your destiny will be more or less in your own hands

tractakid wrote:Also, I am punished for hosting a quiz. My knowledge of Milton Keynes is far greater than my nominal 448,437 score suggests!

I could award the person who sets the quiz zero points, but then is that fair if a person sets the majority of each set of 20 quizzes? If one person does seven quizzes, they score seven lots of zero, which is unfair on people who enter.

tractakid wrote:I don't know how you could do better, but there are some things to think about!

See above.

tractakid wrote:List the number of quizzes entered by a person next to their score

Agreed.

tractakid wrote:Give the topic of the quiz in the row underneath the quiz number.

I'd already considered this, but left it to see if someone mentioned it.

OK, each person now has a number in brackets after their name. This is the number of quizzes they have entered. The topic for each quiz is at the very bottom, under the individual quizzes' average scores.

As to the problem of how to score those who set quizzes, there is a radical solution. A person sets the quiz. They then PM me the questions and I become the de facto "quiz setter". The person setting the quiz is then free to enter.

Now, you may at first think that this gives the quiz setter an unfair advantage. I would argue against this, as the idea of the quiz is to find an answer that as few people as possible gave. If the quiz is very niche, and is something that a quiz setter MIGHT know more about than most, then I would tell them to do a different quiz. But all of the quizzes in the last lot of 20 have been easy to research and find answers for. The quiz that gets closest to being niche is the Milton Keynes quiz - something that the setter knew a lot about. I would not allow such a narrow topic under this new system. Football, on the other hand, is hardly specialist.

This solution means that I would not be in the table, making it fair for everyone. Does that sound like a fairer way to do it?

Right. I'm doing Rare Entries round 2 I, on the topic of My Bedroom.

Just let anyone who wants to post a quiz do so. I don't think there is much point in trying to keep an overall score as it is comparing apples with oranges.

Of course it's comparing apples with oranges, but that's a challenge I enjoy.

If people want to post their own quizzes, then the scoring remains as it is now, with the quiz setter scoring the average score for that quiz.

I for one like the look of your table

Yes, so that should encourage you to try to get unique answers. But I will be "resetting" after we've had twenty quizzes, as some people don't play any more, and those who started recently are disadvantaged by the average score thing.