5 ms·

Something I never liked about jeopardy is that you can't buzz in at any time. I played on a trivia team at the high school level, and most questions were struc

Something I never liked about jeopardy is that you can't buzz in at any time. I played on a trivia team at the high school level, and most questions were structured like: "This American architect, born in 1867, is known for works such as the Robie House, the Guggenheim Museum, and Fallingwater." So they typically feed you information from least to most well known, and you can buzz in at any time. This rewards players who know the most trivia. Everyone who played knows Frank Lloyd Wright did Fallingwater, but a very good player would know his approximate date of birth and would buzz in immediately on hearing 1867. I understand that this might make Jeopardy less fun for the audience, but I feel it would be a better test of trivia instead of buzzer timing.

shasta 11y ago
With Jeopardy questions, you'd buzz in at "This American architect..."
- aaronbrethorst 11y ago
  That's what I did in quiz bowl in high school. Calculated risk, but one that's likely to pay off.
fsk 11y ago
They made it that way on purpose, so it's more entertaining for the audience. If you could buzz in early, the players would almost always buzz in before Alex Trebek finished reading the question, which makes it less interesting for the audience. With the wait-to-buzz-in rule, the audience gets an chance to understand and maybe think of the answer before the contestants speak.
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  I'd contend that the "signal when permitted" minigame makes Jeopardy! more difficult, too, because the part of your brain that arrives at the answer must yield to the part of your brain that tenses for a stimulus. I definitely have to switch "modes" between pulling up deeply buried knowledge and rapid reaction "stance", and I noticed this when I played a well-made copy of the show's rules complete with the signaling system. There's another side, too, which is if folks could signal early, reading fast would become an even stronger optimization. It already is, but at least everybody gets an equal chance the way it is (even if they got the answer fairly quickly from reading the clue while ignoring Trebek).
- curun1r 11y ago
  You could allow contestants to buzz in as soon as possible, but have the system wait until Alex has finished reading the answer (remember, it's Jeopardy! so the contestant gives the question ;-P) before it indicates which player buzzed in first. Yes, there might be an audible clicking sound in the background while he's talking, but it would make the game more about speed of recall rather than hand-eye coordination.
  - kmkemp 11y ago
    I think that would just encourage contestants to buzz in immediately, since I imagine that the risk of penalty of not knowing a question pales in comparison to the reward of getting to answer for a strong contestant. You effectively eliminate the only downside of buzzing early since contestants would get to hear the entire question regardless.
    - fennecfoxen 11y ago
      The traditional College Bowl <TM> / Quizbowl <not-TM> technique is (a) to assign a 50% penalty to the early buzz with an incorrect answer, and (b) since it's game with teams and has two teams, the rest of your team is disqualified from answering the question, leaving the opposite team with lots of time to think about it (and subsequently secure access to the 3x bonus question following every toss-up question.) Which is lots of fun and very competitive, but a little bit less tele-savvy.
      - colomon 11y ago
        Ack, we ran up against a "celebrity" reader in the final rounds of a Quizbowl tournament who didn't stop reading reliably when the other team buzzed in. I don't know how, but the other team was really good at taking advantage of this, buzzing in before the reader had given enough information to answer the question, and then answering after he'd finished the sentence. Our team got steamrolled.
        gamegoblin 11y ago
- smellf 11y ago
  Yep. The reason why Jeopardy works so well is because the contestants are all trivia gods, so they all know the answer most of the time. The audience thinks that the difficulty is in the trivia, because that's more challenging for us, but it's actually in the buzzer press.
- emehrkay 11y ago
  You know how annoying it is when someone tries to finish your sentence and they are completely wrong? I imagine Jeopardy without the rule to be unwatchable.
  - mercutio2 11y ago
    You mean not even slightly annoying? Seriously, it turns out the degree to which this bothers people varies enormously. I'm not sure how much it's personality vs subculture, but in my branch of reality, someone completing my sentence (even if they're wrong) is a mark of enthusiasm and engagement. My wife, and my neighbor's husband, feel like it's the height of rudeness. This is kind of the canonical example people can understand for the platinum vs the golden rule, as it happens.
    - emehrkay 11y ago
      I have no idea what I read, maybe Flow, maybe Think and Grow Rich, that mentioned when you're in tune with a presenter/speaker, you'll often find yourself finishing their thoughts. I used to subscribe to that HEAVILY and constantly look for it. But over time, I find when I'm making a point and taking my time to ensure that what I am saying is clear and no extra parsing language is needed, I do not need, or want, a person audibly trying to be engaged. Especially when they're wrong. It actually isnt that big of a deal, we just all have our thing
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  These days, Jeopardy shows the full question as an overlay graphic immediately, before the host even starts reading it. So the audience would always know the full question even if the contestants don't. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the target demographic of Jeopardy is often doing something else and listening without actually watching.
codingdave 11y ago
This is a TV show - the entire point is to make it fun for the audience. The audience is what brings in ad dollars, which pays not only the winnings of the contestants, but costs to run the show, and of course, the profit.
hyperpape 11y ago
Couldn't you make it that you can buzz in anytime, but there's no advantage for buzzing first during the question reading (if two people buzz, randomly pick one)?
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> I understand that this might make Jeopardy less fun for the audience, but I feel it would be a better test of trivia instead of buzzer timing. Other game shows work that way as well, and it has its own degree of fun for the audience. For instance, the contestant buzzes in and answers after a few words of the question, gets the answer wrong, the host is grinning like a possum, and after they read the next part of the question, it makes the contestant's answer even more hilariously wrong in context.
- taejo 11y ago
  University Challenge in the UK is a great example of this.
  - Someone 11y ago
    And as a bonus, the host may grin like a possum when the answer is correct, too. That happens on trivia questions, such as on winners of the Eurovision Song Contest. Contestants are supposed to be British students, know their Shakespeare and recognize 13th century music from four notes played, even if they are studying, say, analytic chemistry. You may get a snide remark "Aren't you ashamed to know that?"
mhartl 11y ago
Jeopardy! used to work like this. Players would often buzz in immediately, hoping they would know the answer to the question (sorry, the "question" for the "answer" [1]). Since Alex Trebek still finished reading the clue, and most of the players knew most of the answers most of the time, this was a winning strategy. The producers changed to the current design in 1985. [2] [1]: This has always struck me as an idiotic gimmick, especially since the wording rarely makes sense. No one would ever respond to the question "Who was George Washington?" with the answer "This man served as the first President of the United States." [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy!#CITEREFTrebekBarsocchini1990 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy!#CITEREFTrebekBarso...

shasta 11y ago

With Jeopardy questions, you'd buzz in at "This American architect..."

aaronbrethorst 11y ago
That's what I did in quiz bowl in high school. Calculated risk, but one that's likely to pay off.

fsk 11y ago

They made it that way on purpose, so it's more entertaining for the audience. If you could buzz in early, the players would almost always buzz in before Alex Trebek finished reading the question, which makes it less interesting for the audience. With the wait-to-buzz-in rule, the audience gets an chance to understand and maybe think of the answer before the contestants speak.

jsmthrowaway 11y ago
I'd contend that the "signal when permitted" minigame makes Jeopardy! more difficult, too, because the part of your brain that arrives at the answer must yield to the part of your brain that tenses for a stimulus. I definitely have to switch "modes" between pulling up deeply buried knowledge and rapid reaction "stance", and I noticed this when I played a well-made copy of the show's rules complete with the signaling system. There's another side, too, which is if folks could signal early, reading fast would become an even stronger optimization. It already is, but at least everybody gets an equal chance the way it is (even if they got the answer fairly quickly from reading the clue while ignoring Trebek).
curun1r 11y ago
You could allow contestants to buzz in as soon as possible, but have the system wait until Alex has finished reading the answer (remember, it's Jeopardy! so the contestant gives the question ;-P) before it indicates which player buzzed in first. Yes, there might be an audible clicking sound in the background while he's talking, but it would make the game more about speed of recall rather than hand-eye coordination.
- kmkemp 11y ago
  I think that would just encourage contestants to buzz in immediately, since I imagine that the risk of penalty of not knowing a question pales in comparison to the reward of getting to answer for a strong contestant. You effectively eliminate the only downside of buzzing early since contestants would get to hear the entire question regardless.
  - fennecfoxen 11y ago
    The traditional College Bowl <TM> / Quizbowl <not-TM> technique is (a) to assign a 50% penalty to the early buzz with an incorrect answer, and (b) since it's game with teams and has two teams, the rest of your team is disqualified from answering the question, leaving the opposite team with lots of time to think about it (and subsequently secure access to the 3x bonus question following every toss-up question.) Which is lots of fun and very competitive, but a little bit less tele-savvy.
    - colomon 11y ago
      Ack, we ran up against a "celebrity" reader in the final rounds of a Quizbowl tournament who didn't stop reading reliably when the other team buzzed in. I don't know how, but the other team was really good at taking advantage of this, buzzing in before the reader had given enough information to answer the question, and then answering after he'd finished the sentence. Our team got steamrolled.
      - gamegoblin 11y ago
smellf 11y ago
Yep. The reason why Jeopardy works so well is because the contestants are all trivia gods, so they all know the answer most of the time. The audience thinks that the difficulty is in the trivia, because that's more challenging for us, but it's actually in the buzzer press.
emehrkay 11y ago
You know how annoying it is when someone tries to finish your sentence and they are completely wrong? I imagine Jeopardy without the rule to be unwatchable.
- mercutio2 11y ago
  You mean not even slightly annoying? Seriously, it turns out the degree to which this bothers people varies enormously. I'm not sure how much it's personality vs subculture, but in my branch of reality, someone completing my sentence (even if they're wrong) is a mark of enthusiasm and engagement. My wife, and my neighbor's husband, feel like it's the height of rudeness. This is kind of the canonical example people can understand for the platinum vs the golden rule, as it happens.
  - emehrkay 11y ago
    I have no idea what I read, maybe Flow, maybe Think and Grow Rich, that mentioned when you're in tune with a presenter/speaker, you'll often find yourself finishing their thoughts. I used to subscribe to that HEAVILY and constantly look for it. But over time, I find when I'm making a point and taking my time to ensure that what I am saying is clear and no extra parsing language is needed, I do not need, or want, a person audibly trying to be engaged. Especially when they're wrong. It actually isnt that big of a deal, we just all have our thing
JoshTriplett 11y ago
These days, Jeopardy shows the full question as an overlay graphic immediately, before the host even starts reading it. So the audience would always know the full question even if the contestants don't. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the target demographic of Jeopardy is often doing something else and listening without actually watching.

codingdave 11y ago

This is a TV show - the entire point is to make it fun for the audience. The audience is what brings in ad dollars, which pays not only the winnings of the contestants, but costs to run the show, and of course, the profit.

hyperpape 11y ago

Couldn't you make it that you can buzz in anytime, but there's no advantage for buzzing first during the question reading (if two people buzz, randomly pick one)?

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> I understand that this might make Jeopardy less fun for the audience, but I feel it would be a better test of trivia instead of buzzer timing. Other game shows work that way as well, and it has its own degree of fun for the audience. For instance, the contestant buzzes in and answers after a few words of the question, gets the answer wrong, the host is grinning like a possum, and after they read the next part of the question, it makes the contestant's answer even more hilariously wrong in context.

taejo 11y ago
University Challenge in the UK is a great example of this.
- Someone 11y ago
  And as a bonus, the host may grin like a possum when the answer is correct, too. That happens on trivia questions, such as on winners of the Eurovision Song Contest. Contestants are supposed to be British students, know their Shakespeare and recognize 13th century music from four notes played, even if they are studying, say, analytic chemistry. You may get a snide remark "Aren't you ashamed to know that?"

mhartl 11y ago

Jeopardy! used to work like this. Players would often buzz in immediately, hoping they would know the answer to the question (sorry, the "question" for the "answer" [1]). Since Alex Trebek still finished reading the clue, and most of the players knew most of the answers most of the time, this was a winning strategy. The producers changed to the current design in 1985. [2] [1]: This has always struck me as an idiotic gimmick, especially since the wording rarely makes sense. No one would ever respond to the question "Who was George Washington?" with the answer "This man served as the first President of the United States." [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy!#CITEREFTrebekBarsocchini1990 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy!#CITEREFTrebekBarso...