Who is better: Carol Vorderman or Rachel Riley?

[Mark Deeks]

Speaking to Rachel is much more fun than speaking to Gev, let's be honest.

You do need to build up a rapport for when she's your co-host, I suppose, so it's just as well you think that.

About as much chance of me hosting it as you appearing on it.

[Martin Bishop]

I wouldn't recommend discussing politics with Carol, though...

Why on earth not?

She made an embarrassing appearance on Question Time a few years ago. She clearly knew very little beyond what she reads in the Daily Mail and approached every subject with the sort of indignant moral outrage one would expect.

[Gavin Chipper]

Can someone explain the magic in "the product of two primes", Rachel mentions it often and I feel I should know it but I'm afraid it has escaped me. Thanks.

I think it's just that there is a way of getting the target by multiplying 2 smaller numbers, but only one so it's hard to spot.

If someone gets a solution like 17×23 it's quite clever because it doesn't break down any further and it's hard to spot. But unless they're both at least 13, it's not any cleverer than any other solution and not particularly interesting so I'm not sure why she mentions it.

[Jamie Weisenberg]

Carol Vorderman looks better and is smarter.

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

Carol Vorderman looks better and is smarter.

Which day was that?

[Marc Meakin]

Overall I go with Miss V as a person of moral fortitude but Rachel is by far the better mathematician

[Marc Meakin]

Carol Vorderman looks better and is smarter.

On social media for sure

[Jamie Weisenberg]

Hope nobody is offended but .. has anyone ever suspected that Rachel Riley (or even Carol) might be getting fed the solution through an earpiece by the producers ? Surely has to be in some cases.

I find it hard to believe she can get all the tougher ones in 30 secs that the maverick contestants are unable to.

[Gavin Chipper]

Rachel doesn't get all of them and nor did Carol. Sometimes Rachel gets them in the break or not at all.

[Graeme Cole]

Hope nobody is offended but .. has anyone ever suspected that Rachel Riley (or even Carol) might be getting fed the solution through an earpiece by the producers ? Surely has to be in some cases.

I find it hard to believe she can get all the tougher ones in 30 secs that the maverick contestants are unable to.

It won't stop some people suspecting it, but no, she isn't fed solutions through her earpiece. Sometimes she fails to solve rounds which are possible.

When the numbers round is impossible to solve exactly, she is told this, to save her from continuing to work on it during the break. This is why you'll hear her saying something like "two away is the best available". But if an exact solution is possible, she gets no help solving it.

[David Williams]

Graeme, this may belong in a different thread, but years ago you gave figures for how the two of them compared at solving the numbers. As I recall, Rachel was better, but when you broke down Carol's performance by age, Carol in her twenties was very similar to Rachel in her twenties. Now that Rachel's in her thirties, how do they compare?

[Jamie Weisenberg]

After watching every episode of the last three months, I am convinced Rachel Reily is fed the answers through an earpiece. She can't be this good, conjuring all kinds of obscure solutions.

What a shame.

[Gavin Chipper]

Especially when she says "You'll have to leave it with me."

[Philip A]

After watching every episode of the last three months, I am convinced Rachel Reily is fed the answers through an earpiece. She can't be this good, conjuring all kinds of obscure solutions.

What a shame.

Few things to account here: don’t forget Rachel has a time advantage over the contestants who are restricted to 30 seconds, so chances are Rachel gets it after about 45-60 seconds (whilst she is writing the players’ mehods, in other words), or even 2 minutes. The same goes for dictionary corner; they might spot an 8 or a 9 just before the next round begins.

If she presents an obscure method, it’s probably the first method her brain worked out. I don’t think she necessarily focuses strictly on the most efficient method. She wrote complex solutions even 10 years ago. Any correct solution makes the cut. If a really clever numbers player knows all the multiply and divide methods such as (75*25+1)/2=938, that’s what they’d look for first time. It’s just a consequence of how the neurons are wired through practice.

You also need to account the fact that they may spot a top answer in between takes, which is why the show is laboriously edited. In one of my shows, they just spotted LIGNEOUS seconds before they replaced the cards.

Colin, Rachel and Susie all wear earpieces, but I am 99.99% certain she is not fed answers through her earpiece if a numbers game can be solved; she will be told a game is impossible.

In one of my shows, there was an extremely difficult 2 large which only had one solution. She spent 5 minutes working it out on her clipboard and it went unsolved.

[JackHurst]

After watching every episode of the last three months, I am convinced Rachel Reily is fed the answers through an earpiece. She can't be this good, conjuring all kinds of obscure solutions.

What a shame.

Rachel is literally the only person on the planet who gets paid a salary to be as good as possible at the Countdown numbers game. It absolutely makes sense that she's going to be unimaginably good.

[JackHurst]

Also I bet you wouldn't be saying this if "Rachel" was a man.

[Jamie Weisenberg]

After watching every episode of the last three months, I am convinced Rachel Reily is fed the answers through an earpiece. She can't be this good, conjuring all kinds of obscure solutions.

What a shame.

Few things to account here: don’t forget Rachel has a time advantage over the contestants who are restricted to 30 seconds, so chances are Rachel gets it after about 45-60 seconds (whilst she is writing the players’ mehods, in other words), or even 2 minutes. The same goes for dictionary corner; they might spot an 8 or a 9 just before the next round begins.

If she presents an obscure method, it’s probably the first method her brain worked out. I don’t think she necessarily focuses strictly on the most efficient method. She wrote complex solutions even 10 years ago. Any correct solution makes the cut. If a really clever numbers player knows all the multiply and divide methods such as (75*25+1)/2=938, that’s what they’d look for first time. It’s just a consequence of how the neurons are wired through practice.

You also need to account the fact that they may spot a top answer in between takes, which is why the show is laboriously edited. In one of my shows, they just spotted LIGNEOUS seconds before they replaced the cards.

Colin, Rachel and Susie all wear earpieces, but I am 99.99% certain she is not fed answers through her earpiece if a numbers game can be solved; she will be told a game is impossible.

In one of my shows, there was an extremely difficult 2 large which only had one solution. She spent 5 minutes working it out on her clipboard and it went unsolved.

^ Interesting post.

Still, I am afraid you don't understand the nature of commercial TV, they can't risk their math expert constantly failing to get the answer (even considering the fact that neurons get sharper with practice). It makes for bad TV.

I'm sure Rachel gets about say 65-70% of the numbers but I suspect the tougher answers are fed so as to not make her look bad.. imagine what a disastrous look for the show it would be if she kept getting it wrong. A massively popular and successful TV production like Countdown simple can't afford to take the risk of relying on one person's intellect no matter how good.. there will always be a backup plan. Talk to TV producers, they will admit this, no way will they place the responsibility of the success of the show on one single employee.

This applies to comedy as well. I used to be enthralled by how good improv comics were on TV and how quick witted they were, religiously watching shows like 'Whose Line is it anyway', Mock the Week and HIGNFY only to be deflated when I found out they were all scripted. TV is the world of make-believe. Spontaneity is rare if not non-existent

As for the occasional displays of Rachel admitting she didn't get it, those could likely be tactical .. to get the audience to believe that 'see, she really is human and misses them sometimes.

[Jamie Weisenberg]

After watching every episode of the last three months, I am convinced Rachel Reily is fed the answers through an earpiece. She can't be this good, conjuring all kinds of obscure solutions.

What a shame.

Rachel is literally the only person on the planet who gets paid a salary to be as good as possible at the Countdown numbers game. It absolutely makes sense that she's going to be unimaginably good.

No doubt she is great at maths, but she gets paid a lot because of her looks.

Take Rachel away and regular viewership will drop by a substantial amount. Lot of thirsty males out there who watch the show just because of her. Sorry to be cynical about it but this is the primal nature of TV. The pretty will reign.

[Jamie Weisenberg]

Also I bet you wouldn't be saying this if "Rachel" was a man.

It is so lazy to trot out the misogyny card whenever a woman is criticized.

[Graeme Cole]

Also I bet you wouldn't be saying this if "Rachel" was a man.

It is so lazy to trot out the misogyny card whenever a woman is criticized.

This argument might have made sense if you hadn't said two minutes earlier "she gets paid a lot because of her looks".

[Adam S Latchford]

weird if this is still a debate btw

The average series finalist would shit on Carol at the numbers
The average COC finalist would be shit on by Rachel at the numbers.

There's maybe 2 or 3 people who could even get close to Rachel. I'm not sure i can quantify the number of one's who would surpass Carol (so i'm probs not one then)

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Also I bet you wouldn't be saying this if "Rachel" was a man.

It is so lazy to trot out the misogyny card whenever a woman is criticized.

^^^That's the only thing you've written so far, Jamie, that we can all get behind.
Solid point.

But the lads are right. Rachel (or "Rachel" if we must, lolz) gets no answers in her ear.
If you wanna be a conspiracy theorist about it, and just ignore the people who know what they are talking about... go for it! Conspiracy theoretics is a wildly popular pastime these days, and sure you may as well be dead as out of the fashion.

[Graeme Cole]

After watching every episode of the last three months, I am convinced Rachel Reily is fed the answers through an earpiece. She can't be this good, conjuring all kinds of obscure solutions.

What a shame.

You've obviously done your research, having watched three months' worth of episodes.

Here's a list of every episode in the previous series: https://wiki.apterous.org/Series_89
And here's a list of every episode so far in the current series: https://wiki.apterous.org/Series_90

You can follow the link from any episode number to see all the rounds and selections for that game.

So let's have it - which "obscure solutions" in particular could you not believe Rachel solved?

[Patrick Thompson]

Really weird that this is up for debate. I’ve watched every pretty much every episode for the last 10-15 years and I’ve not once thought she’s not doing it herself. Do you have any examples you think are suspicious that we could look at?

In terms of ability she’s obviously excellent. There are a few Apterites I’d put ahead of her on 6s and I’d fancy myself against her at 4L (she misses a few now and then) but overall she is incredible.

[Fiona T]

School holidays. Ashton's bored.

[David Roe]

^ Interesting post.

Still, I am afraid you don't understand the nature of commercial TV, they can't risk their math expert constantly failing to get the answer (even considering the fact that neurons get sharper with practice). It makes for bad TV.

I'm sure Rachel gets about say 65-70% of the numbers but I suspect the tougher answers are fed so as to not make her look bad.. imagine what a disastrous look for the show it would be if she kept getting it wrong. A massively popular and successful TV production like Countdown simple can't afford to take the risk of relying on one person's intellect no matter how good.. there will always be a backup plan. Talk to TV producers, they will admit this, no way will they place the responsibility of the success of the show on one single employee.

This applies to comedy as well. I used to be enthralled by how good improv comics were on TV and how quick witted they were, religiously watching shows like 'Whose Line is it anyway', Mock the Week and HIGNFY only to be deflated when I found out they were all scripted. TV is the world of make-believe. Spontaneity is rare if not non-existent

As for the occasional displays of Rachel admitting she didn't get it, those could likely be tactical .. to get the audience to believe that 'see, she really is human and misses them sometimes.

Isn't that fuzzy logic? Start with the proposition that a TV programme needs its maths expert to be really good, and use that to prove that the maths expert can't be really good?

[Jamie Weisenberg]

Isn't that fuzzy logic? Start with the proposition that a TV programme needs its maths expert to be really good, and use that to prove that the maths expert can't be really good?

No, she needs to be shown as the expert .. but no so much that people catch on to the fact that she gets fed answers.

[Mark Deeks]

Occam's razor my dude. Everyone involved in the product says she doesn't get fed answers, and you're finding conspiratorial thinking as to why she might sometimes miss them, rather than the obvious answer that she misses them sometimes because she doesn't get fed answers. It really is no deeper than this.

[Tom S]

Occam's razor my dude. Everyone involved in the product says she doesn't get fed answers, and you're finding conspiratorial thinking as to why she might sometimes miss them, rather than the obvious answer that she misses them sometimes because she doesn't get fed answers. It really is no deeper than this.

To further add to this, Rachel once ended up being 100 away in a numbers round in one of my episodes. Obviously didn't make the cut, but shows that she's human, and doesn't get fed answers. May have been mentioned already in this thread, but RR doesn't ask for the solution when she needs extra time, even if someone in the studio has solved it. If she doesn't find it, then it doesn't make it to air.

[Mark Deeks]

On one of my shows, the final numbers game went unsolved. I got it during the outro, and mentioned it to her as we were leaving the set. She said "ah FUCK sake." Felt a little bad.

[Jamie Weisenberg]

Today's episode (Oct 14) had some tough math, I suspect Rachel got fed the answers for this one.

[Graeme Cole]

Today's episode (Oct 14) had some tough math, I suspect Rachel got fed the answers for this one.

Once again - Rachel doesn't get fed answers, but I don't think anything any of us say is going to convince you of this.

[Jamie Weisenberg]

Today's episode (Oct 14) had some tough math, I suspect Rachel got fed the answers for this one.

Once again - Rachel doesn't get fed answers, but I don't think anything any of us say is going to convince you of this.

But do you agree that the math today was tricky ?

[Fiona T]

,

[Graeme Cole]

Today's episode (Oct 14) had some tough math, I suspect Rachel got fed the answers for this one.

Once again - Rachel doesn't get fed answers, but I don't think anything any of us say is going to convince you of this.

But do you agree that the math today was tricky ?

No idea. I haven't seen today's show because I'm on holiday and I was walking up a hill in Northumberland at the time, and the wikicap isn't up yet. But it doesn't change the fact that she doesn't get fed answers.

[Andres Sanchez]

Yeah I'm with the majority here, I haven't seen the numbers today either and I'm just patiently waiting for the Wiki recap like most others. She's shown her worth so this debate doesn't feel like it's up for discussion anymore.

[Gavin Chipper]

Today's episode (Oct 14) had some tough math, I suspect Rachel got fed the answers for this one.

One of them she had to come back to.

[Jamie Weisenberg]

Why does Rachel Riley's skirt keep getting shorter and shorter ? Is she having a midlife crisis ?