c4countdown

I absolutely cannot handle the fact that 72 people out of 100 in this country doesn't know we went to war with the krauts

tomrowell wrote:I absolutely cannot handle the fact that 72 people out of 100 in this country doesn't know we went to war with the krauts

Eh? Excuse me? When?! Are you sure you've got that right?

tomrowell wrote:I absolutely cannot handle the fact that 72 people out of 100 in this country doesn't know we went to war with the krauts

I reckon the massive majority of those 72 would more likely have been having trouble knowing what "axis" meant.

Karen Pearson wrote:We have a date! James and I are on Pointless on Monday 15th November.

Good luck, James!

Matt Morrison wrote:

tomrowell wrote:I absolutely cannot handle the fact that 72 people out of 100 in this country doesn't know we went to war with the krauts

I reckon the massive majority of those 72 would more likely have been having trouble knowing what "axis" meant.

Yeah, pretty much this. On the show they went to great lengths trying to dumb it down, eventually resorting to "basically who we fought against in World War 2", but I bet the people doing the quiz were just given "Axis powers of the second World War" (or similar).

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Karen Pearson wrote:We have a date! James and I are on Pointless on Monday 15th November.

Good luck, James!

Post 3 of this thread. If you get likes for this Greek boy, then some shit is gonna go down.

So as many of you presumably know, Chris Wills was on today's episode of pointless, spoilers actually hidden for once since people might want to watch it:

Thought the classical music round was pretty lulz, but can understand why people were so bad at it, but thought Chris got a bit unlucky with the Creme Caramel question - I'd guessed water but it was only a guess. Genuinely a bit surprised he didn't nail the Star Wars question, he seemed the type. The woman of the couple who won really annoyed me - she looked so miserable all the damn time! Roll on Monday.

Michael Wallace wrote:So as many of you presumably know, Chris Wills was on today's episode of pointless, spoilers actually hidden for once since people might want to watch it:

Thought the classical music round was pretty lulz, but can understand why people were so bad at it, but thought Chris got a bit unlucky with the Creme Caramel question - I'd guessed water but it was only a guess. Genuinely a bit surprised he didn't nail the Star Wars question, he seemed the type. The woman of the couple who won really annoyed me - she looked so miserable all the damn time! Roll on Monday.

Blimey! Chris has changed appearance!

Also he was partnered with my Krypton Factor nemesis Chris Barstow. Just got round to watching it on iplayer. Thought Chris W's face was a picture after Chris B said Tchaikovsky. I wanted them to win but I'm glad they get to maximise their screen-time Raccoon-stylee with another shot at the whole show. Next show is Tuesday btw. Apparently there's some Lib Dem conference or something on Monday.

Looking forward to seeing how Chris fares today.

Chris Part 2 spoilers:

Ouch, that had to hurt - I bet they had Graham Hill as well (it was the only 'good' answer I could think of, and I assumed it would still be pretty bad), and they were clearly the best team (on both shows) by an absolute mile. Couldn't believe Batman Begins was the best Batman film - we were thinking either Forever or and Robin.

Would really like to know what the opera jackpot question might be, bet no-one picks it though.

Michael Wallace wrote:Chris Part 2 spoilers:

Ouch, that had to hurt - I bet they had Graham Hill as well (it was the only 'good' answer I could think of, and I assumed it would still be pretty bad), and they were clearly the best team (on both shows) by an absolute mile. Couldn't believe Batman Begins was the best Batman film - we were thinking either Forever or and Robin.

Would really like to know what the opera jackpot question might be, bet no-one picks it though.

I would guess the Formula One question in the head-to-head was the 'motor racing' question which didn't get picked as the final question a week or so again. On that basis, we may see the opera question later in the series anyway.

Michael Wallace wrote:Chris Part 2 spoilers:

Ouch, that had to hurt - I bet they had Graham Hill as well (it was the only 'good' answer I could think of, and I assumed it would still be pretty bad), and they were clearly the best team (on both shows) by an absolute mile. Couldn't believe Batman Begins was the best Batman film - we were thinking either Forever or and Robin.

Would really like to know what the opera jackpot question might be, bet no-one picks it though.

Really? I had only heard of Batman Forever so I thought that was a pretty rubbish choice. Well played though and unlucky with the F1 dude. I loved the two that won it - they were so happy and pleased to be there and her knowledge on Grisham novels was second to none.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Really? I had only heard of Batman Forever so I thought that was a pretty rubbish choice.

Batman Begins was the second most recent film, so it surprised me that it was apparently so forgettable - usually the more recent films are more popular answers for obvious reasons. Of the three older ones I assumed Returns would be the most memorable (which it was) which only left Forever and and Robin. The show in general though is great for showing how wrong one's impression of how well known things are is.

Shit, I meant I knew Batman Returns, not forever.

Edit: Actually maybe I had heard of more and just got them confused.

There is no way that from any even half-random sample of 100 people 67 know who Rhett Butler is.

EDIT: Come on Raccoon, roll with me.

Matt Morrison wrote:There is no way that from any even half-random sample of 100 people 67 know who Rhett Butler is.

EDIT: Come on Raccoon, roll with me.

Ha, wikipedia reckons "It has sold more tickets in the U.S. than any other film in history". (Obviously it's had longer to sell those tickets, but even so that surprises me.)

Hmm, have press releases or contestant guideline packs ever stated where they get their "100 people" from?
Plus anything like whether it's the same "100 people" for all of a show's questions, etc. etc.?

To be honest I've never even listened to any specific wording used in the transmitted show, if any even is.

Matt Morrison wrote:Hmm, have press releases or contestant guideline packs ever stated where they get their "100 people" from?
Plus anything like whether it's the same "100 people" for all of a show's questions, etc. etc.?

To be honest I've never even listened to any specific wording used in the transmitted show, if any even is.

They said that they use some third party to poll people online, which obviously has some fairly major limitations (no idea how they guard against people cheating, but then again why would you bother?). I can't see it being the same 100 for every show's questions, though - there are way too many.

Seurat was point(illiste)less

Peter Mabey wrote:Seurat was point(illiste)less

"What does that even mean?"

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Peter Mabey wrote:Seurat was point(illiste)less

"What does that even mean?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointillism

I watched this yesterday and enjoyed it quite a lot (impressive final round from the girl I had previously pegged as a bit dull). Is revising actually effective for this type of show though? From yesterday it seems like there's a wide scope for potential questions.

Paul Howe wrote:Is revising actually effective for this type of show though? From yesterday it seems like there's a wide scope for potential questions.

The new second round I think just tips it the wrong way - last series there was barely a single show where there wasn't at least one round CF and I had revised (we didn't even learn that much, just a few 'obscure' answers for each one makes it pretty easy). A lot of the jackpots are quite predictable too (we'd revised characters from MSND, for instance). Of course, on our show nothing came up that we'd revised, although we'd been preparing for the first series, where there was a much narrower scope of things they could ask. The new second round seems much more about just general knowledge that you can't so easily learn, so I think were I going on again I wouldn't bother prepping beyond a few plausible jackpot questions.

Sharks. Best question ever, I destroyed. I even knew who Linnaeus was!

I'll go for Jim Moir - Vic Reeves in this round. Bob occasionally forgets to call him Vic and calls him Jim on Shooting Stars or whatever else they're on.

I get pissed off with how much Armstrong claims to know at the ends of the rounds. It's just frankly ridiculous.

Matt Morrison wrote:I get pissed off with how much Armstrong claims to know at the ends of the rounds. It's just frankly ridiculous.

This^, he never ever gets one wrong

James Doohan wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I get pissed off with how much Armstrong claims to know at the ends of the rounds. It's just frankly ridiculous.

This^, he never ever gets one wrong

Interesting, has this changed? In the second series, Richard would often quiz him and he'd get them wrong. Maybe he's become a more arrogant dick since then.

James Doohan wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I get pissed off with how much Armstrong claims to know at the ends of the rounds. It's just frankly ridiculous.

This^, he never ever gets one wrong

Incorrect. And I don't think it's too unreasonable for him to be so good at "Stars and their Stage Names". As for other rounds, the dude can't be that stupid. I mean, he went to Trinity, all of whose alumnuses are genii.

So apparently I'm over 50 because I'm not a British history moron.

Hugh Binnie wrote:So apparently I'm over 50 because I'm not a British history moron.

I'm under 50 and I'm a British history moron. 1-1, stereotypes, 1-1.

James Doohan wrote:This^

Wrong thread

Matt Morrison wrote:

Hugh Binnie wrote:So apparently I'm over 50 because I'm not a British history moron.

I'm under 50 and I'm a British history moron. 1-1, stereotypes, 1-1.

That round was pretty depressing, tbh.

Canned laughter seems to be getting worse. Odd mix of great quiz show and shit comedy show.

"Bob Anderson scored you 2. Is Jelle Klaasen more obscure? I certainly think it is."

Cheers Alexander you cunt. I hate these spoilers. If he says he thinks something is more obscure it guarantees it is.
Which was horrible to watch for me, as Jelle Klaasen was a) the only one I've heard of, and b) by far the most modern/current of the three they'd chosen, so it absolutely was NOT obvious that it would be more obscure.

Kirk somewhere has just exploded one feels. If the question didn't do it then the lack of revealage afterwards sure will.

And yea agree with Bob being more obscure. I was very familiar with Klaasen - just didn't know if he'd won it. I was trying to remember that Aussie who had all the health issues.

Tony David apparently. I couldn't think past a Scrabbler at the club whose name is Tony Davis and thought I was miles off.

My age is definitely against me here - as I was in my fifties when those albums came out I had no interest in any of that sort of kid's stuff
I do remember having heard of 'Thriller', and if Madonna had come to mind I might have guessed correctly in the second lot, but though the names of the other performers were vaguely familiar, I'd no idea about their albums.
In any case, I probably wouldn't have got through round 1, as I have no idea where the birds round here figure on the RSPB list - for example I've only ever seen a sparrow when I've been away for a weekend away.

I was very surprised about the long tailed tit being a pointless on that round. There's hoards of them at the parks and so on I visit. Don't have a garden though, but they are noisy as hell and pretty brave (ie you can easily get very close to them).

Matt Morrison wrote:"Bob Anderson scored you 2. Is Jelle Klaasen more obscure? I certainly think it is."

Cheers Alexander you cunt. I hate these spoilers. If he says he thinks something is more obscure it guarantees it is.
Which was horrible to watch for me, as Jelle Klaasen was a) the only one I've heard of, and b) by far the most modern/current of the three they'd chosen, so it absolutely was NOT obvious that it would be more obscure.

Haha just seen this message (in fact I saw Craig's message below first and thought "Tony David, he's a darts player, what a coincidence that someone else has that name" then scrolling up I realised it was all about darts) so am about to watch the show on iplayer.

Just watched it and they said "who cares?" when asked what the other 6 pointless answers were. I want to know

Kirk Bevins wrote:Just watched it and they said "who cares?" when asked what the other 6 pointless answers were. I want to know

I'm with you Kirk! I'd put the house on Les "McDanger" Wallace and John "Boy" Walton, but if Klaasen is pointless, it's quite tough to call the others. Would go for Wallace, Walton, Deller, David, Burnett and Webster.

Bob De Caux wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Just watched it and they said "who cares?" when asked what the other 6 pointless answers were. I want to know

I'm with you Kirk! I'd put the house on Les "McDanger" Wallace and John "Boy" Walton, but if Klaasen is pointless, it's quite tough to call the others. Would go for Wallace, Walton, Deller, David, Burnett and Webster.

Yeah, we prepped this subject and my list of candidates was apparently Dennis Priestly, John Part (PDC) and Les Wallace, Tony David, John Walton (BDO).

Michael Wallace wrote: Yeah, we prepped this subject and my list of candidates was apparently Dennis Priestly, John Part (PDC) and Les Wallace, Tony David, John Walton (BDO).

Avoid the PDC if you can because it'd just be Taylor, Barney, Part and Priestley (and multiple titles). The BDO is harder to call and Wallace, David and Burnett would be the three trickiest I'd imagine.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Just watched it and they said "who cares?" when asked what the other 6 pointless answers were. I want to know

Yeah that was very irritating, I felt like shouting out: "who cares if your show is axed and replaced by Blockbusters, who cares if you are both replaced with Terry Wogan and Gyles Brandreth?"

I wanted to know if my answers of Deller, Walton and Burnett were pointless.

These results of the "100 people surveyed" are perverse. I argued about it on here last year and got shot down by Michael W and Charlie because I was doubtful that as many as 17 people in a 100 would know an obscure pop artist from the 50's... Alexander says that "Before the show we asked 100 people 100 seconds to come up with.............." Politician talk, this. "Before the show" is superfluous because it obviously wasn't 'after the show' and certainly not 'during the show', so that is the only option left. So what is 'before'? It suggests that it is very close to the recording of the show, and that 100 people are stopped at random, possibly in the street like other surveys? But it doesn't say that the 100 people are: (i) adults (ii) resident in the UK (iii) have no access to the internet before their answers are recorded..... well, you get the idea. The other day, only 93 people knew that the currency used in the UK was the pound hence my strong suspicion that at least 7 people surveyed were Americans. Having said all that, I still like the show but the poll results are bollocks.

Chris Corby wrote:I still like the show but the poll results are bollocks.

Liked for the above highly accurate summary.

Thresher shark: pointless.

Chris Corby wrote:Stuff

Didn't I mention when this last came up that they told us that the surveys were done by a third party company of people on the Internet? I don't know how they could stop people cheating in that situation (although similarly don't know why you'd bother).

The thing I don't get is why the BBC would bother making up the results (assuming that's the implication?) when they just have to pay some third party to do all the research for them. It would leave them open to one hell of a shit storm if anyone found out, and I presume anyone could FoI it if they really cared anyway.

Yes, you get some weird looking results, but that's what happens when you randomly sample people, in my experience the vast majority of results seem perfectly reasonable - if anything it would seem peculiar if there weren't some of these 'perverse' outcomes.

Apparently they just re-use old Family Fortunes surveys, but instead count what people didn't answer instead of what they did.

I think it's a bit of a stretch that approximately 30/100 people know what SCUBA stands for, especially if they are the same bunch of cunts of whom 98 and 96 of them know the pubs from Eastenders and Emmerdale.

I mean, the range between CONTAINED and UNDERWATER was only about 20 or something altogether, with the others spread evenly between. That's frankly ridiculous. It's not hard to make an educated guess at UNDERWATER BREATHING EQUIPMENT, there should be a huge gap between those and SELF and CONTAINED. Grr.

It was 96 and 94 actually, but yea I was very surprised about The Woolpack being 94.

Matt Morrison wrote: I mean, the range between CONTAINED and UNDERWATER was only about 20 or something altogether, with the others spread evenly between. That's frankly ridiculous. It's not hard to make an educated guess at UNDERWATER BREATHING EQUIPMENT, there should be a huge gap between those and SELF and CONTAINED. Grr.

A for EQUIPMENT
I did wonder about the possibility of UNDERSEA

Peter Mabey wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote: I mean, the range between CONTAINED and UNDERWATER was only about 20 or something altogether, with the others spread evenly between. That's frankly ridiculous. It's not hard to make an educated guess at UNDERWATER BREATHING EQUIPMENT, there should be a huge gap between those and SELF and CONTAINED. Grr.

A for EQUIPMENT
I did wonder about the possibility of UNDERSEA

Sorry about that. Inadvertently you've done nothing but prove my point, in an odd way.

Unless you know the answer, there's no way you can say for sure whether it's UNDERSEA or UNDERWATER, perhaps you'd slightly favour the latter in that people don't always scuba in seas, but it's not too far from 50/50 for the uninformed. And equally, APPARATUS isn't the sort of word you stumble upon unless you know what you're looking for. In fact, so many of these "what does the acronym stand for?" questions are about organisations and things, that it's very feasible indeed that someone who didn't know what SCUBA was describing might go for ASSOCIATION as that's probably the most popular A-word that you'll find at the end of acronyms.

So as I say, further evidence if you will that it's crazy that all five answers were so close together.

Matt Morrison wrote:So as I say, further evidence if you will that it's crazy that all five answers were so close together.

Isn't it possible that most people either knew it (or cheated) and got all 5, or had no idea and got zero? That would explain why the answers were so close together, and no conspiracy theory required. Lesser miracle and all that.

For the benefit of those who haven't seen it, the scores from the latest round of Pointless-gate were:

Underwater: 42
Breathing: 38
Apparatus: 37
Self: 23
Contained: 20

Here's the non-conspiracy theory: most people don't know it at all, around 40 know UBA, and of those about 20 know SC.

Here's another question - if they were making up the numbers, why would they leave in rounds like this where there are (apparently) such glaring mistakes?!

Wait wait, I've got it. They do it on purpose so we're distracted by petty issues like this when the real conspiracy is that they're trying to demagnetise the poles to make our compasses not work, thus rendering the world literally point-less!

Cheers. Obviously wasn't paying attention. Or I'm just a cunt.

Michael Wallace wrote:they're trying to demagnetise the poles to make our compasses not work

All the bloody Poles are over here mate, and they certainly don't work! And yet they're stealing our jobs! It's political correctness gone zloti!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:they're trying to demagnetise the poles to make our compasses not work

All the bloody Poles are over here mate, and they certainly don't work! And yet they're stealing our jobs! It's political correctness gone zloti!

Said the emigrant.

Michael Wallace wrote: Didn't I mention when this last came up that they told us that the surveys were done by a third party company of people on the Internet? I don't know how they could stop people cheating in that situation (although similarly don't know why you'd bother).

The thing I don't get is why the BBC would bother making up the results (assuming that's the implication?) when they just have to pay some third party to do all the research for them. It would leave them open to one hell of a shit storm if anyone found out, and I presume anyone could FoI it if they really cared anyway.

Yes, you get some weird looking results, but that's what happens when you randomly sample people, in my experience the vast majority of results seem perfectly reasonable - if anything it would seem peculiar if there weren't some of these 'perverse' outcomes.

I don't think they do fiddle the results because they needn't - they just distort them. I have just seen an edition where the final was to name countries who have the Equator running through at least part of them. Right, the teacher said Somalia, Congo and one other. Neither Somalia or Congo were anywhere near Pointless. I was well impressed as most people in the UK struggle to name countries within Europe, but supposing the 100 people surveyed lived in countries where the Equator passed through their lounge, they would probably know! And they could actually survey 5000 people with each question and only pick 100 of them for the 'poll' for the show. Sorry, as each edition is aired I just know something is not right!

Chris Corby wrote:I don't think they do fiddle the results because they needn't - they just distort them. I have just seen an edition where the final was to name countries who have the Equator running through at least part of them. Right, the teacher said Somalia, Congo and one other. Neither Somalia or Congo were anywhere near Pointless.

Congo scored 6 and Somalia scored 2, that's "nowhere near Pointless"?

OK, Michael, thought it was a bit higher than that, so I have a better example. When the show starts there are 8 people representing 12.5% of 100, so if 12 people get it right in the survey, statistically, one of the 8 should get it as well, ya? Now when asked to name characters from 'Punch and Judy' (excluding Punch and Judy), none of the eight could remember any - most had never seen it performed. And as Punch & Judy is peculiarly British, it seems unlikely any foreigners would know any answers. But then the eight were given seven answers to choose from (and surely the 100 people surveyed were not given a choice of answers otherwise how would that work?) They all guessed when shown the options so it is unlikely any of them would have got one right without the choices. But the survey scored as follows: Policeman - 45, Crocodile - 42, Baby - 21, Toby the Dog - 11............ How can that be explained?

Chris Corby wrote:OK, Michael, thought it was a bit higher than that, so I have a better example. When the show starts there are 8 people representing 12.5% of 100, so if 12 people get it right in the survey, statistically, one of the 8 should get it as well, ya? Now when asked to name characters from 'Punch and Judy' (excluding Punch and Judy), none of the eight could remember any - most had never seen it performed. And as Punch & Judy is peculiarly British, it seems unlikely any foreigners would know any answers. But then the eight were given seven answers to choose from (and surely the 100 people surveyed were not given a choice of answers otherwise how would that work?) They all guessed when shown the options so it is unlikely any of them would have got one right without the choices. But the survey scored as follows: Policeman - 45, Crocodile - 42, Baby - 21, Toby the Dog - 11............ How can that be explained?

The people being surveyed get 100 seconds to rack their brains, your claim that none of the 8 contestants could remember any comes from where? I don't remember them going down the line and asking them one by one if they could remember any, let alone giving them nearly two minutes to think about it. Unfortunately it seems to be gone from iPlayer so I can't remind myself.

Regardless, 8 is a tiny number of people, which for this you could argue is only really 4* because they're people who are really good friends or whatever, so their knowledge is likely to be correlated more than a random sample of 100 people. It wouldn't strike me as statistically surprising at all if such a small group might not be able to get any answers when a random sample of 100 (also a fairly small number) could get loads.

*Edit: Obviously this is really the lower limit based on an assumption of non-independence, but I'm trying to illustrate the point that it's arguably less than 8.