...and that's ZoomDown
Moderators: JackHurst, Lesley Hines
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Page 5 eh?
Last edited by L'oisleatch McGraw on Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I'm a very sporadic viewer, so I'm probably not best placed to answer this, but I also enjoyed the podcasts with the interviews, and presumably these won't happen when Zoomdown is running. So maybe there could be a break between series for a few more of these if it's not just me who likes them.Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:05 pm To echo what Paul said on tonight's ZD - we're keen to hear whether ZD had run its course, or whether there's another season or two. I'm stepping back (happy to do the odd special) so if it's to continue on a regular basis after the summer, another volunteer (or two?) for the techie role is needed - happy to provide training/handover - requirements are decent broadband upload speed and decent spec laptop![]()
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Yeah, we'll try fit in a couple of podcasts over the summer for sure.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
The final is tonight at 8:00pm by the way. Just seen someone's post on Facebook.
#c4cshouldnotbeanafterthought
#c4cshouldnotbeanafterthought
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I won't spoil the result for those yet to catch up, but that was a fabulous final! Hearty thanks to all those who took part
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Wow! What a final! Amazing performance from Elliott and Thomas, so very hard luck to Tcap and hearty congratulations to our ZoomDown Series 3 Champion, Elliott Mellor!
Did ye enjoy it? Did ye like hearing from Paul Z?
Any other thoughts?
Did ye enjoy it? Did ye like hearing from Paul Z?
Any other thoughts?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I enjoyed it and thought Paul Zenon was very interesting. I probably would have made his interview slightly shorter though.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Yeah, there might have been a pair of us in it...bletherers ![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I found it interesting that Paul Z outbantered Paul A a couple of times. It is rare that happens.
Nice contest between those two elite players. Nice to see the final go to a crucial.
Pity Fiona is leaving. One of ZDs greatest assets... she even does the overlays so they can be read perfectly on a TV screen! Hopefully she passes on that skill to her successor.
Nice contest between those two elite players. Nice to see the final go to a crucial.
Pity Fiona is leaving. One of ZDs greatest assets... she even does the overlays so they can be read perfectly on a TV screen! Hopefully she passes on that skill to her successor.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Here are my thoughts on ZoomDown, what it does well, and what could improve it. They are offered as my own opinions, which may or may not be widely held.
tl;dr:
- ZoomDown learned early on that engaging with and involving the live chat in the show turns people into repeat viewers. Building on this and running with it will be a big plus.
- It's good that contestant casting involves all kinds of Countdowny people of various strengths rather than serving up the same faces over and over again.
- Stop clashing with Quizzy Mondays.
- Make it shorter. It shouldn't take any longer than 70 minutes to play two 15-rounders, even with chat and admin.
- [Added in edit] - prompt decision, by one person, on whether a numbers solution should be timed out.
- Don't go down the rabbit hole of begging or shaming viewers into subscribing.
- End the show properly.
To a viewer, the interactivity offered by the chat stream is the most important difference between watching ZoomDown live and skipping through a recording or reading the wikicap later on. For a show with such a relatively small viewer base, ZoomDown uses this really well, and has done since its early episodes. Namechecking people in the chat who beat the contestants, especially if it was with a difficult word or numbers solve, is great and should continue.
I'd be interested to hear about any other potential ways viewers could be involved in the show, particularly viewers outside that small group of names who regularly get contestant-beaters. Doesn't even have to be directly Countdown-related. Even something like showing an unusual object during the intro, inviting viewers to guess what it's for, and reading out the best/funniest/most ridiculous guesses in the break after R6 is an example of something everyone can get involved in. There are almost certainly hundreds of better ideas than that.
Casting - one of ZoomDown's great strengths
Apparently game shows call the contestant audition/selection process "casting" now, so I will too. ZoomDown doesn't fall into the trap of repeating the same top players on a loop over and over again - instead, all sorts of people, new faces and old, are actively encouraged to participate. It must be a difficult task to get four new people every week without repeating people too soon, so this should be commended.
The ZD team are quite open about the fact that in the prelims, contestants are deliberately matched up with opponents of around the same rating. Some would call this a courageous decision, preferring a random draw, but I think this makes for a better show. If there were too many unbalanced matches, some of the newer players further down the ratings ladder might be put off taking part. Thumbs up for the casting process and the associated work that goes on behind the scenes, then.
Scheduling - why Monday?
Monday and Thursday, 8pm. I'm not sure why those days in particular were chosen, or whether it was just an arbitrary decision made in ZoomDown's early days which nobody has ever thought to revisit.
Of course there will always be some problem somewhere with any date you choose, and Thursday is probably no worse than any other day, but IMO the Monday option needs a rethink. You're up against the quizzing behemoth of BBC2 Quizzy Mondays. For much of the year, that's when Mastermind, Only Connect and University Challenge are on back-to-back, and ZoomDown splats right in the middle of it. I daresay the intersection between viewers of those shows and viewers of ZoomDown is significant, and ZoomDown surely loses potential viewers to this.
I'd suggest replacing the Monday episode with another day, or ditching it entirely and just going with one episode a week.
Length - I really don't get how this show is slower than Countdown
A ZoomDown episode is usually between 1 hour 45 minutes and 2 hours, depending on various factors. You're asking viewers to take two hours of their evening twice a week, which is significant. And yet it could be so much shorter, without compromising on any of the content.
If you want proof, look at Countdown. An episode of Countdown is 35 minutes excluding adverts (source: All4). They can fit all 15 rounds, an introduction longer than on most quiz shows, a chat with a guest, and all the other admin like word checking and DC offerings into 35 minutes, as well as things ZoomDown doesn't have like Origins of Words and opening and closing titles. Furthermore, Countdown - let's be honest - is not exactly renowned for its fast-paced adrenaline-fuelled speed of execution. I really can't see any excuse for taking longer than Countdown over a 15-rounder.
An episode of ZoomDown, therefore, with its two 15-rounders, shouldn't be any longer than 1 hour 10 minutes except on the rare occasions when there are technical problems. You could argue for adding two or three minutes onto that to allow for a break between the two games, but you could also argue the other way - I reckon by getting a move on you could get both games done in a nice round hour.
Tempting though it is to think that ZoomDown isn't made for a TV schedule slot so there doesn't need to be a time limit, there is a practical limit on how much of their evening viewers are prepared to set aside for one show. If there's any way to deliver the same content as currently, but take up significantly less of the viewer's time, it shows respect to the viewer and they will thank you for it.
And yes, I am aware of the irony of a post as long as this one complaining about length.
Timing out numbers solutions (added in edit)
This is not about how long a player should have to go through their solution. People will have different opinions on this and it's always up to the ref's judgement.
However, when someone hesitates over their numbers solution, and the decision could go either way, Paul always seems to defer to Fiona, George or someone else (the opponent, on one occasion!) to ask if it should be timed out. IMO Paul should be making this decision himself rather than putting someone else on the spot. If a contestant hesitates too long, gets an "I'll have to hurry you", and still hesitates longer than the host considers reasonable, Paul should decide there and then and time the player out. I'm not too concerned about how strict or lenient the borderline should be, but it should be the host making the ruling - it's one of the responsibilities of hosting a game.
Subscriber count as willy-waving
Subscribe-begging is one of my biggest dislikes on YouTube. To be fair, ZoomDown is by no means a huge offender here. There's the occasional "don't forget to subscribe!" or "give us a thumbs-up!" but nowhere near as bad as some other creators. I include this section simply as a rant about other YouTube channels and a cautionary plea for ZoomDown not to go down this particular rabbit hole.
With any YouTube channel I watch, the situation is this. If I want to subscribe, I'll subscribe without them begging me to. If I don't want to subscribe, I won't, and if they keep interrupting the content with "quick reminders" to "LiKe AnD sUbScRiBe!!!!11" it'll make me less likely to click on their other videos. The same goes for "please click that bell icon!" - no. If there's one thing most modern web users don't need any more of, it's notifications. And if someone IS interested in getting notified when new videos are posted, they'll already have worked out how to set that up.
The ultimate gold medal of shit goes to those YouTubers who start their video with "...but first, I recently checked the analytics for my channel and I noticed 70% of you watch my videos WITHOUT subscribing - are YOU one of those? Is that YOU?" delivered in an accusatory and offended tone. It's so arrogant and entitled of them to think they can tell me how I should be using YouTube.
So let's end this post now, I'll end the post, I think this is a good time to end it, this heading has reached 25 words already, so I think we should get on with the final section, what do you think...
This may be a small thing that apparently only I've noticed, but after three series, the way ZoomDown ends the show is still a bit stilted. Usually, after a closing chat that seems like it's ending a few times before it actually does, Paul says something like "so we'll end it there, thanks for watching, see you on Thursday" and this is followed by a slightly-too-long shot of some people waving while someone else finds the right button to end the stream.
I think this could be effectively solved with outro music, providing a natural end to the show. After the second game is completed and both players have said their bit of post-game chat, the outro music should start, and the stream should end when the music ends (perhaps fading to black a second or two before to cover any "I've lost the end-stream button" problems - I'm not an expert but I expect OBS can do that). Paul then has the length of the outro music to make his closing comments to camera. That's how TV shows do it and it flows so much better.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I don't think ZoomDown would ever manage to routinely cut show length down to the same as Countdown because Countdown is edited. It generally takes as long if not longer to film an episode of Countdown than it does ZoomDown. If Countdown became a live TV show I think it would be at least 50 minutes without adverts. Yes, it's definitely possible for ZoomDown to get quicker/shorter, and 35 minutes per 15 rounder is a reasonable goal to aim for but I can't see that being a target that is hit very frequently.
As for the ending, my experience of OBS and the YouTube Stream control desk thingy is that it's actually quite difficult to time the ending of the stream precisely. I think I've already heard someone (or several someones) suggest a sort of starting and ending card used to buffer between the presenters saying bye and the stream actually cutting off. Fade from/to a beginning/end graphic with some intro/outro music that holds on screen for 5-10 seconds (or however long is necessary to start/end the stream). I have seen this done on YouTube livestreams. I don't know exactly how it's done but I suspect it's doable and is probably the best solution.
As for the ending, my experience of OBS and the YouTube Stream control desk thingy is that it's actually quite difficult to time the ending of the stream precisely. I think I've already heard someone (or several someones) suggest a sort of starting and ending card used to buffer between the presenters saying bye and the stream actually cutting off. Fade from/to a beginning/end graphic with some intro/outro music that holds on screen for 5-10 seconds (or however long is necessary to start/end the stream). I have seen this done on YouTube livestreams. I don't know exactly how it's done but I suspect it's doable and is probably the best solution.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
On the subject of timings, I've tried to reverse-engineer the amount of time Countdown allows for each bit, based on the most recent episode. Presented here for interest.
My best guess at the breakdown is as follows.
Opening titles: 0:30.
Intro: 2:50. This includes Nick's introduction to camera and chat with Rachel, introducing the contestants and introducing Susie and the DC guest.
15 rounds: 1:40 per round, totalling 25:00. This is obviously only an average, and I expect this is the least precise of all the timings here. As a rule, a letters round has 30 seconds picking, 30 seconds clock, and a little over 30 seconds of declaration/words/adjudication/DC offerings followed by Nick giving an update on the scores. Numbers rounds seem to be slightly shorter overall because the selection is picked all at once rather than one by one as in the letters round, but going through the methods can take longer.
Teasers: 0:30.
Guest chat: 2:00.
Origins of words: 2:00.
Outro: 1:30. This includes Nick's brief closing chat with the contestants telling them about the teapot and the goodie bag, and his goodbyes to Rachel, Susie, the DC guest, and the viewers.
Closing titles: 0:40.
Total: 35:00.
My best guess at the breakdown is as follows.
Opening titles: 0:30.
Intro: 2:50. This includes Nick's introduction to camera and chat with Rachel, introducing the contestants and introducing Susie and the DC guest.
15 rounds: 1:40 per round, totalling 25:00. This is obviously only an average, and I expect this is the least precise of all the timings here. As a rule, a letters round has 30 seconds picking, 30 seconds clock, and a little over 30 seconds of declaration/words/adjudication/DC offerings followed by Nick giving an update on the scores. Numbers rounds seem to be slightly shorter overall because the selection is picked all at once rather than one by one as in the letters round, but going through the methods can take longer.
Teasers: 0:30.
Guest chat: 2:00.
Origins of words: 2:00.
Outro: 1:30. This includes Nick's brief closing chat with the contestants telling them about the teapot and the goodie bag, and his goodbyes to Rachel, Susie, the DC guest, and the viewers.
Closing titles: 0:40.
Total: 35:00.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Re: the length, I would point out that we go much deeper into maxes, interesting words, different ways to solve the numbers, aiming to provide more of a masterclass for our cultured viewers. This in tandem with getting to know the players (a key aim of the show) means our games will take minimum 45 mins each.
Monday and Thursday were chosen at the start of lockdown 1 as the weekdays that suited both the team and the viewers in terms of avoiding Champions League nights. To my recollection, there wasn't much quizzing being shown on telly at the time. I don't like the idea of only one night per week, as the tournament would take twice as long. Thursday works very well, so I wouldn't change that. Short of Sunday night, I don't see a way around Mondays.
Thanks for the thoughts
Monday and Thursday were chosen at the start of lockdown 1 as the weekdays that suited both the team and the viewers in terms of avoiding Champions League nights. To my recollection, there wasn't much quizzing being shown on telly at the time. I don't like the idea of only one night per week, as the tournament would take twice as long. Thursday works very well, so I wouldn't change that. Short of Sunday night, I don't see a way around Mondays.
Thanks for the thoughts
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I can only speak for myself, but 100% the worst thing about ZD for me is the maxes ad nauseam.Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:24 am Re: the length, I would point out that we go much deeper into maxes, interesting words, different ways to solve the numbers
Numbers rounds:
- I only care if it was possible. If a contestant already solved it, then great - move on. If it's not been solved then yeah - quickly tell us what the solver gets.
Letters rounds:
- I don't need to hear all 15 available 7s from a flat round. Just tell us one and put the rest up on the screen in alphabetical order.
- DC don't need to give definitions for words where the viewer clearly knows what the word means. It's condescending and it's dead air.
- DC should only ever give at most 3 definitions per round, 1 for each contestant (when their words are not obvious) and optionally one of their own from the maxes list. The latter is only worth doing when either it's a beater, or a genuinely interesting word.
- DC should say "nothing to add". It still adds value to say this, as it emphasises to the viewers that the contestants are doing a good job mopping up the best words
Still, on the whole it's a great show and I'm grateful for the team and the hard work they put on. Keep it up!
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Yes Jack, but you are in the minority here, and are streets ahead of even the average viewer in your CD development. Etymology is a widely shared interest among CD players. For every one like you who doesn't like it, I know personally of at least 5 who do
- Thomas Carey
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
- Location: North-West of Bradford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I think we deliberately avoided Wednesday, Friday and Sunday because of Andy SC's ATP tour tourneys. What's wrong with Tuesday? Sure there's sometimes mid week football/champion's league, but not every week unlike quizzy Mondays, and also the football is probably relevant to less ZD viewers.
I think one night a week could work well, we could have a shorter series because let's face it, a lot of the contestants (especially at the top end, ability wise) have already been on at least once, and (at least in my opinion) there's not much point just churning through the same people over and over. Whenever someone asks who to cast in the prod chat, I suggest the suitable people who haven't been on before.
I think one night a week could work well, we could have a shorter series because let's face it, a lot of the contestants (especially at the top end, ability wise) have already been on at least once, and (at least in my opinion) there's not much point just churning through the same people over and over. Whenever someone asks who to cast in the prod chat, I suggest the suitable people who haven't been on before.
cheers maus
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Am I? I can imagine myself feeling the same way about this even when I was a relatively new player.
By the way, if you ask people for feedback then immediately replying to that feedback telling the person they are wrong isn't a very healthy way to deal with feedback.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
It's not the first time you've made that exact point. We're all familiar with your opinion on it. And, to be fair, I asked for thoughts on the final.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I don't think Jack's point was that he doesn't like etymology - it's a question of how much to put in.Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:30 pm Yes Jack, but you are in the minority here, and are streets ahead of even the average viewer in your CD development. Etymology is a widely shared interest among CD players. For every one like you who doesn't like it, I know personally of at least 5 who do
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I'm not exactly the biggest Apterous user, but this seems a bit of an obscure reason. Are they that big?Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:55 pm I think we deliberately avoided Wednesday, Friday and Sunday because of Andy SC's ATP tour tourneys.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Chatting to the team, we might go Tuesday and Thursday. Yeah, we were keen to attract Apterites Gevin, without upsetting folk's weekly routine.
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Avoiding a clash with an established part of the community is just common decency so the ATP thing was a good call. I'd only knowingly regularly clash with them with Andy's permission. He was there first!
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Also I agree with Jack that we don't need to hear all the maxes and multiple definitions every round. Maybe I'm in the minority too (hey Jack!) but it takes up a LOT of time (frequently more than a minute on a round) just to tell the viewers something they could be told with a few seconds of looking at the screen, and could easily check for themselves, especially with the wiki recaps. I would say 3 or 4 maxes (INCLUDING the contestants' offerings) is easily plenty, and would only do a maximum of 1 definition per round unless there were 2 really special ones.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Fair enough on the ATP thing. I always just thought there were loads of tournaments on Apterous all the time. I didn't realise there was this one particular popular event on these days.
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
The difference is that ATP is a live tournament played on a published schedule, that runs over many months.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:06 pm Fair enough on the ATP thing. I always just thought there were loads of tournaments on Apterous all the time. I didn't realise there was this one particular popular event on these days.
I like to play (although that's not an issue for next season), and Tom and Bradley often play too, as do a large chunk of our regular live chat audience, so yep Fridays and Sundays best avoided.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Thanks for all your honest opinions.
Any on the final itself? Felt pretty special from where I was
Any on the final itself? Felt pretty special from where I was
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
My POV on the call -
The final should absolutely be about the finalists - Elliott and Tom. I loved the Paul Z chat, don't get me wrong - but at well over half an hour, it felt more like a Paul Z podcast than a guest slot. When we had Susie on, I was a bit worried that it would make Susie more important than the finalists, but it didn't and it was fantastic. I think with this one we strayed into overdoing it - not in that it got boring, but in that it was in danger of becoming more about the guest than the game. Maybe it would have worked better with the questions split, but appreciate it's very difficult to judge when it's a live show, and he was definitely entertaining, but perhaps the lengthy chat better suited to a podcast.
Perhaps the answer is to have a pre-determined time limit for guest slots, communicated beforehand.
As you know, I also think the regular format works better when guests have prepared something they want to say, rather than being put on the spot, but appreciate that not everyone is confident enough to do do that.
The final should absolutely be about the finalists - Elliott and Tom. I loved the Paul Z chat, don't get me wrong - but at well over half an hour, it felt more like a Paul Z podcast than a guest slot. When we had Susie on, I was a bit worried that it would make Susie more important than the finalists, but it didn't and it was fantastic. I think with this one we strayed into overdoing it - not in that it got boring, but in that it was in danger of becoming more about the guest than the game. Maybe it would have worked better with the questions split, but appreciate it's very difficult to judge when it's a live show, and he was definitely entertaining, but perhaps the lengthy chat better suited to a podcast.
Perhaps the answer is to have a pre-determined time limit for guest slots, communicated beforehand.
As you know, I also think the regular format works better when guests have prepared something they want to say, rather than being put on the spot, but appreciate that not everyone is confident enough to do do that.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I gave some feedback already, but if you are still looking for a full post-match analysis, more detail can be given. There is a lot of what Fiona said that I imagine a lot of people will agree with.
I wouldn't use the word "special" for the final, mainly because I preferred the semi finals and some of the heat games (but the final was still very good).
I'd have had Paul Z's audio calibrated better, as he was on the quiet side, and it was a bit hard to keep up with his quiet anecdotes, also, his camera needed a little adjusting (if we're nitpicking)... and yes, agree that getting Paul for a Podcast is definitely a better idea, if the chat is to go on that long... We're long overdue a new episode of "The Downcast!"
(Wasn't that supposed to be monthly?)
If I were to rate the ZD finals so far, I'd rate S2 final as the best... (having Susie doing the Susie job was just class) then S1, and then S3.
That said, it was a thoroughly enjoyable show, and the game itself was top class stuff. Pity the con went unsolved... but ye were right to make it that hard. Always good to see elite players getting a real challenge.
I wouldn't use the word "special" for the final, mainly because I preferred the semi finals and some of the heat games (but the final was still very good).
I'd have had Paul Z's audio calibrated better, as he was on the quiet side, and it was a bit hard to keep up with his quiet anecdotes, also, his camera needed a little adjusting (if we're nitpicking)... and yes, agree that getting Paul for a Podcast is definitely a better idea, if the chat is to go on that long... We're long overdue a new episode of "The Downcast!"
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
If I were to rate the ZD finals so far, I'd rate S2 final as the best... (having Susie doing the Susie job was just class) then S1, and then S3.
That said, it was a thoroughly enjoyable show, and the game itself was top class stuff. Pity the con went unsolved... but ye were right to make it that hard. Always good to see elite players getting a real challenge.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Enjoyed the final, and thought that the Paul Z chat was good, though I can understand why people thought it went on for too long. Only personal criticism for the Paul Z bit was at times I found it to be a bit awkward when it was assumed that he had spotted a particular word or solution etc...Bar that, it was good. Personally wouldn't consider the players to be a huge priority in the final, as whilst their achievement should be recognised, viewers will have had at least 5 games to get to know them.
Will probably post feedback about ZoomDown in general at a later date....
Will probably post feedback about ZoomDown in general at a later date....
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
+1
Yes...! That was the part of Fiona's feedback that I disagreed with.
Forgot to say.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
FWIW:
- Agree that the players should be given top billing in the final & if push came to shove, S2 final did this better than S3
- Don't mind the length, quite like the room for flexibility
- If anything I prefer all the maxes etc to be given
- Do tend to agree with Graeme that best to avoid subscriber-begging, although minor issue
Like Gevin, though, I'm not the most consistent viewer.
- Agree that the players should be given top billing in the final & if push came to shove, S2 final did this better than S3
- Don't mind the length, quite like the room for flexibility
- If anything I prefer all the maxes etc to be given
- Do tend to agree with Graeme that best to avoid subscriber-begging, although minor issue
Like Gevin, though, I'm not the most consistent viewer.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3103
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I've found it harder to watch live with the semi-reopening of life, and combined with taking over the C4C recaps from Robbo there are days when I get in the house at 9 or 10pm and still have three Countdown games to watch. So it can be taxing.
Agree with Phil above on all four points.
Agree with Phil above on all four points.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Request:
I've been scanning through the ZoomDown YT channel, looking for certain episodes with certain people on them, and what is slightly irksome are those episodes where the final contestant was unknown (at the time) and they are represented by a question mark in the video title and thumbnail pic.
I wonder, now that those things are no longer a mystery, perhaps those thumbnail pics can be updated to show the missing person from the episode? (Though that would take a bit of effort, that perhaps could be spent doing more constructive things...) At the very least it could be worthwhile to change the video title to include the name of the missing person... that would take little to no time to do, so probably worth the effort for fans of the show who are looking for an episode containing a favourite contestant who is not currently credited as being in any episodes.
I've been scanning through the ZoomDown YT channel, looking for certain episodes with certain people on them, and what is slightly irksome are those episodes where the final contestant was unknown (at the time) and they are represented by a question mark in the video title and thumbnail pic.
I wonder, now that those things are no longer a mystery, perhaps those thumbnail pics can be updated to show the missing person from the episode? (Though that would take a bit of effort, that perhaps could be spent doing more constructive things...) At the very least it could be worthwhile to change the video title to include the name of the missing person... that would take little to no time to do, so probably worth the effort for fans of the show who are looking for an episode containing a favourite contestant who is not currently credited as being in any episodes.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Hi guys
Sorry it's come to this, but in light of a certain toxic member of this forum, I have decided that this is no longer the place for any ZD news. You can of course keep up with developments in the Countdowners group.
Paul
Sorry it's come to this, but in light of a certain toxic member of this forum, I have decided that this is no longer the place for any ZD news. You can of course keep up with developments in the Countdowners group.
Paul
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I think Graeme is very sorry for his behaviour.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
This is a dig at me.Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:23 pm Hi guys
Sorry it's come to this, but in light of a certain toxic member of this forum, I have decided that this is no longer the place for any ZD news. You can of course keep up with developments in the Countdowners group.
Paul
If Paul Anderson is not careful, I have screenshotted our entire message history on Facebook... if people saw that they would see a different side. Keep pushing me and I will publish it.
Since Paul (and his ego) decided to block me everywhere, he:
a) Was complicit in having me permanently banned from the Countdowners fb Group.
b) Removed some of my family members from that group too.
c) Withdrew my nephew from series 3 of ZoomDown, without letting him know.
d) Scheduled a new Irish co-event for the time of year that Co:Wat?! usually takes place.
e) And just now is needlessly ceasing ZoomDown-related news here, because he (stupidly) assumes I won't see it on fb.
Charlie's instincts were bang on when he seemed baffled by Paul qualifying for a Spoon of Awesome.
It does denigrate the award somewhat.
Anyway Paul... just so we're clear, I can access Countdowners any time I choose to. I am not a major fan of that CD group, but I do tend to skim it now and then on the off-chance there is something interesting amidst the daily dross.
In fact, if you'd like, I could screenshot all of your future ZD announcements and paste them in here for the benefit of the good people of c4c.
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Last edited by L'oisleatch McGraw on Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Yes, the post above is not nice, and apologies to anyone who finds it distasteful to read, but it is the truth... and Paul definitely threw the first punch here.
I would rather not be in conflict, and if Paul wants to apologise, I will be happy to bury the hatchet. This cold war is not good for anyone, and is certainly bad for the Irish events scene, if we are both to be co-event hosts. We should be supporting one another.
Ball's in your court, pal.
I would rather not be in conflict, and if Paul wants to apologise, I will be happy to bury the hatchet. This cold war is not good for anyone, and is certainly bad for the Irish events scene, if we are both to be co-event hosts. We should be supporting one another.
Ball's in your court, pal.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Well, I don't know what the solution is to a feud like this or exactly how it started but obviously it can damage the community.
Why am I posting this? Well, I'm not here to take sides or paint you as the bad guy but I'm responding to your comments here because they're the ones out in public. Also, I know that Paul is very unhappy about the situation and he doesn't like the fact that there is this big disagreement out in public in the community with everyone just ignoring it and pretending it isn't there (that's what he feels is happening anyway). We have the guy that runs Zoomdown and a guy that runs a FOCAL-endorsed CO-event, so it's not a small thing.
I don't think the conclusion of this is that you're going to be best friends, but ultimately the episode needs to be concluded in some way that everyone can just move on. The ball is in both of your courts I would say.
I don't know everything that has gone on, but from what Paul has said to me, it's certainly not going to simply be a case of him apologising to you and that being the end of it. Whatever he might have done to you, he definitely thinks that he has been wronged by you as well. For one thing that's in public view anyway, the Zoomdown theme to CO:Wat happened after you were in conflict anyway, and has been interpreted as a dig at him.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:19 pm
I would rather not be in conflict, and if Paul wants to apologise, I will be happy to bury the hatchet.
This won't resolve anything.Ball's in your court, pal.
If resolution is the goal, threats aren't the means.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:11 pm
If Paul Anderson is not careful, I have screenshotted our entire message history on Facebook... if people saw that they would see a different side. Keep pushing me and I will publish it.
I think Charlie just said that he didn't know what Zoomdown was. I think to say it denigrates the award is a bit low.Charlie's instincts were bang on when he seemed baffled by Paul qualifying for a Spoon of Awesome.
It does denigrate the award somewhat.
Why am I posting this? Well, I'm not here to take sides or paint you as the bad guy but I'm responding to your comments here because they're the ones out in public. Also, I know that Paul is very unhappy about the situation and he doesn't like the fact that there is this big disagreement out in public in the community with everyone just ignoring it and pretending it isn't there (that's what he feels is happening anyway). We have the guy that runs Zoomdown and a guy that runs a FOCAL-endorsed CO-event, so it's not a small thing.
I don't think the conclusion of this is that you're going to be best friends, but ultimately the episode needs to be concluded in some way that everyone can just move on. The ball is in both of your courts I would say.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3103
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I can only speak for myself, but for Paul’s benefit - I see it as there is no point in getting involved as there is nothing that I can add. I also know, having spoken to someone from this forum today, that it’s not being ignored.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:17 pm Paul is very unhappy about the situation and he doesn't like the fact that there is this big disagreement out in public in the community with everyone just ignoring it and pretending it isn't there (that's what he feels is happening anyway).
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
My mother used to say "I'll bang your silly heads together". Feels a bit like that here.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:17 pm Paul is very unhappy about the situation and he doesn't like the fact that there is this big disagreement out in public in the community with everyone just ignoring it and pretending it isn't there (that's what he feels is happening anyway).
Eoin and Paul both love Countdown. Both have put a hell of a lot of time and effort into doing good things for the community. This escalating disagreement damages that.
I think Eoin needs to wind his neck in, and I think Paul needs to stop giving him the reaction he's after.
I have no desire to get dragged into these sort of dramas and be expected to publicly (or even privately) condemn one side or the other. It's draining. You're both adults - sort it out privately between you, or simply ignore each other. Life is too short!
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
The post that begins with:
1. The screenshotted chat history is true. I do have those pics. But there is no need to publish them, and it certainly isn't something there would be any point trying to threaten someone with. The only thing it really shows is a very different interpersonal dynamic in private than what was seen in public. aka Paul approaching me for advice and feedback anytime there was a significant ZD development, and me giving lengthy replies to help him. That's pretty much all it ever was... then BAM, blocked everywhere the one time Paul does not get his way re: a censorship issue. It was out of the blue.
2. I don't really believe that the Spoon Of Awesome award has been 'denigrated'. That's achievement based, and imo everyone who has received one so far has done so on merit, incl. Paul.
3. I understand that "Paul apologising to me, and burying the hatchet" is a massive oversimplification of what should happen next.
---------------------------------
A few other thoughts, based on the replies...
~Co:Wat always does a theme... and often it is relevant to whatever is 'big' in the Countdown world at the moment, which is why ZD was chosen. (In 2019 it was GOAT because Elliott had just smashed through the 1000 barrier and hit 97% maxes). As far as me trying to annoy Paul with that theme, I am not going to lie and say there is no truth in that. There was a bit of gentle trolling in the entrant videos (e.g. showing some of ZD's controversial moments etc). But for the most part (and anyone who attended on the day can verify) it was respectful. Many of ZD's highlights were shown in the entrant videos too, along with moments that were relevant to the Irish scene and to Irish co-events specifically. During the event, ZD was touted as an excellent innovation, as what's "hot right now in the CD community", and as something that is worth a watch. I think there may be a few new viewers gained after last Saturday (I hope so anyway). I tried to give it a good few plugs throughout.
~It would be a misrepresentation of the situation to suggest that I needle Paul, and he gives me "the reaction I'm after". That's not my motivation. Since the 'cat's arse vs Susie' moment, we have not interacted. (Well, not much anyway.)
~I agree with Gevin that there are a few balls in a few courts... but in a more practical sense... the ball really is in Paul's court as, since the blanket block, I do not have a way of contacting him. Now does seem like a good time to put this to bed though. A private message on this forum may be the way to go, or perhaps if someone want's to pass him my number [0831811694], that might be a quicker way to get said whatever needs to be said.
...was written while incensed by Paul's most recent comment. As such, there were some off-colour remarks that I would like to retract / clarify.
1. The screenshotted chat history is true. I do have those pics. But there is no need to publish them, and it certainly isn't something there would be any point trying to threaten someone with. The only thing it really shows is a very different interpersonal dynamic in private than what was seen in public. aka Paul approaching me for advice and feedback anytime there was a significant ZD development, and me giving lengthy replies to help him. That's pretty much all it ever was... then BAM, blocked everywhere the one time Paul does not get his way re: a censorship issue. It was out of the blue.
2. I don't really believe that the Spoon Of Awesome award has been 'denigrated'. That's achievement based, and imo everyone who has received one so far has done so on merit, incl. Paul.
3. I understand that "Paul apologising to me, and burying the hatchet" is a massive oversimplification of what should happen next.
---------------------------------
A few other thoughts, based on the replies...
~Co:Wat always does a theme... and often it is relevant to whatever is 'big' in the Countdown world at the moment, which is why ZD was chosen. (In 2019 it was GOAT because Elliott had just smashed through the 1000 barrier and hit 97% maxes). As far as me trying to annoy Paul with that theme, I am not going to lie and say there is no truth in that. There was a bit of gentle trolling in the entrant videos (e.g. showing some of ZD's controversial moments etc). But for the most part (and anyone who attended on the day can verify) it was respectful. Many of ZD's highlights were shown in the entrant videos too, along with moments that were relevant to the Irish scene and to Irish co-events specifically. During the event, ZD was touted as an excellent innovation, as what's "hot right now in the CD community", and as something that is worth a watch. I think there may be a few new viewers gained after last Saturday (I hope so anyway). I tried to give it a good few plugs throughout.
~It would be a misrepresentation of the situation to suggest that I needle Paul, and he gives me "the reaction I'm after". That's not my motivation. Since the 'cat's arse vs Susie' moment, we have not interacted. (Well, not much anyway.)
~I agree with Gevin that there are a few balls in a few courts... but in a more practical sense... the ball really is in Paul's court as, since the blanket block, I do not have a way of contacting him. Now does seem like a good time to put this to bed though. A private message on this forum may be the way to go, or perhaps if someone want's to pass him my number [0831811694], that might be a quicker way to get said whatever needs to be said.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
As a certain member of this forum (toxic or otherwise - I'll let you be the judge of that) is not interested in sharing ZoomDown news with the good people of c4c anymore... I may as well alert you that S4 is about to start (7th of Sept), and new applicants are welcome to apply.
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/countdo ... %2CO%2CP-R]
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/countdo ... %2CO%2CP-R]
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I'd forgotten this was going on by the way. Series progress.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I'd say, after the most recent show, it's fair to assume the verdict is in? As regards letters selections, the new system doesn't cut the mustard (assuming you want to stay true to the TV show).
It might be time to have a quick word with Damian Eadie, Charlie Reams or Jack Hurst... each of these has successfully found the sweet spot as regards the letter shuffling required to make Countdown work.
It might be time to have a quick word with Damian Eadie, Charlie Reams or Jack Hurst... each of these has successfully found the sweet spot as regards the letter shuffling required to make Countdown work.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
What's wrong with the letters selections, specifically? Do you have examples?L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 2:21 am I'd say, after the most recent show, it's fair to assume the verdict is in? As regards letters selections, the new system doesn't cut the mustard (assuming you want to stay true to the TV show).
It might be time to have a quick word with Damian Eadie, Charlie Reams or Jack Hurst... each of these has successfully found the sweet spot as regards the letter shuffling required to make Countdown work.
The first thing to say is that WebRack, the game system I wrote which ZoomDown uses, already makes some effort to de-duplicate the letter piles, so long runs of the same letter are already less likely than they would be in perfectly natural random shuffling. To cut a long story short, a run of three of the same letter in either pile should only appear as frequently as a run of four would naturally, and a run of four should only appear as frequently as a natural run of six.
The six consecutive Es in the second game of ZD101 was almost certainly caused by a known bug in this deduplication code which is now fixed.
The X, Z, J and Q coming out in the first two rounds of the second game of Thursday's episode was just bad luck, I'm afraid. Occasionally that will happen. I think you'll agree that the selections from R4 onwards in that game were perfectly reasonable: the letters maxes were 6, 7, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, and in most cases a non-obscure word was available as a max. Anyway, having to contend with letters like Z and X in your selection is just as much a part of the game as being able to spot words like RELATIONS.
I do accept that WebRack, despite it already de-duplicating the letter piles to some extent, appears to produce repeated letters a bit more often than Apterous and Countdown. What I don't accept is that this is necessarily a bad thing.
I think we have to be very careful not to jump to conclusions and proclaim certain selection types as unsuitable for the game, when what we really mean is they're not the selections we're used to from Apterous and Countdown. The selection NANETNEEI, from a recent ZoomDown game, for example, doesn't look very "friendly" to us as Apterous players at first glance. It's a five-voweller with three Es and three Ns. And yet the max is 8, and it's a word everyone knows. The only reason it doesn't look easy is because it's not the kind of selection Apterous usually gives us and so we haven't seen it as often.
Here's another example. Consider the selection PSTIEALNO, then consider the selection YSSEEAHLE.
When these selections come up in a game, why do we instinctively prefer the first selection to the second? Because, if you're a mid-to-high rated Apterous player, you've seen it time and time again on Apterous and automatically know the max without even thinking, despite it being quite an obscure word.
On the other hand, Apterous's letter deduplication is aggressive enough that it hardly ever gives us YSSEEAHLE - it has only appeared three times in Normal games in all of Apterous's history. So if we're given this selection, we have to do a bit of work and actually look at the letters to try to build a word from them, which is what the game is all about.
The max is nine in both selections. The one from PSTIEALNO is an obscure word, but the one from YSSEEAHLE is a word everyone knows. The first would likely only be spotted by word game enthusiasts and they'd spot it every time, but any English speaker could spot the second. On what basis can we say the first selection is objectively "better"?
There's a fairness issue as well. The very top-rated, elite players have seen all the "high-probability" selections loads of times. They study word lists ranked by probability. The more we skew the selection further towards those high-probability selections, making them even higher-probability, the more we're tilting the playing field even further in the top players' favour than it already is.
So that's why I'm reluctant to change WebRack's shuffling strategy, and I'd argue that it's Apterous/Countdown's deduplication that's a bit too aggressive. I'm open to minor tweaks like adding another E to the pack (which I already did early in the series), but only as gradual incremental improvements rather than fundamentally changing it every time the wind changes based on a tiny sample size of games.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3103
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Would an accurate measure of easiness be the modal word length available? Obviously in a round of SKRAAADRV, you could have A, RAD, RADS, etc. - up to AARDVARKS, but since there's not a lot of other words there that wouldn't be an easy round?
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Yes... this conversation is interesting, and raises important questions.
It was hilarious when the first letters out on Thursday were XVAV.
WebRack trolling you and adding fuel to the conspiracy theories!
You ask this:-
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
However, that said... I don't necessarily disagree with you here. It all boils down to two questions:-
1. What does ZoomDown want to be?
2. This old chestnut.
------------------------------------------------------
POINT 1
Does ZD want to be a faithful online version of Countdown? If so, Webrack needs to be changed to match the selections on the show (or they need to ditch WebRack for something else.)
Would ZD prefer to offer a challenge and favour true wordsmiths over robotic Apto-monkeys? If so, Webrack is fine as is... and perhaps the algorithm could be changed -perhaps even radically sometimes- with each new series, to keep things interesting.
Reputationally, if ZD prefer option 2, then there will always be the question mark hanging over it ...it's like Countdown... but it's not proper Countdown.
------------------------------------------------------
POINT 2
If we were talking about Scrabble... there is a clearly specified letters distribution, and a definite number of letter tiles, and the shuffling is 100% random. The rules are clear. How clear are the rules of CD? How much is it subject to change? Can it be changed on a whim, to keep things 'fresh' for a TV show? Is the precise distribution & shuffling algorithm in the public domain, or is it up to fans to guess at it?
You could certainly make an argument that -in the absence of full transparency- the fan community is the driving force here. And if certain luminaries such as Charlie Reams, Matt Bayfield, Jack Hurst or Graeme Cole come up with their own slightly different variations on the secret formula... then perhaps that's fine, and maybe it's where the future of the game lies? (The TV Show is not guaranteed to last forever.)
I still think that someone - like perhaps Damian Eadie or his successor - should have the good sense to clearly define the definitive version of the game and market it to a worldwide* audience. The ferocity with which the online community adore the game - it's almost a way of life for some! - indicates that with the correct kind of visionary at the helm... it could become a phenomenon.
*For 'worldwide' to happen, the obvious first step is making the switch to CSW.
It was hilarious when the first letters out on Thursday were XVAV.
WebRack trolling you and adding fuel to the conspiracy theories!
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
You ask this:-
but then go on to say this:-Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:25 pm What's wrong with the letters selections, specifically?
I'll take that as you answering your own question.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:25 pm I do accept that WebRack, despite it already de-duplicating the letter piles to some extent, appears to produce repeated letters a bit more often than Apterous and Countdown. What I don't accept is that this is necessarily a bad thing.
That's the weirdest line of your entire post imo. I have no issue with people being massively arrogant - I do it all the time - but I've interacted with you online for quite a number of years now, and had yet to see that side of you... so either I need to re-evaluate my existing assumptions about Graeme Cole, or I am reading this wrong. Are you actually saying that the thing you came up with recently is better than something that's been trusted by fans for over 12 years, and also better than the actual de facto version of the game?!Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:25 pm So that's why I'm reluctant to change WebRack's shuffling strategy, and I'd argue that it's Apterous/Countdown's deduplication that's a bit too aggressive.
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
However, that said... I don't necessarily disagree with you here. It all boils down to two questions:-
1. What does ZoomDown want to be?
2. This old chestnut.
------------------------------------------------------
POINT 1
Does ZD want to be a faithful online version of Countdown? If so, Webrack needs to be changed to match the selections on the show (or they need to ditch WebRack for something else.)
Would ZD prefer to offer a challenge and favour true wordsmiths over robotic Apto-monkeys? If so, Webrack is fine as is... and perhaps the algorithm could be changed -perhaps even radically sometimes- with each new series, to keep things interesting.
Reputationally, if ZD prefer option 2, then there will always be the question mark hanging over it ...it's like Countdown... but it's not proper Countdown.
------------------------------------------------------
POINT 2
If we were talking about Scrabble... there is a clearly specified letters distribution, and a definite number of letter tiles, and the shuffling is 100% random. The rules are clear. How clear are the rules of CD? How much is it subject to change? Can it be changed on a whim, to keep things 'fresh' for a TV show? Is the precise distribution & shuffling algorithm in the public domain, or is it up to fans to guess at it?
You could certainly make an argument that -in the absence of full transparency- the fan community is the driving force here. And if certain luminaries such as Charlie Reams, Matt Bayfield, Jack Hurst or Graeme Cole come up with their own slightly different variations on the secret formula... then perhaps that's fine, and maybe it's where the future of the game lies? (The TV Show is not guaranteed to last forever.)
I still think that someone - like perhaps Damian Eadie or his successor - should have the good sense to clearly define the definitive version of the game and market it to a worldwide* audience. The ferocity with which the online community adore the game - it's almost a way of life for some! - indicates that with the correct kind of visionary at the helm... it could become a phenomenon.
*For 'worldwide' to happen, the obvious first step is making the switch to CSW.
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Thomas Carey
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
- Location: North-West of Bradford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Yeah, I mean, countdown/apterous/webrack all use very similar methods and, while there's a few very small differences between each one, I don't think there's any real difference to the 'feel' of the rounds. Compare that to the rounds at Lincoln-style (Edinburgh-style) co-events, especially some of those letter packs with a completely different distribution (two Qs, less of the 'good' letters, etc where rounds like RRRQYUUII or BBZLXAAAA are relatively common and joked about) and you have the community accepting completely different types of rounds for nearly two decades.
I really don't see any reason to tune it so finely (adding one extra E or whatever) especially since, as has been pointed out, the countdown and apterous distributions and shuffling methods are also kept secret - when it's so similar to countdown/apterous, and when you have another big thing (most co-events) in the community that uses very different letters and shuffling methods - and where the average round is much 'worse' in terms of max length, similarity to the show and general playability.
I'm not suggesting we need to change how things are done at co-events, I just don't see any point arguing about how close webrack is or should be to the real thing when it's a negligible difference.
I really don't see any reason to tune it so finely (adding one extra E or whatever) especially since, as has been pointed out, the countdown and apterous distributions and shuffling methods are also kept secret - when it's so similar to countdown/apterous, and when you have another big thing (most co-events) in the community that uses very different letters and shuffling methods - and where the average round is much 'worse' in terms of max length, similarity to the show and general playability.
I'm not suggesting we need to change how things are done at co-events, I just don't see any point arguing about how close webrack is or should be to the real thing when it's a negligible difference.
cheers maus
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Ah we do though.Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:53 pm I'm not suggesting we need to change how things are done at co-events.
I already changed Co:Wat in 2021 to use Apterous... and the selections were far more true to the gold standard - aka the TV show.
Others should probably follow my lead on that.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I meant specific examples, but sure, I think the point is made. I just don't agree that it's "wrong".L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:24 pm You ask this:-
but then go on to say this:-Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:25 pm What's wrong with the letters selections, specifically?
I'll take that as you answering your own question.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:25 pm I do accept that WebRack, despite it already de-duplicating the letter piles to some extent, appears to produce repeated letters a bit more often than Apterous and Countdown. What I don't accept is that this is necessarily a bad thing.
No, I'm not saying it's objectively better. I'm saying that in my opinion, a more natural shuffling of the letters gives a more interesting game, with less of a bias towards the kind of selections we've already seen over and over again.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:24 pmThat's the weirdest line of your entire post imo. I have no issue with people being massively arrogant - I do it all the time - but I've interacted with you online for quite a number of years now, and had yet to see that side of you... so either I need to re-evaluate my existing assumptions about Graeme Cole, or I am reading this wrong. Are you actually saying that the thing you came up with recently is better than something that's been trusted by fans for over 12 years, and also better than the actual de facto version of the game?!Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:25 pm So that's why I'm reluctant to change WebRack's shuffling strategy, and I'd argue that it's Apterous/Countdown's deduplication that's a bit too aggressive.![]()
ZoomDown, like Apterous, isn't Countdown and makes no claim to be. We don't give out teapots or keep winning contestants on for eight games, either, but is that a problem?L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:24 pm
However, that said... I don't necessarily disagree with you here. It all boils down to two questions:-
1. What does ZoomDown want to be?
2. This old chestnut.
------------------------------------------------------
POINT 1
Does ZD want to be a faithful online version of Countdown? If so, Webrack needs to be changed to match the selections on the show (or they need to ditch WebRack for something else.)
Would ZD prefer to offer a challenge and favour true wordsmiths over robotic Apto-monkeys? If so, Webrack is fine as is... and perhaps the algorithm could be changed -perhaps even radically sometimes- with each new series, to keep things interesting.
Reputationally, if ZD prefer option 2, then there will always be the question mark hanging over it ...it's like Countdown... but it's not proper Countdown.
There's nothing in the rules of Countdown that specifies how the letters are shuffled, or even what the distribution is. Arguably the purest form of the game uses completely random, face-down shuffling of a distribution that reflects English letter frequency as closely as possible. It's perfectly fair and there's no complex "shuffling algorithm" for people to argue about. But there's a downside - we get some tough selections from that.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:24 pm ------------------------------------------------------
POINT 2
If we were talking about Scrabble... there is a clearly specified letters distribution, and a definite number of letter tiles, and the shuffling is 100% random. The rules are clear. How clear are the rules of CD? How much is it subject to change? Can it be changed on a whim, to keep things 'fresh' for a TV show? Is the precise distribution & shuffling algorithm in the public domain, or is it up to fans to guess at it?
You could certainly make an argument that -in the absence of full transparency- the fan community is the driving force here. And if certain luminaries such as Charlie Reams, Matt Bayfield, Jack Hurst or Graeme Cole come up with their own slightly different variations on the secret formula... then perhaps that's fine, and maybe it's where the future of the game lies? (The TV Show is not guaranteed to last forever.)
I still think that someone - like perhaps Damian Eadie or his successor - should have the good sense to clearly define the definitive version of the game and market it to a worldwide* audience. The ferocity with which the online community adore the game - it's almost a way of life for some! - indicates that with the correct kind of visionary at the helm... it could become a phenomenon.
*For 'worldwide' to happen, the obvious first step is making the switch to CSW.
Now, every form of Countdown produces "bad" letters sometimes, and we don't want to eliminate them. Matches have been won and lost by digging a four out of some impenetrable selection, and that's just as much a part of the game as knowing what ATROPINE+S is. However, it's understandable why we wouldn't want such difficult rounds as often as we'd get from purely random shuffling, so often some light deduplication is preferred, whether that's face-up shuffling or something more systematic.
And yet, we don't want to go too far the other way, either. Every time you make a change which makes "high-probability" selections more likely, you tilt the playing field even further towards the top-rated players than it already is, which is why I'm being careful about doing that. Ideally, every player, regardless of strength, should face a mix of selections, not all easy or hard. They do this on quiz shows such as Mastermind - every question set is deliberately and carefully curated to cover a range of difficulties.
So, what if we could reduce, but not necessarily eliminate, the "bad" selections, but not in a way that makes the same nines come up again and again? That's the compromise I'm trying to reach with WebRack's shuffling. If that means we get the occasional selection with three As in it, or two Vs in the same round, so be it - I don't think that's a problem. It's completely fair, being the same for both players, and we might get more opportunities to see words we don't see often on Apterous.
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Not sure what "pure" means here, but it definitely sounds worse, regardless of whether it's purer or not.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:56 pm Arguably the purest form of the game uses completely random, face-down shuffling of a distribution that reflects English letter frequency as closely as possible. It's perfectly fair and there's no complex "shuffling algorithm" for people to argue about. But there's a downside - we get some tough selections from that.
I'm somewhat baffled by Graeme's stubbornness on this topic here. I remember we used Rackonine for some online games, and there was a similar viewpoint there, though I did persuade him to let me add some logic to allow some deduplication. I have quite an aggressive deduplication strategy on my app and it seems to work well. Rob Josh Tcap who have all been testing it in various forms for over a year are quite positive about the letters shuffling.
The problem I see with having duplicate letters is it massively reduces variety within an individual round:
9 distinct letters (eg ABCDEFGHI): 1 set of letters to make a 9 from, 9 sets of letters to make 8s from, 36 sets of letters to make 7s from, 84 sets of letters to make 6s from ...
7 distinct letters and 1pair(eg ABCDEFGHH): 1 set of letters to make a 9 from, 8 sets of letters to make an 8 from, 29 sets of letters to make 7s from, 53 sets of letters to make 6s from
6 distinct letters and 1 triple (eg ABCDEFGGG). 1 set of letters to make a 9 from, 7 sets of letters to make an 8 from, 22 set of letters to make 7s from, 41 sets of letters to make 6s from
Sure it means you are more likely to get words like ESTEEMED come up (which you would almost never see o the show), but the cost is that the number of different words that can be made in each selection is greatly reduced. And lets be honest, the thing people find most fun about the letters game is spotting words from a selection with possibilities.
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
it would be interesting for us to agree a way of scoring a sample of rounds based on the variety and length of available words/maxes, and then applying that scoring system to 1,000,000 simulated rounds.
I'm not convinced the argument that less shuffling means you will stop "the same old words" coming up again and again. I think you will still have that, but it's just that the words that count as "The same old words" are different. e.g. ETAGERE instead of GOATIER.
I'm not convinced the argument that less shuffling means you will stop "the same old words" coming up again and again. I think you will still have that, but it's just that the words that count as "The same old words" are different. e.g. ETAGERE instead of GOATIER.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
It's certainly an interesting debate and I can see the merit of both arguments. Our available max, however, is still on a par with Apto, maybe a point or two down but not hugely different. We've had a 153 and a 142 of late. Rachael's run does seem to be the outlier
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Yes, I think that's the wrong word - I probably should have said "natural" or something like that. I wasn't trying to imply it was necessarily better.JackHurst wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:15 amNot sure what "pure" means here, but it definitely sounds worse, regardless of whether it's purer or not.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:56 pm Arguably the purest form of the game uses completely random, face-down shuffling of a distribution that reflects English letter frequency as closely as possible. It's perfectly fair and there's no complex "shuffling algorithm" for people to argue about. But there's a downside - we get some tough selections from that.
I just checked Rackonine to see what deduplication strategy that uses. When it draws a letter, if that is equal to either of the last two letters that came off that pile, then it has a 30% chance of accepting it and a 70% chance of drawing again (and it recursively applies the same deduplication test to that and any subsequent redraws).JackHurst wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:15 am I'm somewhat baffled by Graeme's stubbornness on this topic here. I remember we used Rackonine for some online games, and there was a similar viewpoint there, though I did persuade him to let me add some logic to allow some deduplication. I have quite an aggressive deduplication strategy on my app and it seems to work well. Rob Josh Tcap who have all been testing it in various forms for over a year are quite positive about the letters shuffling.
WebRack will draw again (and accept what it gets) if the drawn letter equals both the last two letters that came from that pile.
More possibilities isn't necessarily better, though, is it? Only up to a point. We've all heard the familiar refrain of "that was a boring flat round".JackHurst wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:15 am The problem I see with having duplicate letters is it massively reduces variety within an individual round:
9 distinct letters (eg ABCDEFGHI): 1 set of letters to make a 9 from, 9 sets of letters to make 8s from, 36 sets of letters to make 7s from, 84 sets of letters to make 6s from ...
7 distinct letters and 1pair(eg ABCDEFGHH): 1 set of letters to make a 9 from, 8 sets of letters to make an 8 from, 29 sets of letters to make 7s from, 53 sets of letters to make 6s from
6 distinct letters and 1 triple (eg ABCDEFGGG). 1 set of letters to make a 9 from, 7 sets of letters to make an 8 from, 22 set of letters to make 7s from, 41 sets of letters to make 6s from
Sure it means you are more likely to get words like ESTEEMED come up (which you would almost never see o the show), but the cost is that the number of different words that can be made in each selection is greatly reduced. And lets be honest, the thing people find most fun about the letters game is spotting words from a selection with possibilities.
Yes, this would be interesting. I'll run some simulations.JackHurst wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:17 am it would be interesting for us to agree a way of scoring a sample of rounds based on the variety and length of available words/maxes, and then applying that scoring system to 1,000,000 simulated rounds.
I'm not convinced the argument that less shuffling means you will stop "the same old words" coming up again and again. I think you will still have that, but it's just that the words that count as "The same old words" are different. e.g. ETAGERE instead of GOATIER.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13299
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Having more genuinely random shuffling will mean that you'll get more repeated letters than you do now but words with loads of repeated letters won't suddenly become more common than those that don't. There's no way that ETAGERE becomes more likely than GOATIER. E.g. you're still more likely to get an E and an A out of two letters than two Es. And AEIO will be more common than AEEE. Without doing any calculations that is - but it's pretty clear to me.JackHurst wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:17 am I'm not convinced the argument that less shuffling means you will stop "the same old words" coming up again and again. I think you will still have that, but it's just that the words that count as "The same old words" are different. e.g. ETAGERE instead of GOATIER.
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
I think you are right. My example wasn't a great one. I still maintain you will still end up with "The usual suspects" they just wont necessarily be the same (there of course will be some overlap)Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:50 pmHaving more genuinely random shuffling will mean that you'll get more repeated letters than you do now but words with loads of repeated letters won't suddenly become more common than those that don't. There's no way that ETAGERE becomes more likely than GOATIER. E.g. you're still more likely to get an E and an A out of two letters than two Es. And AEIO will be more common than AEEE. Without doing any calculations that is - but it's pretty clear to me.JackHurst wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:17 am I'm not convinced the argument that less shuffling means you will stop "the same old words" coming up again and again. I think you will still have that, but it's just that the words that count as "The same old words" are different. e.g. ETAGERE instead of GOATIER.
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Gut tells me that your algorithm is way less generous with removing duplicates, whereas mine is probably a little too generous. It doesn't surprise me much to hear that the selections in this series of ZD or notably different.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:33 pm
I just checked Rackonine to see what deduplication strategy that uses. When it draws a letter, if that is equal to either of the last two letters that came off that pile, then it has a 30% chance of accepting it and a 70% chance of drawing again (and it recursively applies the same deduplication test to that and any subsequent redraws).
WebRack will draw again (and accept what it gets) if the drawn letter equals both the last two letters that came from that pile.
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Anyway, this discussion probably belongs here
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3103
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: ...and that's ZoomDown
Well, given I subscribe to the Ben Wilson school of shuffling, my honest view is that too much de-duplication is essentially undeserved score inflation.