c4countdown

If you look at the real content of the programme, Rachel may average one numbers solution a game. Susie contributes a longer word, an interesting word, a definition, an adjudication, maybe ten times a programme, and she also has her own slot of a couple of minutes. Yet at the start of the show it's "Here's the lovely Rachel Riley" "Hi Jeff" "What do you like for breakfast, Rachel?" "I like kippers, Jeff" "Well, it's time to meet the contestants". And after that all you get is "With Susie in Dictionary Corner is John Inverdale. What do you like for breakfast, John?" She's been on a thousand times and no-one's ever asked if she's good at DIY.

Say hello to Susie.

There is a Yahoo group dedicated to Susie I was a moderator at one time in its beginning but not much activity last post 15th Jan re New Set.

Susie is a great lexi and is most definitely one of the most important people on the show and must be a very busy person as a mother and writer etc.

She could never compete with Vorders and has no chance with the lovely Rach.

But more power to her elbow says I.

I do have the impression that Susie has been a bit glammed up for the new series. I notice she is wearing glossy lipstick and someone is paying more attention to her hair. But I don't suppose she makes such decisions for herself.

Les Butterworth wrote:There is a Yahoo group dedicated to Susie I was a moderator at one time in its beginning but not much activity last post 15th Jan re New Set..

Link?

Link to the DENTINE group



http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/susie_dent/

David Williams wrote:Susie contributes a longer word, an interesting word, a definition, an adjudication, maybe ten times a programme

You know she's fed words, right?

I didn't know that. How do you know that?

I'm sure Carol did all her own numbers. There's good authority that, in the days when Michael Wylie and Damian Eadie were joint producers and there was a different lexicographer every week, words were fed to Dictionary Corner. You would certainly expect that with Susie full time, Michael gone, and Damian's duties and responsiblities greater, she needs less help and less is available. I may suspect different, but for all I know, Susie is now aided only by the celebrity and Rachel has a computer.

But that's not really the point. Even if Susie's spot was written and performed by Rick the Soundman and she only mimed it, she's still a major part of the public face of Countdown. If recognition was somehow proportionate to how much is your own work some celebrities would have to be completely ignored.

David Williams wrote:I'm sure Carol did all her own numbers. There's good authority that, in the days when Michael Wylie and Damian Eadie were joint producers and there was a different lexicographer every week, words were fed to Dictionary Corner. You would certainly expect that with Susie full time, Michael gone, and Damian's duties and responsiblities greater, she needs less help and less is available. I may suspect different, but for all I know, Susie is now aided only by the celebrity and Rachel has a computer.

I've seen it with my own eyes and I can tell you it's exactly as it used to be: Susie gets fed pretty much everything (her role during the round is mainly to verify the words coming from upstairs) and Rachel doesn't get any help at all. I'm not sure if she even has an earpiece, she seemed to get most of her instruction from the floor manager, but I'm not sure about that.

I'm pleased to hear that about Rachel. Early on, after she'd not spotted what I'd thought was an easy one, she got one (out of time) that seemed a lot harder. Call me a cynic, but I did wonder if it was all her own work. Let's face it, if Susie is getting help, there's no reason not to help Rachel.

As regards Susie, I do recall one period where the host (can't remember which one) sometimes asked Carol and Susie if they'd got the Teatime Teaser, and Susie seemed surprisingly poor at it. I've never been happy at the way celebrities and Susie are applauded for what isn't there own work. But she's still a major part of the programme. She was by far the most popular of all the lexicographers, recognised by actually supplanting all the rest, and her role has expanded since then.

Say hello to Susie.

Susie's principal job on Countdown is not to solve the problems but to apply the rules. She is the final arbiter, which to my mind gives her a higher status than the presenter. And to carry out that role she needs to be deferred to - just a bit - even by the presenter.

I'm gutted.
I thought it was all Susie's own work and that she was a clever girl who swallowed dictionaries.
So do the upstairs crew type the letter combinations into a computer or are they a team of lexi's?

Tracey Lilly wrote:I'm gutted.
I thought it was all Susie's own work and that she was a clever girl who swallowed dictionaries.
So do the upstairs crew type the letter combinations into a computer or are they a team of lexi's?

It's basically just the producer, Damian Eadie (ex-series champion) who feeds her the words. They don't use a computer.

Tracey Lilly wrote:So do the upstairs crew type the letter combinations into a computer or are they a team of lexi's?

Neither, the producer is just fucking amazing at Countdown.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Tracey Lilly wrote:So do the upstairs crew type the letter combinations into a computer or are they a team of lexi's?

Neither, the producer is just fucking amazing at Countdown.

Yeah, I'm always about Damian being fairly anti word learning and Countmax and stuff like that, but he knows more words than anyone else I know! Apart from Stewart and Craig, perhaps. In fairness I always thought that Michael and Damian used computers to learn words, even if they didn't use them during games. There were a couple of words that were in the Oxford but not the Scrabble dictionary TWL (the name at the time) and they repeatedly missed them. I'm not saying it's actually true, I have no idea, it just seemed a coincidence at the time.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Susie's principal job on Countdown is not to solve the problems but to apply the rules. She is the final arbiter, which to my mind gives her a higher status than the presenter. And to carry out that role she needs to be deferred to - just a bit - even by the presenter.

I'm not sure about higher status. They could have given the word-checking job to a computer if they wanted and I don't think it would be worthy of higher status than the presenter.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I'm not sure about higher status. They could have given the word-checking job to a computer if they wanted and I don't think it would be worthy of higher status than the presenter.

A computer as arbiter doesn't acquire status, it is merely a tool. But it is usual to dress up a person in authority, quite often literally as in the robes worn by judges and the academic gowns worn by teachers. It is important for the authority to be upheld, and that is probably one reason why Jeff is unlikely to ask Susie next week whether she got really bladdered on Valentine's Day, although I wouldn't put it past him to ask Rachel.

I'm not even certain that Susie is the final judge actually - in one of Charlie's games (I think) I remember her flicking through the dictionary for (I think) an agent noun, suddenly pausing for a split second, and saying "yep that's fine". There was no way she could have actually just stopped on the correct page and located the derivative at the bottom of the main entry, so she must have been told down her earpiece. That said, in another of Charlie's games (against me), she was clearly having a discussion with the voice-in-her-earpiece about her reasoning for allowing PARDNER, and whether or not it was a banned US spelling type thing. So maybe she is. I dunno.

Jon Corby wrote:I'm not even certain that Susie is the final judge actually

That's not really the issue here - she is the perceived authority and as such is treated with a soupçon of respect. If Damien really has the final word - as I'm sure he does - he still will not want to match out and hold forth on camera, he just holds forth into Susie's ear and she carries the can for any bad decisions. When you come down to it, it's the traditional role: a woman's place is in the wrong.

Jon Corby wrote:I'm not even certain that Susie is the final judge actually - in one of Charlie's games (I think) I remember her flicking through the dictionary for (I think) an agent noun, suddenly pausing for a split second, and saying "yep that's fine". There was no way she could have actually just stopped on the correct page and located the derivative at the bottom of the main entry, so she must have been told down her earpiece. That said, in another of Charlie's games (against me), she was clearly having a discussion with the voice-in-her-earpiece about her reasoning for allowing PARDNER, and whether or not it was a banned US spelling type thing. So maybe she is. I dunno.

If a word is unambiguously in the dictionary, then there is no reason why someone cannot have just searched through the dictionary faster than Susie and whispered into her ear 'it's in' as in your first scenario. In the second case, it is possible that there was some ambiguity, and that Susie as the arbiter was needed to judge whether it should be allowed or not. Either way, it makes sense for there to just be one person who has the final say, to ensure consistency between shows.

Les Butterworth wrote:She could never compete with Vorders...

I totally disagree. I much prefer the lovely Susie to CV. But that's just me. Am I right in thinking I'm in the minority?

Perhaps the biggest decision ever was the disallowing of Julian Fell's GAMBIERS. I'm sure Damian told us that was Susie, who was concerned enough to get second opinions from Oxford, so I imagine true decisions are hers. But still no-one asks her if she can dance. (I'm a day behind. I haven't caught up with Tuesday's slight yet.)

Neil Zussman wrote:I much prefer the lovely Susie to CV. But that's just me. Am I right in thinking I'm in the minority?

Well, if you are, I'm in the same minority!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Tracey Lilly wrote:So do the upstairs crew type the letter combinations into a computer or are they a team of lexi's?

Neither, the producer is just fucking amazing at Countdown.

Sorry Kai.

To be honest, I find the forced "banter" that you tend to get on daytime TV to be boring and pointless. I'd rather it was just "I'm Jeff, this is Rachel, that's Susie and our guest, there are the contestants, lets get on with round one". On the other hand, the time it takes up lets me finish watching Whose Line is it Anyway? on Five US.

But Roxanne, the UK version is superior!

As for Dictionary Corner related hijinks, I opened the Daily Mail today (no comments please), leafed through to the sport section and found an article involving two things very close to my heart! It's about the word "meh", and Susie Dent herself says it's officially part of our language! It's very bizarre to see it written in a newspaper, a relatively formal piece of writing, however.

What do we think? Apart from the fact that you're wondering why on earth a vaguely language-related article is in the sports section- as some would say, well it is the Daily Mail!

Tracey Lilly wrote:I'm gutted.
I thought it was all Susie's own work and that she was a clever girl who swallowed dictionaries.
So do the upstairs crew type the letter combinations into a computer or are they a team of lexi's?

I would say that gaining the knowledge that suzie is fed words is the countdown equivalent of finding out that santa, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny all aren't real, at the same time.

[Going off at a tangent] It really annoys me how the general thing done when intorducing the number women (whether Coral or Rachel) is to make out that they are some sort of ultra high iq maths genius, when in truth they are just quite efficient with mental arithmatic. This just makes people think that mathematical ability is just mental arithmatic, when in reality, this is one of the least important abilities required of a very good mathematician.

If we hadn't have known about Rachel and Carols degrees in maths and engineering, then it could be plausable that neither of them know what an asmyptote is.[/Going off at a tangent]

JackHurst wrote:[Going off at a tangent] It really annoys me how the general thing done when intorducing the number women (whether Coral or Rachel) is to make out that they are some sort of ultra high iq maths genius, when in truth they are just quite efficient with mental arithmatic. This just makes people think that mathematical ability is just mental arithmatic, when in reality, this is one of the least important abilities required of a very good mathematician.

Rachel and Carol were both introduced to viewers as arithmeticians, not mathematicians, so there's no deception going on there.

Ben Hunter wrote:

JackHurst wrote:[Going off at a tangent] It really annoys me how the general thing done when intorducing the number women (whether Coral or Rachel) is to make out that they are some sort of ultra high iq maths genius, when in truth they are just quite efficient with mental arithmatic. This just makes people think that mathematical ability is just mental arithmatic, when in reality, this is one of the least important abilities required of a very good mathematician.

Rachel and Carol were both introduced to viewers as arithmeticians, not mathematicians, so there's no deception going on there.

Fair enough, maybe its just my Granparents who seem to think that the number women are maths genii (is that the plural of genius?).

If you want people to know the difference between mathematics and arithmetic, you need to start at school. That's where the two get confused, with GCSE mathematics. By and large it's only people who've seen or studied maths at university that realise you can be a competent mathematician even though your arithmetic skills are scarcely functioning, and conversely you can be an arithmetic wizard without having a clue how to do calculus on imaginary numbers.

I didn't really get the difference even after a Maths & Stats A level. Fortunately I found my way into a statistics course which had the bare minimum of mathematics - three years of trying to work with imaginary numbers would have made my head explode.

David Roe wrote:If you want people to know the difference between mathematics and arithmetic, you need to start at school. That's where the two get confused, with GCSE mathematics. By and large it's only people who've seen or studied maths at university that realise you can be a competent mathematician even though your arithmetic skills are scarcely functioning, and conversely you can be an arithmetic wizard without having a clue how to do calculus on imaginary numbers.

I didn't really get the difference even after a Maths & Stats A level. Fortunately I found my way into a statistics course which had the bare minimum of mathematics - three years of trying to work with imaginary numbers would have made my head explode.

I've got a Maths degree and people can't understand why I am so useless at arithmetic, mental or otherwise!

JackHurst wrote: genii (is that the plural of genius?).

Only in the other sense of genius (as in a resident ghost.) The plural of genius as in clever person is geniuses.

Andy Thomson wrote:

Neil Zussman wrote:I much prefer the lovely Susie to CV. But that's just me. Am I right in thinking I'm in the minority?

Well, if you are, I'm in the same minority!

I agree. When I watched Carol's dancing on Strictly, she wasn't really that bad. 22 for a first effort, there has been worse (Gary Rhodes for example). I just think she's not that popular with public, I always found her annoying which is why I stopped watching Countdown for a few months. Now it's Rachel and Jeff it's easier on the ear and the eye, so I watch everyday, usually via C4 Watch Online.

The programme should be called Countdown with Susie Dent. Or possibly Susie Dents' Countdown. Or even the Susie Dent Show. Let's get rid of the superfluous and concentrate on what really matters.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:

David Roe wrote:If you want people to know the difference between mathematics and arithmetic, you need to start at school. That's where the two get confused, with GCSE mathematics. By and large it's only people who've seen or studied maths at university that realise you can be a competent mathematician even though your arithmetic skills are scarcely functioning, and conversely you can be an arithmetic wizard without having a clue how to do calculus on imaginary numbers.

I didn't really get the difference even after a Maths & Stats A level. Fortunately I found my way into a statistics course which had the bare minimum of mathematics - three years of trying to work with imaginary numbers would have made my head explode.

I've got a Maths degree and people can't understand why I am so useless at arithmetic, mental or otherwise!

I'm the other way around; I'm brilliant at arithmetic so when I took maths GCSE a year early and then stats the next year, I got an A and a B. Then when I took maths AS level all of the numbers went on holiday and someone stuck a load of letters and squiggles in their place, and I did so badly that I didn't get a grade.

Is it just me or does Susie look a bit like Hollywood actress Jennifer Garner at times?

Jojo Apollo wrote:Is it just me or does Susie look a bit like Hollywood actress Jennifer Garner at times?

I dunno, I haven't seen a picture of you.

Jon Corby wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:Is it just me or does Susie look a bit like Hollywood actress Jennifer Garner at times?

I dunno, I haven't seen a picture of you.

I have a GCSE in Arithmetic from age 14. Highest achievable grade was 'C', and I think the subject was abolished the following year. I did it for 'exam experience' before starting my GCSEs proper (including Maths of course). Has anyone else taken GCSE Arithmetic, or even ever known it once existed?

Vikash Shah wrote:I have a GCSE in Arithmetic from age 14. Highest achievable grade was 'C', and I think the subject was abolished the following year. I did it for 'exam experience' before starting my GCSEs proper (including Maths of course). Has anyone else taken GCSE Arithmetic, or even ever known it once existed?

No - I wish I could take it. I think there should be a school of Countdown - in year 7 you're taught to find BENDING and solve easy 1 large problems (maybe those that get words like RAPTURING which lose the E of RAPTURE get an A*) up to year 11 where you're taught the 4 large tricks and taught how to spot AIRSPEED and REPOSADO. I'd love to teach that.

That would be the best school ever! Between us I reckon we could put together an entire faculty.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Vikash Shah wrote:I have a GCSE in Arithmetic from age 14. Highest achievable grade was 'C', and I think the subject was abolished the following year. I did it for 'exam experience' before starting my GCSEs proper (including Maths of course). Has anyone else taken GCSE Arithmetic, or even ever known it once existed?

No - I wish I could take it. I think there should be a school of Countdown - in year 7 you're taught to find BENDING and solve easy 1 large problems (maybe those that get words like RAPTURING which lose the E of RAPTURE get an A*) up to year 11 where you're taught the 4 large tricks and taught how to spot AIRSPEED and REPOSADO. I'd love to teach that.

Anyone with that much training should be spotting AIRSPEED for breakfast. More impressive would be the "no way in" words like SOUVLAKIA.

Charlie Reams wrote: Anyone with that much training should be spotting AIRSPEED for breakfast. More impressive would be the "no way in" words like SOUVLAKIA.

That's like saying anyone with that much training should know 12x11 like it's for breakfast. Actually, schoolchildren don't.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: Anyone with that much training should be spotting AIRSPEED for breakfast. More impressive would be the "no way in" words like SOUVLAKIA.

That's like saying anyone with that much training should know 12x11 like it's for breakfast. Actually, schoolchildren don't.

They would do if they did nothing but arithmetic all day every day. That's the kind of academy I had in mind.

Charlie Reams wrote: They would do if they did nothing but arithmetic all day every day. That's the kind of academy I had in mind.

OK, fair enough I suppose.

Michael Wallace wrote:

David Williams wrote:Susie contributes a longer word, an interesting word, a definition, an adjudication, maybe ten times a programme

You know she's fed words, right?

If that's the case, how come i got an 8-letter word yesterday (Thurs 19th Feb, R6, CASTANET) when the maximum DC got was a 7-letter word.

Diane Allinson wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

David Williams wrote:Susie contributes a longer word, an interesting word, a definition, an adjudication, maybe ten times a programme

You know she's fed words, right?

If that's the case, how come i got an 8-letter word yesterday (Thurs 19th Feb, R6, CASTANET) when the maximum DC got was a 7-letter word.

1: DC do not always spot the maximum available
2: CASTANET is invalid as it's not specified in the ODE (only CASTANETS). For some reason, that reminds me to type up my Colin games...

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:

Diane Allinson wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: You know she's fed words, right?

If that's the case, how come i got an 8-letter word yesterday (Thurs 19th Feb, R6, CASTANET) when the maximum DC got was a 7-letter word.

1: DC do not always spot the maximum available
2: CASTANET is invalid as it's not specified in the ODE (only CASTANETS). For some reason, that reminds me to type up my Colin games...

CASTANET is in my Concise Oxford Dictionary, although it has in brackets (usu. in pl)

But i did post this before reading about Damian Eadie feeding the words to Susie, i thought the implication was that her 'feeder' was computerised.

Diane Allinson wrote: CASTANET is in my Concise Oxford Dictionary, although it has in brackets (usu. in pl)

But i did post this before reading about Damian Eadie feeding the words to Susie, i thought the implication was that her 'feeder' was computerised.

1) It doesn't matter if it's any other dictionary, it needs to be in the ODE2r. So many people get real words (e.g. DIAZOLE) disallowed as they're not in the Countdown word source.
2) No computers as far as solving numbers games or letters games go at all - just very intelligent people.

Diane Allinson wrote: CASTANET is in my Concise Oxford Dictionary, although it has in brackets (usu. in pl)

The dictionary relevant for Countdown purposes is the Oxford Dictionary of English 2nd Edition Revised. I'll leave you to ponder how the Concise can include words that the longer version does not... (Paul tells me that the two-volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary also omits some words which are present in the ODE2r, e.g. SANGFROID, so this problem is not unique.)

Can I please enroll in this Countdown school?

I'd sell my soul and all my possessions to go to a school of Countdown!

OK you guys, thank you for your explanations, guess i'll have to concede that one - and invest in a new dictionary if i'm to be a true countdowner

Does Susie still wear those kinky boots. I do hope so?

david dawson wrote:Does Susie still wear those kinky boots. I do hope so?

Didn't she last show them at Carol's leaving do?

One thing I do find a bit bizarre about Susie is that when a word is one she doesn't know she'll read it with completely the wrong pronunciation even though it tells to how to pronounce it in the entry. And she's a lexicographer! However, I know how irrational people can be and I know how wars start so I'd just like to say how wonderful and great she is!!!*





*Was that convincing?

Gavin Chipper wrote:One thing I do find a bit bizarre about Susie is that when a word is one she doesn't know she'll read it with completely the wrong pronunciation even though it tells to how to pronounce it in the entry. And she's a lexicographer! However, I know how irrational people can be and I know how wars start so I'd just like to say how wonderful and great she is!!!*

*Was that convincing?

No.

david dawson wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:One thing I do find a bit bizarre about Susie is that when a word is one she doesn't know she'll read it with completely the wrong pronunciation even though it tells to how to pronounce it in the entry. And she's a lexicographer! However, I know how irrational people can be and I know how wars start so I'd just like to say how wonderful and great she is!!!*

*Was that convincing?

No.

Hello David, have you declared war already?

I think it was the three exclamation marks that gave you away. I think one would have worked

George Jenkins wrote: Hello David, have you declared war already?

No. Not in this case. It all seems to be a misunderstanding. Some people just don't recognise perfection when they see it.

Gavin Chipper wrote:One thing I do find a bit bizarre about Susie is that when a word is one she doesn't know she'll read it with completely the wrong pronunciation even though it tells to how to pronounce it in the entry. And she's a lexicographer! However, I know how irrational people can be and I know how wars start so I'd just like to say how wonderful and great she is!!!*





*Was that convincing?

I always thought she was an editor with a commissioning background rather than a lex. I'm very impressed if you never struggle with Clive Upton's take on IPA (as used by Oxford). I'm comfortable with most dictionary publishers' versions of IPA but I have real trouble with Upton. I think many linguists do.

david dawson wrote:

George Jenkins wrote: Hello David, have you declared war already?

No. Not in this case. It all seems to be a misunderstanding. Some people just don't recognise perfection when they see it.

That's a good opening shot. I notice that you have sharpened your fangs.

Lucy Gowers wrote:I'm very impressed if you never struggle with Clive Upton's take on IPA (as used by Oxford). I'm comfortable with most dictionary publishers' versions of IPA but I have real trouble with Upton. I think many linguists do.

I'd probably spend a bit of time learning how to use it if it was my job!