A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Good point. I'll do that at some point.james doohan wrote:Even though it'll make pathetic reading, why am I not on the list? Also notice that Jimmy Gough is missing?
Was just wondering was there a reason why I wasn't on it, if its an oversight forget about it, would make poor reading anywayCharlie Reams wrote:Good point. I'll do that at some point.james doohan wrote:Even though it'll make pathetic reading, why am I not on the list? Also notice that Jimmy Gough is missing?
He was a quality player, sick at 6 small I seem to recall.Ben Hunter wrote:Quite a lot of Jeffrey Burgin's points seem to be missing, did James Robertson hack the page?
I like reading about lesser known octochamps, you find classy games like this one http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_3800 - I miss old people on Countdown
It's pretty good. Personally I'd prefer number of maxes, but that data isn't (currently) so easily available.David O'Donnell wrote:Cheers for the update Charlie, I think we all have to agree that ratio is the best indication of a player's quality.
Yeah, His max is listed as 928 which would make it the lowest, but it should be 1048, which would make it one of the highest.Ben Hunter wrote:Quite a lot of Jeffrey Burgin's points seem to be missing, did James Robertson hack the page?
Shut up.Ryan Taylor wrote:18 when it was filmed and broadcast.
I was 51. And I think you mean top 9.Charlie Reams wrote:It tells you something about the last series that there were 3 new entries into the top 8 octochamps by percentage...
I make it top 8. That's out of those for whom the maximum is known.David Williams wrote:I was 51. And I think you mean top 9.Charlie Reams wrote:It tells you something about the last series that there were 3 new entries into the top 8 octochamps by percentage...
I think David is doing a funny joke about how his percentage maximum is higher, although he was playing a different number of rounds in a different format.Howard Somerset wrote:I make it top 8. That's out of those for whom the maximum is known.David Williams wrote:I was 51. And I think you mean top 9.Charlie Reams wrote:It tells you something about the last series that there were 3 new entries into the top 8 octochamps by percentage...
Jealous of my youth old timer?Kirk Bevins wrote:Shut up.Ryan Taylor wrote:18 when it was filmed and broadcast.
Yeah....didn't realise you were so young.Ryan Taylor wrote: Jealous of my youth old timer?
Kirk Bevins wrote:Yeah....didn't realise you were so young.Ryan Taylor wrote: Jealous of my youth old timer?
Not quite sure why the number of rounds affects percentages, nor how the format differs. Maybe it's similar to the way that football didn't exist before the Premier League started.Charlie Reams wrote:I think David is doing a funny joke about how his percentage maximum is higher, although he was playing a different number of rounds in a different format.
Because the ratio of number to letter rounds was changed by the new format?David Williams wrote:Not quite sure why the number of rounds affects percentages, nor how the format differs. Maybe it's similar to the way that football didn't exist before the Premier League started.Charlie Reams wrote:I think David is doing a funny joke about how his percentage maximum is higher, although he was playing a different number of rounds in a different format.
It's a different balance of L/N/C, as Gevin said, and also less statistically significant since you only played 72 rounds instead of 120. I'm sure your percentage was amongst the highest for 9-rounders, but it's not easily comparable to the 15-round days.David Williams wrote:Not quite sure why the number of rounds affects percentages, nor how the format differs. Maybe it's similar to the way that football didn't exist before the Premier League started.
Does this mean that if I had won our Series it would go down as me being 11? It was filmed the day before my birthday, so I would have been 11 and 365 daysCharlie Reams wrote:your age (at recording, rather than broadcast, if it matters.
I believe this was the 100,000th post. It made my dinner time a whole lot more exciting.Ryan Taylor wrote:Minor spoilers:Jack can't have got 6/6 9's available since he didn't go for TREFOILED despite having it written down.
Also it says he got 7/8 of the conundrums although he only got 6/8 that mattered on the show since he solved FIRSTBORN after the time.
Is this a joke I don't get? 99040 on my homepage.Ian Volante wrote:I believe this was the 100,000th post. It made my dinner time a whole lot more exciting.Ryan Taylor wrote:Minor spoilers:Jack can't have got 6/6 9's available since he didn't go for TREFOILED despite having it written down.
Also it says he got 7/8 of the conundrums although he only got 6/8 that mattered on the show since he solved FIRSTBORN after the time.
You're like over 900 posts behind the times, Matt.Matt Morrison wrote:Is this a joke I don't get? 99040 on my homepage.Ian Volante wrote:I believe this was the 100,000th post. It made my dinner time a whole lot more exciting.Ryan Taylor wrote:Minor spoilers:Jack can't have got 6/6 9's available since he didn't go for TREFOILED despite having it written down.
Also it says he got 7/8 of the conundrums although he only got 6/8 that mattered on the show since he solved FIRSTBORN after the time.
EDIT: [Rhys Benjamin]99041[/Rhys Benjamin]
What number comes up for the url of that post for you?Matt Morrison wrote:Is this a joke I don't get? 99040 on my homepage.Ian Volante wrote:I believe this was the 100,000th post. It made my dinner time a whole lot more exciting.Ryan Taylor wrote:Minor spoilers:Jack can't have got 6/6 9's available since he didn't go for TREFOILED despite having it written down.
Also it says he got 7/8 of the conundrums although he only got 6/8 that mattered on the show since he solved FIRSTBORN after the time.
EDIT: [Rhys Benjamin]99041[/Rhys Benjamin]
Apologies to everyone that I'm not sad enough to check the URL of every post that is made. So what happened to the missing 1000 posts? Deleted shortly after posting I guess.Ian Volante wrote:What number comes up for the url of that post for you?
Ha! How do you find out your total then? I simply typed 100000 into the URL...Matt Morrison wrote:Apologies to everyone that I'm not sad enough to check the URL of every post that is made. So what happened to the missing 1000 posts? Deleted shortly after posting I guess.Ian Volante wrote:What number comes up for the url of that post for you?
Unless I'm not picking up on something obvious, or forgetting something vital that has been discussed in the 100,000 posts thread, I'd call it 99000 posts so far then, not 100000.
EDIT: Yup, this is (by your method) post #100011, after I posted it as #100010 and then deleted it and posted again. Opens a new line of discussion then, but in my opinion we're still not close to 100,000. Suck it.
Bottom of front page:Ian Volante wrote:Ha! How do you find out your total then? I simply typed 100000 into the URL...Matt Morrison wrote:Apologies to everyone that I'm not sad enough to check the URL of every post that is made. So what happened to the missing 1000 posts? Deleted shortly after posting I guess.Ian Volante wrote:What number comes up for the url of that post for you?
Unless I'm not picking up on something obvious, or forgetting something vital that has been discussed in the 100,000 posts thread, I'd call it 99000 posts so far then, not 100000.
EDIT: Yup, this is (by your method) post #100011, after I posted it as #100010 and then deleted it and posted again. Opens a new line of discussion then, but in my opinion we're still not close to 100,000. Suck it.
It's cool to see my name up with all the greats, but I was actually 14 when it was recorded.tomrowell wrote:A few tweaks to mine, Charlie. I didn't have any crucials, i actually got 1/2 nines and i was 24 when I filmed it.