2013 Online Test Registration Is Open

[dhkendall]

Warning: Rampant speculation in this post.

I doubt it makes sense that they'd go top-down, or that they'd necessarily prefer to take someone who got a 49 over someone who got a 36. I'd imagine they pick 35 as a baseline for intelligence on the show (i.e., OK, someone with a 35 can hold his/her own), and after that they are more concerned with personality and ability to keep the game moving. If you went top-down, the pool from which to pick "good" personalities shrinks, so you'd end up with a group that is a little smarter at the expense of being a little duller.

Besides, I'm sure they've focus grouped it and determined it is no fun to watch a bunch of know-it-alls get everything right. Some of the best thrills for viewers involve getting triple stumpers or FJs that everyone else missed; if those decrease by picking the smartest, you're starting to get a pretty boring and predictable show. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they actively want to include folks that get 35 along with those who get 50, or set some kinds of quotas along score-related lines.

Focus groups nothing, I'm of the understanding that Herb Stempel (of 21 fame) proved it, people were sick of seeing the bland egghead win episode after episode, so the more telegenic Charles van Doren was coached to beat him. Any game show producer intimately knows all the details of this infamous incident in American game show history, including that people don't like to see dry boring eggheads win. (I can't think of any superchamp on J! that I'd define as a "dry, boring egghead", in fact, there's very few contestants I can think of that fit that bill.)

However, you can't tell from the test results what a person's personality is like, but I'm not sure if the complaint here is that those who are pulling in the 40s aren't being picked after auditioning, or aren't even being called for an audition? If the former, I'd definitely suggest working on your personality; if the latter, then it seems to be a random selection of eligibles.

[kickerofelves]

I doubt it makes sense that they'd go top-down, or that they'd necessarily prefer to take someone who got a 49 over someone who got a 36.

If you went top-down, the pool from which to pick "good" personalities shrinks, so you'd end up with a group that is a little smarter at the expense of being a little duller.

So, you're saying none of those 49's have 'good' personalities?

-a.

[econgator]

I'm pretty sure you can take both the adult and college tests and be considered for both, but I'll let someone with more knowledge answer that definitively.

Two separate things. You can take both in the same year.

[JFanForever]

I signed up and I will take it on the 10th.

From what I understand, the questions on the test are harder than on the actual show. Does anybody know why this is? You would think the opposite would be true.

[Austin Powers]

I think the show very deliberately went the opposite direction from Ken after his run finished.

I'm not sure why, because he became part of the show's branding and the ratings were great. People who normally didn't pay attention to Jeopardy would actually casually talk about Jeopardy.

I've known several people who would be great contestants who never got an audition invite or a call post-audition. Some are, admittedly, a little weird. But then Ken was weird at first, and he turned out to be a bright, engaging contestant. Really the ideal contestant on a number of levels, as he was good, nice, and hilarious.

But my goodness I watch the show these days and it seems all such a blur. A contestant or two will stand out each week, but usually everyone is so nondescript that they don't make an impression. This is not something bad about these folks; most don't have time to make an impression, and the format really isn't good for that. Alex asked Kris yesterday about whether or not he had competed a triathlon. What?

And the failure of the show to have many multi-day champs impacts this, too - everyone feels very interchangeable. Right now we are looking at TOC, covering a 15 month period, with seven folks winning five games. I won't bother with the probabilities because what throws them off is that the returning champ has an advantage of facing the cameras and handling the buzzer live... but my sense is that over this time period, to see seven five-day champs is low. There are just a lot of folks on the show who are perfectly good, but not great, so we'll get a series of one day champs, a three day here.. a couple of two days... boom a five day... back to a series of one days... and onward. We had a huge gap between Leach and Pool... and then a pretty big gap before Menchaca too.

Herb Stempel was bland... but then so is the revolving door of contestants. My British friends care more about trivia in general, and I think their country is more passionate about it... but you see a lot of the same folks on all the different shows... they have junior celebrity status. And it seems to work for that country.

[dhkendall]

I think the show very deliberately went the opposite direction from Ken after his run finished.

I'm not sure why, because he became part of the show's branding and the ratings were great. People who normally didn't pay attention to Jeopardy would actually casually talk about Jeopardy.

I've known several people who would be great contestants who never got an audition invite or a call post-audition. Some are, admittedly, a little weird. But then Ken was weird at first, and he turned out to be a bright, engaging contestant. Really the ideal contestant on a number of levels, as he was good, nice, and hilarious.

But my goodness I watch the show these days and it seems all such a blur. A contestant or two will stand out each week, but usually everyone is so nondescript that they don't make an impression. This is not something bad about these folks; most don't have time to make an impression, and the format really isn't good for that. Alex asked Kris yesterday about whether or not he had competed a triathlon. What?

And the failure of the show to have many multi-day champs impacts this, too - everyone feels very interchangeable. Right now we are looking at TOC, covering a 15 month period, with seven folks winning five games. I won't bother with the probabilities because what throws them off is that the returning champ has an advantage of facing the cameras and handling the buzzer live... but my sense is that over this time period, to see seven five-day champs is low. There are just a lot of folks on the show who are perfectly good, but not great, so we'll get a series of one day champs, a three day here.. a couple of two days... boom a five day... back to a series of one days... and onward. We had a huge gap between Leach and Pool... and then a pretty big gap before Menchaca too.

Herb Stempel was bland... but then so is the revolving door of contestants. My British friends care more about trivia in general, and I think their country is more passionate about it... but you see a lot of the same folks on all the different shows... they have junior celebrity status. And it seems to work for that country.

I don't think the show went in an "anti-Ken" direction afterwards - as I said before it seems like all the superchamps are very intelligent and personable, two quantities that define Ken. (Look at Stefan. Or Roger. Or Stephanie Jass.) Plus, if they went in an anti-Ken way, why would they ask Ken to be on again (for the IBM tournament)? As you pointed out, people liked Ken (and still do) and TPTB knows it. They also know that it's a combination of Ken's smarts and personality that made him a hit (he's not a stuffed-up egghead, but someone personable, someone you'd want to have a beer with if he wasn't a Mormon) and that's what they're looking for.

As for the revolving door of contestants, that's really something that no one can control. There but for the grace of Marion Jones Ken could have been one of those too. Knowledge and personality isn't going to make you a superchamp. But it is going to get you on the show.

[Cortana431]

I signed up and I will take it on the 10th.

From what I understand, the questions on the test are harder than on the actual show. Does anybody know why this is? You would think the opposite would be true.

I don't think this is true. I've seen some easier questions on the test than on the show and some very difficult questions, but maybe it's just me and I also heard that the test clues are $1600 and $2000 value clues. I mean look at the practice test, some of those clues would most likely be lower value clues.

[jfrumkin]

I signed up and I will take it on the 10th.

From what I understand, the questions on the test are harder than on the actual show. Does anybody know why this is? You would think the opposite would be true.

I don't think this is true. I've seen some easier questions on the test than on the show and some very difficult questions, but maybe it's just me and I also heard that the test clues are $1600 and $2000 value clues. I mean look at the practice test, some of those clues would most likely be lower value clues.

I agree, I think they're tough, but not ridiculously so. I'm curious how that breaks down among the different tests. I thought the second written test was quite a bit easier than the online one.

[naima912]

Registered and ready to go! Surprised DC wasn't on the location list, but I'll head up to NYC for an audition, if I'm so lucky. It'll be a good excuse to grab some of my favorite cupcakes.

I signed up and I will take it on the 10th.

From what I understand, the questions on the test are harder than on the actual show. Does anybody know why this is? You would think the opposite would be true.

It makes sense to me - weeding out the folks who wouldn't cut it.

[Austin Powers]

I think the show very deliberately went the opposite direction from Ken after his run finished.

I'm not sure why, because he became part of the show's branding and the ratings were great. People who normally didn't pay attention to Jeopardy would actually casually talk about Jeopardy.

I've known several people who would be great contestants who never got an audition invite or a call post-audition. Some are, admittedly, a little weird. But then Ken was weird at first, and he turned out to be a bright, engaging contestant. Really the ideal contestant on a number of levels, as he was good, nice, and hilarious.

But my goodness I watch the show these days and it seems all such a blur. A contestant or two will stand out each week, but usually everyone is so nondescript that they don't make an impression. This is not something bad about these folks; most don't have time to make an impression, and the format really isn't good for that. Alex asked Kris yesterday about whether or not he had competed a triathlon. What?

And the failure of the show to have many multi-day champs impacts this, too - everyone feels very interchangeable. Right now we are looking at TOC, covering a 15 month period, with seven folks winning five games. I won't bother with the probabilities because what throws them off is that the returning champ has an advantage of facing the cameras and handling the buzzer live... but my sense is that over this time period, to see seven five-day champs is low. There are just a lot of folks on the show who are perfectly good, but not great, so we'll get a series of one day champs, a three day here.. a couple of two days... boom a five day... back to a series of one days... and onward. We had a huge gap between Leach and Pool... and then a pretty big gap before Menchaca too.

Herb Stempel was bland... but then so is the revolving door of contestants. My British friends care more about trivia in general, and I think their country is more passionate about it... but you see a lot of the same folks on all the different shows... they have junior celebrity status. And it seems to work for that country.

I don't think the show went in an "anti-Ken" direction afterwards - as I said before it seems like all the superchamps are very intelligent and personable, two quantities that define Ken. (Look at Stefan. Or Roger. Or Stephanie Jass.) Plus, if they went in an anti-Ken way, why would they ask Ken to be on again (for the IBM tournament)? As you pointed out, people liked Ken (and still do) and TPTB knows it. They also know that it's a combination of Ken's smarts and personality that made him a hit (he's not a stuffed-up egghead, but someone personable, someone you'd want to have a beer with if he wasn't a Mormon) and that's what they're looking for.

As for the revolving door of contestants, that's really something that no one can control. There but for the grace of Marion Jones Ken could have been one of those too. Knowledge and personality isn't going to make you a superchamp. But it is going to get you on the show.

Well hundreds of contestants have been on since Ken, some will slip through. I was shocked when Roger Craig got on, because I knew what he could do. The methodical, laserlike approach he took puts him in the top 2% of contestants all time automatically. There's other people who could do the same... who aren't getting on. I have no doubt that if the show wanted to go that route, they could. I know this because I know of another game show, which probably won't make it to production in the US, which actually would like to take that approach.

Jeopardy instead opts for a mix of quirky people, with different backgrounds and jobs. If you have a weird job title, you're getting on the show. They pretty clearly want a good gender balance and a lot of racial diversity. That's their ratings play - they want more than just a demographic or two. And they like to keep it just high brow enough, but not too high brow, with interviews with someone who gets offered twelve camels for her hand in marriage while traveling in Morocco as a way of lightening things up.

As for why bring Ken back for Watson... well it was a cheap ratings stunt, acknowledging how good Ken was. It also was a chance to kick Ken in the face, as I don't think it was a fair fight when Watson can buzz in basically as soon as the question is done being read. If I was Ken, I would have felt a little used by the experience.

[SkeeBallRaif]

I doubt it makes sense that they'd go top-down, or that they'd necessarily prefer to take someone who got a 49 over someone who got a 36.

If you went top-down, the pool from which to pick "good" personalities shrinks, so you'd end up with a group that is a little smarter at the expense of being a little duller.

So, you're saying none of those 49's have 'good' personalities?

-a.

Ha, no, not at all. I'm saying the smaller the pool, the duller the average personality, by necessity--unless only people who get 49s also happen to have the best personalities in the US! Otherwise, they could probably find 400 people a year who get perfect scores and just plug them into the show automatically.

[StevenH]

Well hundreds of contestants have been on since Ken, some will slip through. I was shocked when Roger Craig got on, because I knew what he could do. The methodical, laserlike approach he took puts him in the top 2% of contestants all time automatically. There's other people who could do the same... who aren't getting on. I have no doubt that if the show wanted to go that route, they could. I know this because I know of another game show, which probably won't make it to production in the US, which actually would like to take that approach.

Jeopardy instead opts for a mix of quirky people, with different backgrounds and jobs. If you have a weird job title, you're getting on the show. They pretty clearly want a good gender balance and a lot of racial diversity. That's their ratings play - they want more than just a demographic or two. And they like to keep it just high brow enough, but not too high brow, with interviews with someone who gets offered twelve camels for her hand in marriage while traveling in Morocco as a way of lightening things up.

As for why bring Ken back for Watson... well it was a cheap ratings stunt, acknowledging how good Ken was. It also was a chance to kick Ken in the face, as I don't think it was a fair fight when Watson can buzz in basically as soon as the question is done being read. If I was Ken, I would have felt a little used by the experience.

How do you think that TPTB weed out these potential great players? It just doesn't seem like the audition process affords them a good opportunity to do that.

I have seen some people around here who have said that they have scored 47-48 on the contestant exam. Some of them had already been on the show and did well, others are ones who haven't been on the show and I think could do well, but the examples I am thinking of are a good notch or two below Roger Craig in terms of knowledge. I am not sure that getting a high score like that on the contestant exam is a death sentence, and the mock game certainly doesn't prove anything.

Remember that Boomie Aglietti only won two games. There could be other great players we don't know about who were stopped short of longer runs.

I am thinking that the only real death sentence is if someone who has been on the show puts in a "good word" for you to TPTB.

[ElendilPickle]

I am thinking that the only real death sentence is if someone who has been on the show puts in a "good word" for you to TPTB.

Really? Why?

[Vanya]

Thousands of people get a good score on the online test. Selection for an audition is, as far as I know, random. 4000+ people audition and 400 get on the show. So whether you get on the show has little to do with how smart you are, or even how telegenic.

I care less about who is on the show, or if there are multi-day champs. I watch it as a test of my trivial knowledge.

I might add that not all super champions are universally liked.

[StevenH]

I am thinking that the only real death sentence is if someone who has been on the show puts in a "good word" for you to TPTB.

Really? Why?

From talking to people who have had good words put in for them to TPTB from contestants who make it on the show. As AP mentioned, they don't seem to want players who will go on long winning streaks, for some odd reason (wasn't it said that when Madden and Jennings were winning their games the writers tried to make the boards harder? Though I think that would only help a good player). I just don't think TPTB have a good way to know who is capable of going on a long run through the audition process alone.

[JFanForever]

I just took the online practice test. I scored 18 correct. I need to keep working at it.

[seaborgium]

I am thinking that the only real death sentence is if someone who has been on the show puts in a "good word" for you to TPTB.

I put in a good word for Ray Crosby; I believe Tom Kavanaugh did the same for Joe Webb.

[StevenH]

I am thinking that the only real death sentence is if someone who has been on the show puts in a "good word" for you to TPTB.

I put in a good word for Ray Crosby; I believe Tom Kavanaugh did the same for Joe Webb.

I didn't know that it actually worked. I stand corrected!

[econgator]

I am thinking that the only real death sentence is if someone who has been on the show puts in a "good word" for you to TPTB.

I put in a good word for Ray Crosby; I believe Tom Kavanaugh did the same for Joe Webb.

Hmmm ... Vijay asked me if he could put in a good word for me. I said thanks, but no, I wanted to make it on my own merit. How's that working out for me?

[jpahk]

I think the show very deliberately went the opposite direction from Ken after his run finished.

the coordinators acknowledge as much when it comes to the matter of practice on the signaling device. they do much more of it for the newer contestants than they used to, so it's not quite as huge an advantage for the returning champion.

on the one hand, you could reasonably argue that the buzzer practice policy change shows that they are actively trying to prevent another megachamp, and maybe the selection process plays into this as well. on the other, you could also reasonably argue that the buzzer practice policy change is about leveling the playing field for everyone, which is precisely the opposite effect of a (hypothetical) policy that involves denying auditions to super-high-scoring online test takers. i don't have any answers, but i'm more inclined to believe that they're not deliberately doing that.