The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, econgator, dhkendall, trainman

Post Reply
User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 7406
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by MarkBarrett » Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:09 pm

I laughed when Noreen whispered after one of Danny's questions, "What kind of show is this?" Later Jerome did the same about a Blur question. Even with the category's not for me I still enjoyed watching. I like the little pop up providing extra information.

Doing this without spoiling - After the final score of one of the players I wondered if that was the lowest/highest score we've seen so far and wished a box had indicated if a milestone was reached.

User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8630
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by dhkendall » Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:32 pm

MarkBarrett wrote:I laughed when Noreen whispered after one of Danny's questions, "What kind of show is this?" Later Jerome did the same about a Blur question. Even with the category's not for me I still enjoyed watching. I like the little pop up providing extra information.

Doing this without spoiling - After the final score of one of the players I wondered if that was the lowest/highest score we've seen so far and wished a box had indicated if a milestone was reached.
Well, considering there's only been maybe five episodes so far (maybe six?) setting a record isn't that hard at this stage of the game. If they had a few dozen under their belt, they might have mentioned it sure.

The talk of the winnings makes me wonder, Alan, if you don't mind my asking, where does the budget come from? I mean your prize budget isn't exactly that of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, but still I'm thinking that at least the champion goes home with the money that they have accumulated, or why make the dollar figures so low?
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

User avatar
Paucle
Trekardy! Writer
Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: near Albany NY
Contact:

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Paucle » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:27 am

In the first round, does
SpoilerShow
"Boxer rebellion" count for the one where Boxers
was the answer? If it doesn't, I was totally shut out for the game.

Did I miss something? Danny had 40, and I thought the host said Danny's wager on the final Q was 3. He gets it right and now has 70. Did I really mis-hear "30" that badly?

User avatar
whoisalexjacob
2015 TOC'er
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:19 am

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by whoisalexjacob » Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:45 am

Paucle wrote: Did I miss something? Did I really mis-hear "30" that badly?
Cmon, did you really have to ask this, you obviously know the answer




I happen to watch "The League" and there were a few of those questions that were just complete gimmes. The name of the trophy, for instance, is something that comes up in seemingly every episode.

To be honest, and I hope I'm not coming off as overly negative, but I kinda wish the show in general gave me more of a feeling of "Yeah, that person that just won was the best expert"

Alan_B
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:03 pm

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Alan_B » Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:22 am

Thanks for the questions and feedback!

Paucle -- yes to your spoiler question and yes, he said 30. (I found myself doing a lot of sound enhancements on Danny because it was hard to understand him in several places.)

MB -- Ooh, I hadn't thought of putting pop-up boxes when a record has been set. That will be fun. (Also, I'm looking forward to compiling a lot of statistics about our players' performance for in-house research. I don't want to give specifics publicly, but we write and order questions with the aim of having players hit a certain score in each round. We're taping our 20th episode this weekend, so after that I'm going to gather all the numbers and determine how we're doing.)

DHK -- About the money --- first of all, everybody gets $25 for showing up and playing. The winner keeps their money plus the $25. The dollar amounts are low for a couple of reasons. First, yes, the money comes from our pockets. Literally. We all make sure we bring plenty of singles, and we're all three reaching in our wallets to pay the players and winner at the end. You'd be surprised how positively everybody reacts to the novelty of being handed cold hard cash. Second, we said from the outset we wanted this to feel like it belongs online. We want to honor the scrappiness and independence of the whole web series arena. And nothing says scrappy like low-double-digits. And third, when we were first doing the math and realized people could walk away with something like $16.75, we thought that was hilarious.

OMG -- I think we have a pretty decent percentage of having a worthy expert win. I admit we could do better and it's something we've been working to hone all along. (The shows are airing GREATLY out of order, so shows that seem more solid are more likely to be from the second half of our taping schedule.) Your point does make me realize something, though. We tell contestants in orientation emails that this game isn't just about who's the most knowledgeable in their subject. It's also very much about who's most knowledgeable about reading people. That third round where people have to decide if somebody is going to know something or not really does make or break players. Your comment made me realize we should also say that on the show and not just to the contestants. And finally, the game usually goes to the player who's most willing to swing for their fences in Round 4. If you bet big across those two bets, you're giving yourself the best chance to win. Many people have gotten burned earlier in the game by questions they've missed, so they're reluctant to bet everything they have. And while it doesn't work out for everybody, most champions so far have been the big bettors.

User avatar
Paucle
Trekardy! Writer
Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: near Albany NY
Contact:

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Paucle » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:56 am

omgwheelhouse wrote:
Paucle wrote:Did I miss something? Did I really mis-hear "30" that badly?
Cmon, did you really have to ask this, you obviously know the answer
If I knew the answer, why did I ask? I wasn't asking if 30 was the wager, I was asking if 30 was what was announced as the wager. Things get missed in production. (After all, what was required on that recent KITT question ?)
I thought he had said three, which to me was a pretty amazing coincidence, giving him a $1 victory if correct.

User avatar
StevenH
Not J! Contestant Material
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by StevenH » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:10 pm

omgwheelhouse wrote:
To be honest, and I hope I'm not coming off as overly negative, but I kinda wish the show in general gave me more of a feeling of "Yeah, that person that just won was the best expert"
I feel like most of the time the person who wins has been the best expert in terms of answering the questions that they get on the show.

I think that if there is a problem of the person who is not actually the best expert in their respective field winning, it comes from the questions themselves, not the format of the show. I feel like the questions for the people who opt to be experts in broader categories, like NFL, the Oscars, and even the Qing dynasty, have been a good deal harder than than in more specific categories, like The League, Blur, or Arrested Development. I realize that this is largely the nature of the beast, but I also feel like the writers could have made a conscience effort to make the questions in the broader categories a little bit easier. You could argue that the contestants should have picked narrower categories, and that future contestants will know to consider that, but I wouldn't want someone who considers themselves an expert on The Oscars, the NFL, etc. to be dissuaded from picking those categories. For example, the NBA is the sport that I follow most closely (though I am not an expert), but I don't have a team that I am a diehard fan of. I do root for the Hawks, but there are other teams that I like, so I am also not heartbroken if the Hawks lose to any team that is not the Spurs, Celtics, or Lakers. So if someone wants to be an NBA expert, I don't think that they should have to narrow it down to a particular team. Maybe at most they should put a time frame on it, like "NBA since 2000." But if I remember correctly most of the NFL questions came from the 2000s, so even then it might be a broad category where the writers have to be a little more careful with difficulty.

This is really only a minor quibble, though. I am enjoying the show and I will continue to watch it in its current form as long as you keep the episodes coming!

User avatar
This Is Kirk!
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 3849
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
Location: Seattle

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by This Is Kirk! » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:45 pm

dhkendall wrote:I feel the same way about the topics - although I have heard (and have on my iPhone) Blur's "Song 2", which is probably the one most of us have heard from them.
I'm sure "Song 2" is far and away Blur's most famous song in North America. And, as often is the case, it's not very representative of their music as a whole. It's really the only song by them that sounds anything like that.

Blur was huge in the UK and had five albums go to number one. Their best chart appearance in the US (album charts) was not even in the top 50!*

* Forgive me if any of this was covered in the show. Haven't watch it yet!

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 5707
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by opusthepenguin » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:16 pm

Alan_B wrote:And thanks, Opus, for the feedback. We need to know these things, and we're so grateful when people point out what's not working for them! (That said, a number of episodes are shot and edited already, so please don't feel that we aren't paying attention if it takes a while for us to fix what needs fixing.)
[NOTE: I began this post over a week ago. It started turning into a novella, so I set it aside next to all my other projects that I'll get to some day. As I've followed the comments here, my mind has kept returning to this post and things I'd written or (uh oh) needed to add to it. So I thought I'd see if I could finish this thing off. I especially wanted to post some very specific compliments about the show--like nitpicking, only positive! I really appreciate Alan's fortitude in wading into the pool of critics to get feedback, and his cheerfulness in dealing with the critiques. I believe all the critiques are well meant. None are mean-spirited, surely. But I know it can still wear on a guy to bring out his pride and joy and read so many genuinely helpful comments that focus on what needs improvement. So kudos to you, Alan, for keeping your pecker up, as the British say. (That phrase sounds a great deal saucier than it actually is.) You are a good ambassador for the show.]

That reminds me. I'm always better at picking specific nits than offering specific praise. So let me go beyond generic kudos to offer thoughts on what I find most appealing about the show. (If nothing else, I should do this so you don't try to fix anything that ain't broke, forcing me to complain. :) )

1. The Concept - For 29 years now, Jeopardy! has covered the same basic material. Some of that material exits the canon over time and newer common knowledge takes its place. But there's a huge core that changes little if at all. The clue writers do a great job of alluding to that core knowledge in different ways via different connections. I'm not complaining. But it's also refreshing to watch a quiz show that doesn't draw from the same well. I love how wonderfully specific this concept allows you to be with both the categories (1565 SIEGE OF MALTA) and the questions.
SpoilerShow
(Name the actors who have played Dexter.)
Among other things, this allows the viewer to feel smart for knowing an answer that the "expert" didn't.

2. The Amount of Content - I don't know how many questions Millionaire gets through in an episode. Not a lot. For me, it's excruciating. Millionaire isn't a quiz show; it's a game show. A game show is something you watch because you have the flu or you're unemployed and can't face the prospect of looking for work just at the moment. I like quiz shows. Jeopardy!, for example. There's a show that crams 61 clues into most episodes. The Experts gets close to that number with 49 questions over the course of 20-ish minutes. The Experts gives me 12 fewer questions, but it doesn't trade them in for fluff and filler. Instead, it gives me something Jeopardy! doesn't have as much of--gamesmanship, variety, and suspense.

3. The Gamesmanship - Jeopardy! has very little opportunity for gamesmanship, even less than one might hope once we accept that most contestants will never learn basic wagering strategy. The Experts has all kinds of opportunities. Round 2 gives contestants a chance to torpedo the frontrunner, but that opportunity could backfire horribly. Gamesmanship and drama. That's cool. Round 3 gives contestants an opportunity to bluff their opponents, to pretend to puzzle over something they know cold, or to nod confidently when they haven't got a clue. That's cool too. Round 4 gives them a chance to make strategic wagers. And unlike with Jeopardy!--where it apparently takes an advanced degree and years of study to wager correctly from second place--basic wagering strategy for The Experts seems fairly intuitive. (I could be naive and wrong on this point, and there are surely nuances that go beyond the basics.) That means the drama of the bets doesn't come from wondering whether a contestant will make a mistake so stupid you end up yelling at your TV. The drama comes from knowing there are many good strategies, any of which could backfire.

I'll interject a brief note here to say that Round 5 is the one round that doesn't work for me on this score. The outcome is random and there's nothing to be done about it. Choose an envelope and hope. It's the only part of the game that is pure luck as opposed to luck + strategy. If Round 5 could have a strategic element as well, I think that would be great. At the moment, I don't have any bright ideas. Having the contestant enter a final wager might seem too much like Jeopardy as well as too much like Round 4.

4. The Variety - I like the way each show involves four different games. I like each of the games individually. Jeopardy! does 60 clues by plowing through material that's all presented in the same format. It's effective, it's fun, and I wouldn't change it. But mixing it up a little, the way The Experts does is just as effective and just as fun. It's also worth noting the basic implementation ensures variety in the subject matter. I would get bored pretty quickly if I had to watch three USC football experts duke it out. (Remember The $64,000/$128,000 Question when you didn't know the subject? No variety, compensated for by an excruciating pace.) Your solution to that problem is ingenious. Pit three experts in entirely different fields against each other. Without that crucial wrinkle, the rest of these points wouldn't matter. (There was a suggestion somewhere in this thread that the game might not be quite fair when pitting someone with a broad category, like the NFL, against someone with a narrow category like the 1565 Siege of Malta. If that's a fair observation, I'd suggest NOT trying to resolve the problem by pitting generic experts only against other generic experts and specific experts against specific. To me, the mix of somewhat generic and hyper-specific categories in a single game is a huge part of the charm. There's necessarily a wink and a nudge involved when you imply that the experts are competing on a level playing field, facing questions of identical difficulty. But with well-chosen questions, there's also the illusion that you've pulled it off. I'm confident that experience with the format will make you guys even better at creating that illusion.)

5. The Pace - Among other things, this is where the suspense I mentioned earlier comes in. Aspects of all my previous points feed into this one. The pace is just about perfect. Round 1 works very well to start things off at a gallop. 30 questions in roughly 4 minutes! Even Jeopardy doesn't go that quickly. This opening pace helps build excitement and--VERY important here--it keeps me from being bored by contestants with subjects I know nothing about. (Again, remember The $64,000/$128,000 Question?) It's fun just watching their rapid fire responses and marveling at their depth of knowledge or maybe getting a sense they might be in for a struggle. That sets up the drama to come. If I happen to know a little something about the subject, I can pause after each question to see if I can retrieve more slowly information that the expert knows off the top of his or her head. Round 1 is what sells the show. If I'm impressed by the contestants and enjoying their reactions to each other by the end of Round 1, I'll enjoy the rest of the game. Even if I don't know a single answer.

Rounds 2-4 slow things down a bit, but in a good way. I don't get the sense that we're losing steam. Round 1 goes by in a blur. The following rounds let us see the players work at a more human pace. And they do this not by artificially drawing out the time with "Is that your final answer?" or putting the contestant in an isolation booth or similar nonsense. They fill the time by having the players size each other up, plot against each other, and try to suss out the best way to leverage their earnings so far. This is really well planned out.


In sum: You've created a game show that I find wonderfully entertaining even when I know less than ten percent of the answers, and sometimes none at all. Bravo!


Finally, a generic suggestion regarding clues. Occasionally, I'll get an answer not because I know it, but because I lack the knowledge to make any other guess. For example, in the 1565 Siege of Malta, there was a question about "What pirate group..." or something similar. Well...
SpoilerShow
I only know one pirate group: the Barbary pirates. And that turned out to be right and I got a giggle out of that.
The expert may know dozens of plausible answers where the viewer knows at most one. That's an ideal sort of question to have in the mix. If you can make an expert sweat bullets over a question that we get right because we don't know how to be wrong, that's good video.

User avatar
Paucle
Trekardy! Writer
Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: near Albany NY
Contact:

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Paucle » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:26 pm

I am really jealous of Opus because he's composed the post I've been musing over since I watched the first show, but was too lazy to write. As I've said here before, I really like the various rounds and how they work together to form one interesting show, but our favorite flightless fowl really summed t up in this comment:
opusthepenguin wrote:In sum: You've created a game show that I find wonderfully entertaining even when I know less than ten percent of the answers, and sometimes none at all.
As I said in my previous post, I only got one right in this week's episode, yet I still thoroughly enjoyed it. If I only got one right in a J! episode, I'd probably never watch again!! (until the next episode, anyway)

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Vanya » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:43 pm

I find round 2 confusing and I have little interest in trying to figure it out. Obviously the problem with round 3 is blurting out the answer right away.

Has no one figured out what Jerome was talking about in his Expert Howdy?

Alan_B
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:03 pm

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Alan_B » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:01 pm

Opus! Thank you, thank you, thank you! My partners and I are humbled and touched that you took so much time to say so many nice things about the show.

I will admit to feeling discouraged from time to time over feedback that shows us what we're doing wrong --- not because I disagree with the poster, but more often because I AGREE with the poster. We've honed this show over the last several years, including six months in development at NBC, but, still, once we started production, we just had to go with what we had and trust that it was working. There are definitely things we'll be improving over time, and we're VERY grateful for everybody's suggestions about what to make better.

But I have to say --- just being told we're getting things right --- by you in the long form and by others as well --- is HUGE HUGE HUGE. I so often forget to tell people what they're doing right, and I'm definitely guilty of taking for granted that people know how much I appreciate their talent or good works or whatever. Let me say that it's ALWAYS great to hear compliments!

Opus, you'll be happy to know that I had a really good, really long discussion with a TV executive yesterday, discussing future possibilities for the show (yay! in a preliminary way, of course) and I REPEATEDLY cited points you made. We discussed the structure of the rounds, the pace, the question writing style --- and I kept bringing up your analysis --- and he kept agreeing with everything you said!

Huge thanks to you and all our friends and supporters on the board.

User avatar
thejeopardyfan
(Unranked)
Posts: 861
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:37 am

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by thejeopardyfan » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:47 am

I hope it's okay if I post about the new episode before it's been introduced here.
SpoilerShow
I showed a friend that is a "Young Turks" fan. He wants to know whether the Die Hard expert was a last-minute replacement since he didn't seem very strong, and since he'd have been readily available. (My friend didn't want to ask because he didn't know how to word it without sounding rude. I offered to do it this way.) ;)

Alan_B
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:03 pm

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Alan_B » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:40 am

Hey Jeanie,

Actually, we met him at The Young Turks and we liked him and we liked his field. That's basically the whole story!

And you WERE the first to watch this week's game!

Alan_B
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:03 pm

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Alan_B » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:42 am

It's Jack Archey, the last Jeopardy champion of the 1900s!!


User avatar
Paucle
Trekardy! Writer
Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: near Albany NY
Contact:

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Paucle » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:40 am

I'm much more pleased with this week's categories! Last week I got one answer right overall; this week, I got 8 pts in Alice (my worst!) 17 pts in UNC, and 28 in Die Hard! Overall, I got 20 questions correct. (These point totals do not count guessing correctly on know-it-or-don't questions.)

Really- spoilers. Answers revealed, game winner outed.
SpoilerShow
My best get in UNC was Brown inbounding to Worthy; my best guesses were "00 uniform total" and "Southern" conference.
I dredged up Bill Clay in Die Hard for a satisfying pointage.
I hate rooting for people to lose, but I was hoping Jack would miss his second wager question so I'd have a shot at the Die Hardest question in the world.
Another great game! The only problem I've seen so far is that it isn't daily! :lol:

Alan_B
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:03 pm

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by Alan_B » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:04 pm

More hardest questions coming up in the post-game clips later tonight, Paucle! You will likey.

User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 7406
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by MarkBarrett » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:49 pm

Alan_B wrote:More hardest questions coming up in the post-game clips later tonight, Paucle! You will likey.
Yes, in case other viewers were not aware, we do get to see the hardest questions for the other players in the More from clips that pop up the day after the main game.

Paucle great job on your satisfying pointage. I had the first name, but I could not pull out the last name.

User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 7406
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by MarkBarrett » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:34 pm

The new segments to see the Hardest Qs for the others players from the 3/18 show are available now.

User avatar
tagNV
Member of Our Studio Audience
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:05 pm
Location: Mesquite, NV

Re: The Experts - New YouTube Game Show

Post by tagNV » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:43 am

opusthepenguin wrote:4. The Variety - ... I would get bored pretty quickly if I had to watch three USC football experts duke it out. (Remember The $64,000/$128,000 Question when you didn't know the subject? No variety, compensated for by an excruciating pace.)
I can't help pointing out (for reasons I'll explain in a bit) that it isn't true that The $64,000/$128,000 Question had no variety: once a contestant gets to the point where they're in the isolation booth ($8,000 on both shows), contestants only answer one question per episode, so in a given show you'll see multiple contestants answering questions on multiple subjects.

I couldn't resist mentioning it because I've thought that if I were to try out for The Experts, I'd want my subject to be The $64,000 Question. First of all, it would be awesomely meta to answer questions about a game show like The Experts on The Experts. Second, to gain the necessary expertise, I'd have to do the sort of cramming that Dr. Joyce Brothers did for The $64,000 Question on the subject of boxing, which would be even more awesomely meta.

But Dr. Brothers is an expert on psychology, so she could figure out the types of questions she might be asked and study accordingly. I don't have that kind of training, so would expect to get questions I didn't see coming.

But then, it would probably be awesomely meta for the question writer to think up the $64,000 question...uh, I mean the Hardest Question in the World on this subject. So, um, maybe I should think about trying out. Or maybe just meta-think about it. ;)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bamaman, Google [Bot] and 20 guests