JBoard.tv

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:53 pm

badgerfellow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:15 am

OntarioQuizzer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:31 am

jeff6286 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:55 am

badgerfellow wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:34 pmWell, to complicate things, TPTB recently changed the policy to allow contestants to say where they are originally from; you must use your current hometown.

What are you saying here?

I think he's missing a "no longer". But I'll let badgerfellow confirm.

Apologies for not being clearer. You are no longer allowed to say where you are originally from, just where you currently reside.

I always thought that was a ploy by the J! folks to obscure how many Californians were on the show, and make them sound a little more geographically diverse.

I think Robert K S also touched on this in his post. No reason was given as to why they changed the policy. The idea of being geographically diverse would make sense for the past, but I think leaving the "originally from" option would accomplish that, too.

Without that option, you can work around it by bringing up your hometown or state in your personal story. In fact, the contestant packet even includes a question asking for a fun fact regarding your hometown.

Robert K S wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:51 am

badgerfellow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:15 am Apologies for not being clearer. You are no longer allowed to say where you are originally from, just where you currently reside.

Did they say why? That's a silly rule. What if you're just somewhere for a job temporarily, and it's not nearly as interesting or meaningful as your hometown? What if you are in college? Where is your residence then?

I can't recall if there were any "originally from"s in the Art Fleming era. I believe the tradition originated because a disproportionate number of the early Trebek-era contestants were L.A.-based and TPTB wanted to convey the impression to the viewership of greater geographical diversity among their contestants. Fortunately, a good number of people in Southern California are not "originally from" there.

Not the only relatively arbitrary rule. I was introduced as a "retired adjunct professor" during my stint when that was not my druthers, simply because that was the last job I had before I fully retired. I had been semi-retired and teaching part-time for a while, but they said they used only a current position, or most recent one if not currently employed.

I specifically asked if I could be a "retired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant," since military officers are not uncommon while enlisted personnel on Jeopardy are extremely rare. But, since that was over 20 years ago, they said no.

Their game, their rules.

I have a theory. They work very hard to cast their contestants in geographically diverse groups. They don't want you pulling a switcheroo and messing up their demographic assemblage--or worse, gaming the system by saying that you're "originally from" some lesser-represented place in order to improve your odds of getting on the show. Like I said, just a theory.

Robert K S wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:03 pm I have a theory. They work very hard to cast their contestants in geographically diverse groups. They don't want you pulling a switcheroo and messing up their demographic assemblage--or worse, gaming the system by saying that you're "originally from" some lesser-represented place in order to improve your odds of getting on the show. Like I said, just a theory.

Well, it wasn't possible to game the system that way anyway, because it's long been the case that the questionnaire that you fill out for the audition doesn't have anywhere to indicate where you're originally from. I remember that at an audition in I think 2011, I actually asked Corina if there was somewhere to write that I was originally from [my original hometown] in New Jersey (and this question did stem from my worry about the overwhelming number of people who were going to be in the pool from NYC). Her response was that if I got on the show, at that time I would be able to state where I was originally from.

dhkendall wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:55 am

Robert K S wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:51 am

badgerfellow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:15 am Apologies for not being clearer. You are no longer allowed to say where you are originally from, just where you currently reside.

Did they say why? That's a silly rule. What if you're just somewhere for a job temporarily, and it's not nearly as interesting or meaningful as your hometown? What if you are in college? Where is your residence then?

I believe the college championship this year was after this change was instituted and they list where they are from. But that's just for college students in the college championship, I don't know if we've had any in regular games yet, when that happens we'll find out soon enough.

They had me use the town I currently live in.

To get back to the original question, my hometown of Sandspit BC currently has a population of 297. It was maybe 550 when I left.

mennoknight wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:15 pm To get back to the original question, my hometown of Sandspit BC currently has a population of 297. It was maybe 550 when I left.

Your departure obviously set Sandspit's decline in motion.

ETA: Wow, just looked it up on Google Maps. Looks like it would be a great place to visit for people who like the outdoors.

BobF wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:54 pm

mennoknight wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:15 pm To get back to the original question, my hometown of Sandspit BC currently has a population of 297. It was maybe 550 when I left.

Your departure obviously set Sandspit's decline in motion.

ETA: Wow, just looked it up on Google Maps. Looks like it would be a great place to visit for people who like the outdoors.

Pretty much all of Canada qualifies for that.

dhkendall wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:00 pm

BobF wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:54 pm

mennoknight wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:15 pm To get back to the original question, my hometown of Sandspit BC currently has a population of 297. It was maybe 550 when I left.

Your departure obviously set Sandspit's decline in motion.

ETA: Wow, just looked it up on Google Maps. Looks like it would be a great place to visit for people who like the outdoors.

Pretty much all of Canada qualifies for that.

Yeah, but mostly not where people actually live.

Bumping thread as one of today's contestants (Marguerite) comes from a community that is officially listed as "Unincorporated" in the US Census Bureau:

https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnis ... FID:653881

badgerfellow wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:57 pm Bumping thread as one of today's contestants (Marguerite) comes from a community that is officially listed as "Unincorporated" in the US Census Bureau:

https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnis ... FID:653881

That's not saying much. Highlands Ranch, CO has almost 100,000 people and it's unincorporated.

DBear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:21 pm

badgerfellow wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:57 pm Bumping thread as one of today's contestants (Marguerite) comes from a community that is officially listed as "Unincorporated" in the US Census Bureau:

https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnis ... FID:653881

That's not saying much. Highlands Ranch, CO has almost 100,000 people and it's unincorporated.

Probably should have added this is rural Midwest. Look up this locale and others like it; Webster can't be more than 50 people.

DBear wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:21 pm

badgerfellow wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:57 pm Bumping thread as one of today's contestants (Marguerite) comes from a community that is officially listed as "Unincorporated" in the US Census Bureau:

https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnis ... FID:653881

That's not saying much. Highlands Ranch, CO has almost 100,000 people and it's unincorporated.

When I think of highly populated unincorporated places, I think of Paradise, Nevada, which has most of the Las Vegas stuff you associate with Las Vegas.

But yeah I’m with badgerfellow that the reason I can’t easily find population data for Webster is because it’s so small.

I recall a contestant once from Black Gnat, Kentucky. If memory serves, his contestant story was about how his town straddled the time zone line between Central and Eastern time. Black Gnat looks to be unincorporated, so who knows what the population is. But you don't forget a town name like that.

badgerfellow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:11 pm

Spaceman Spiff wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:53 pm

badgerfellow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:15 am

OntarioQuizzer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:31 am

jeff6286 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:55 am

What are you saying here?

I think he's missing a "no longer". But I'll let badgerfellow confirm.

Apologies for not being clearer. You are no longer allowed to say where you are originally from, just where you currently reside.

I always thought that was a ploy by the J! folks to obscure how many Californians were on the show, and make them sound a little more geographically diverse.

I think Robert K S also touched on this in his post. No reason was given as to why they changed the policy. The idea of being geographically diverse would make sense for the past, but I think leaving the "originally from" option would accomplish that, too.

Without that option, you can work around it by bringing up your hometown or state in your personal story. In fact, the contestant packet even includes a question asking for a fun fact regarding your hometown.

My recollection from #JeopardyLivePanel episodes of about a year ago is that the change was brought in at the start of last season.

Robert K S wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:03 pm I have a theory. They work very hard to cast their contestants in geographically diverse groups. They don't want you pulling a switcheroo and messing up their demographic assemblage--or worse, gaming the system by saying that you're "originally from" some lesser-represented place in order to improve your odds of getting on the show. Like I said, just a theory.

Interesting that this comes up now. With the start of the new season, I've been keeping track of where J! contestants are coming from, by their Nielsen television market.

Last weekend, I finished going back and compiling the same data for last season. On one hand, out of 210 markets nationwide, 91 (43.3%) had a player on the show last season. On the other, the top ten markets (NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, the Metroplex, the Bay Area, D.C., Houston, Boston, and Atlanta) gave us half the contestants - including one of every seven from the New York area alone. And its percentage of players on was only about twice the percentage of TV households it has; that ratio was twice as high for D.C. (2.16% of households, 9% of players).

That said, I don't think it's quite right to state that a particular place or group of places is over- or under-represented. This is a game show, not the House of Representatives - the producers need only embrace geographical diversity to the extent that, in their opinion, they believe it will drive ratings.

I had not intended to work further back than last season, believing it to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. But I might now work my way back through Seasons 32 and/or 31, to see if the announced geographic distribution has shifted before and after the rule change.

I don't know if you ever got my e-mail from last February, but I wanted to say I think you have one of the sweetest Jeopardy! web sites. I particularly love the calendar visualization. It's quite useful for examining what the show considers to be their sweeps periods and for predicting dates for upcoming tournaments. It would be nice if they returned to some regularity in their tournament scheduling.

Given my profession and avocation, that's some fascinating stuff, Matt. Thank you. Is there somewhere to find the over/under-representation percentages? I can put it together, but I'm curious if you have it readily available. I'm really not surprised about DC at all.

alietr wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:43 am Given my profession and avocation, that's some fascinating stuff, Matt. Thank you. Is there somewhere to find the over/under-representation percentages? I can put it together, but I'm curious if you have it readily available. I'm really not surprised about DC at all.

Ask and ye shall receive!

I expressed the numbers in terms of how many contestants would have appeared for a market if its representation were proportional to its share of TV households. I did this for four different N values: 445 (all contestants), 437 (all American contestants), 400 (regular-play contestants), and 392 (American regular-play contestants).

For example, DC, all players: 445 * (2,476,680 / 114,695,230) = 9.61.

The ratios listed are simply (actual count / proportional count), with the "proportional count" figures using the Americans-only numbers.

In addition to DC, other markets that did relatively well in getting players on: Baltimore, Austin, Tulsa, and Lafayette, IN (no. 187, three players).

Robert K S wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:56 am I don't know if you ever got my e-mail from last February, but I wanted to say I think you have one of the sweetest Jeopardy! web sites. I particularly love the calendar visualization. It's quite useful for examining what the show considers to be their sweeps periods and for predicting dates for upcoming tournaments. It would be nice if they returned to some regularity in their tournament scheduling.

I seem to have missed that email, but thank you! I've converted the calendar visualization to a PNG image, and I also maintain a second form of the "Master Jeopardy! Calendar" showing the special play events by what week of the season they aired. I recently corrected a long-standing oversight by adding credit to the Archive's prizes page, from whence the dates come.