Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register

03-05-2011 , 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
TimeLady still scary good. Several people either misread the question or get a great big "Wat?"
If you don't play the games, you really have no idea. I hoped it was some awesome huge game that went on for a couple of weeks.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:24 PM
Question 5: Indeed, big time Red Wings fans had the upper hand here (and we definitely had a couple playing in this one).

What if you didn't recognize him. Well, there are some clues to come close:



See that "C" on his jersey? Captain. Probably a top player. Plus I put him in the quiz, so it's a good bet he's either really good or I think he's recognizable.

On the other hand, great hocket players are often known more for assists than goals, so even over the course of twentyish years, maybe "The Captain", "Stevie Y", the second-greatest (at least) Red Wing ever, Steve Yzerman, didn't score that many times?

Well, kinda-sorta. It's "just" 692.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutKicked
For Oingo Boingo, I didn't recognize the album but know a lot about music so I assumed that whoever it was didn't spend much time on the charts or I would know who it was.
My thought process exactly. I was preparing to be way off when I opened the thread and it turned out to be a hugely popular album that I for some reason didn't know. Glad to see it wasn't so I can save the embarassment for other questions.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWetzel
If you don't play the games, you really have no idea. I hoped it was some awesome huge game that went on for a couple of weeks.
It actually was both of those things. But in those days, games were way smaller even when they were big, if that makes sense.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:26 PM
Yzerman is one of the few hockey players I recognize.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:27 PM
Last.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:27 PM
Yzerman's 692 goals put him eighth all time, while Dwetzel's Wings fandom gets him a great score exceeded only by master's perfect zero.


Question 5GuessRawScaledCumulative
younguns872500.4423092.9
YetioDoom4000.23819.5167.37
TheDean14200.21717.7767.89
eyebooger4500.18715.3271.18
TimeLady5000.14111.5723
aaronk565000.14111.5759.59
kwami425150.12810.5250.84
pwnsall5370.119.0350.79
sportsjefe6300.0413.3436.25
fredericksburg6830.0060.4734.28
Correct Answer692   
master30046920038.35
Dwetzel6930.0010.0541.01
PlzBeALevel7000.0050.4142.77
derwipok7010.0060.4656.83
kokiri7500.0352.8742.92
CieloAzor7510.0362.9136.49
OutKicked8500.0897.3232.6
NumberSix12000.23919.641.13
kioshk12500.25721.0555.87
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:28 PM
I knew it was atak's first game so I could place it roughly in time line and I knew roughly that those games only ran to like 2k tops if it went on until f3 and so 1st only had a couple hundred posts
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:29 PM
Back in ten or fifteen — 'pup just called.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
It actually was both of those things. But in those days, games were way smaller even when they were big, if that makes sense.
You'd also have to know when the game was -- which, well, is kind of impossible to tell.

Moment of glory approaching though. Onward and upward! (I'm actually ashamed to have "missed" it.)

Last edited by DWetzel; 03-05-2011 at 10:29 PM. Reason: And... moment of glory passed. Carry on!
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:30 PM
Total shot in the dark there, I know from m1ke in skypechat that hockey isn't especially high scoring and I knew the top hockey dude ever had ~950 so 500 seemed a good guess
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeLady
Total shot in the dark there, I know from m1ke in skypechat that hockey isn't especially high scoring and I knew the top hockey dude ever had ~950 so 500 seemed a good guess
500 is pretty much the standard "Hall of Famer" number for goals (like 3,000 hits in baseball, basically), so was a fine guess. (Of course, if suitably evil, he'd have thrown a picture of a goon like Joe Kocur up there to mess with people's heads, sort of the Oingo Boingo of hockey players.)
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:34 PM
Hockey scoring is a complete mystery to me.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:38 PM
A guess from me too (but a much luckier one ). I figured it was probably someone who had scored a lot of goals but knew it wasn't Gretzky, Howe or Hull so just guessed a bit less than them.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:49 PM
I think that hockey question is a good illustration of why scores should be scaled by question. If I'd just used ratios, someone guessing 500 or 1000, which are pretty much median scores, would get only a 1.4, and master and DW would hardly have been rewarded for nailing it.

Next question coming right up.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:50 PM
im pretty sure a 5 yr old could do better than me
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:51 PM
Question 6: I assume literally everyone knew it was the Washington Monument. But the pictorial aspect does do one thing, maybe: it shows the rough size of the stone blocks that compose it. Maybe that would be enough to help guessers work it out that the 555 foot, 5 inch obelisk was made with "only" 36,491 stones?
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
I think that hockey question is a good illustration of why scores should be scaled by question. If I'd just used ratios, someone guessing 500 or 1000, which are pretty much median scores, would get only a 1.4, and master and DW would hardly have been rewarded for nailing it.

Next question coming right up.
I think the ratio method is better for a more "guessing" feel to the contest, while the method you're using is better if you want a more trivia feel to it (where "knowing" the answer is inherently a lot more valuable). The downside to the log method is that you have little chance against someone who knows three or four answers cold.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
Question 6: I assume literally everyone knew it was the Washington Monument. But the pictorial aspect does do one thing, maybe: it shows the rough size of the stone blocks that compose it. Maybe that would be enough to help guessers work it out that the 555 foot, 5 inch obelisk was made with "only" 36,491 stones?
Doh.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:53 PM
uhhhh

may have shot a bit under here
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:54 PM
Fredericksburg and number 6 use this one to gain some ground on TL, while pwnsall benefits substantially by the no-score-greater-than-30 cutoff (22 million stones is a lot of stones):


Question 6GuessRawScaledCumulative
TimeLady100000.5627.5330.53
kokiri175000.3194.2747.2
OutKicked190000.2833.836.39
eyebooger300000.0851.1472.32
fredericksburg328270.0460.6234.9
Correct Answer36491   
NumberSix420000.0610.8241.95
YetioDoom500000.1371.8369.2
kioshk600000.2162.8958.76
kwami42750000.3134.1955.03
master3004798950.344.5642.91
aaronk561000000.4385.8665.45
Dwetzel2500000.83611.1952.2
CieloAzor2600010.85311.4247.91
PlzBeALevel4500001.09114.6157.38
derwipok4678631.10814.8471.67
sportsjefe5000001.13715.2251.47
TheDean18000001.34117.9685.85
younguns8761110002.22429.78122.68
pwnsall229635002.7993080.79
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:54 PM
damn, i'm getting rocked here.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWetzel
I think the ratio method is better for a more "guessing" feel to the contest, while the method you're using is better if you want a more trivia feel to it (where "knowing" the answer is inherently a lot more valuable). The downside to the log method is that you have little chance against someone who knows three or four answers cold.
True (your second point), but most guesstimanias don't have a lot of cold-knowable answers. (This one's a bit different; I definitely would not have included the Yzerman question, for example, on a straight guesstimania.)

Capping scores is important for keeping people in it even after one bad guess, regardless how you do it, but if we're talking hunt for first place than yes, my method favors those who can absolutely nail a couple.

We'll see who it turns out...
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
True (your second point), but most guesstimanias don't have a lot of cold-knowable answers. (This one's a bit different; I definitely would not have included the Yzerman question, for example, on a straight guesstimania.)

Capping scores is important for keeping people in it even after one bad guess, regardless how you do it, but if we're talking hunt for first place than yes, my method favors those who can absolutely nail a couple.

We'll see who it turns out...
Definitely to the bolded. Otherwise it's too easy to make the game unplayable except by freaks or masochists.
Quote
03-05-2011 , 10:58 PM
This game has given me a few good ideas for questions to use on a guesstimania i'll run in the maybe-near-future
Quote

      
m