EFT Discussion

Old college threads.
vandyhawk
Tidus
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:42 am
Location: Seattle

Post by vandyhawk »

I like what ChrisK had to say. The southeast circuit is typically weaker as a whole than the northeast and mid-atlantic, but even so, we only had one team below 10 ppb. That's why I tried to bring across in my first post that I thought the set in its entirety was very good, with some outliers that I and others have pointed out for the future consideration of anyone reading this thread. I'll also echo his sentiments on the science, in that it was well-written excepting the black hole question.

As far as Jerry's rounds, I may have been a bit harsh in saying they didn't belong in the set, but that was my initial reaction upon reading through them (they were the only two we didn't use on Sat). The tossups were noticeably harder, but not too much so, compared with the rest, but it was the bonuses that I thought were just too much of a jump in difficulty relative to the other rounds, even the collectively produced playoffs 3 and 4 rounds. I don't know if there will be enough data on them to really say for sure, since presumably they were only used for playoffs at some sites and not others.
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15601
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

This thread is making me laugh out loud
Dennis
Lulu
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:02 am
Location: Providence, Rhode Island

Post by Dennis »

So, funnily enough, I had gone to sleep at 3 thinking that no one else was going to post last night. I suppose I was wrong.

In any event, thanks for all of the comments. Sorry for all of the errors/overly difficult questions in the set, but Eric and I did spend time briefly looking over the set after making changes that were pointed out at our site.

There's not much more I have to add to what's already been said. For the point made about putting "educational" stuff in easy parts of bonuses--quiz bowl is about learning new things, and I don't think that having canon-expanding clues as lead-ins all the time at a tournament written with new players in mind is the best way to proceed in achieving this. This is why some of the bonuses contained a little more information, but I hope they were a little more interesting as a result.

As for the repetition of bonus types, I also am of the opinion that it's not necessarily a bad thing. It may not be as interesting, but, again, at this level of tournament, going through multiple askable authors in one bonus sometimes takes away from another bonus that could be written. It's something I'll keep in mind in the future; I think it was more of a function that this is the way we wrote most bonuses, and, while most tournaments have multiple authors and their own writing styles, this tournament was written by 3 people.

We tried to make most tosses between 6 and 7 lines, but we weren't particularly strict about it. Sorry if some of the questions seemed a bit long.

I agree with Jonathan's point about making the harder bonus parts the last part so that teams are more likely to answer them, but for some reason I thought some (particularly, those Jonathan mentioned) would be too easily answerable if put as the last part. Same goes with the Oe bonus Matt mentioned. Sorry about that.

Finally, as Matt mentioned earlier, we are trying to keep track of how well tosses/bonus parts were converted. I have the preliminary stats from our site, as well as some scoresheets/stats from Oklahoma and Vanderbilt (thanks) that I will try to put together. I'm nearly done with the sheets from our site, and I'll make the stats available when I'm done with ours/done with Vandy's and Oklahoma's.

It's a rather large Excel file, and it's far from the most convenient thing to use, but once I get all the stats in from one round, I can tell how many times each tossup was picked up in each room, and how well the teams who got bonus X converted it, and how well each part was converted. We hope there are some interesting things to be seen, which can be used for future reference for those writing tournaments to see how difficult some bonuses really are. For example, a bonus on plasma/Debye length/Tokamak and a bonus on Avignon/Clement VII/Antipopes both had averages of 19 points scored on them, but the former had 100%/30%/60% conversion, while the latter had 100%/0%/90% conversion. This may not be the right post for it, but I'll take any suggestions as to what other sort of stats to include; perhaps linking how well bonuses were converted to the final record of the team, and so forth.

I'm glad that most people enjoyed the tournament. Thanks for all the comments, and also, thanks to those who made suggestions before the tournament ran.
Dennis Jang
Brown Quiz Bowl
User avatar
vcuEvan
Auron
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Richmond VA

Post by vcuEvan »

I'm glad you have such interesting stats on bonuses. I think those are very useful when looking for problems in difficulty.

I thought this set covered the most important base that a novice tournament should cover and that is making the tossups accessible. Throughout the day fewer tossups went dead than in many highschool round I remember and I think that's a very good thing for a novice tournament. The only tossups that went dead seemed to be holes in our knowledge base.
NoahMinkCHS
Yuna
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Athens, GA / Macon, GA
Contact:

Post by NoahMinkCHS »

cvdwightw wrote:Let me review the teams: UCI A had Dwight, UCI B had Ray Anderson, UCLA A had Cliff, UCLA B had Ray Luo, UCLA C had Steve, USC A had Mark, USC B had Mik, Berkeley had Brett (easily their best undergrad player). If you had to run through that gauntlet of decent-to-good players as a novice, would you be having fun? If you were a freshman on a team where someone's getting 7+ questions a game, wouldn't you feel afraid to buzz? I have a feeling the "not having fun" was more the result of getting beat down game after game or feeling like they weren't contributing anything to their team.
I know this was (recently) beaten to death, but perhaps these players shouldn't have been playing this tournament, or -- because I know there aren't that many good tournaments out west so people may have felt compelled to play when one arose -- maybe some of the better players should've at least been stacked on A teams so freshmen could play with other novice players, get some questions, and maybe win some matches against other novice teams. It seems counterproductive to create a situation where your new players are "afraid to buzz" and not having fun.
User avatar
Jeremy Gibbs Sampling
Wakka
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:29 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA
Contact:

Post by Jeremy Gibbs Sampling »

vandyhawk wrote:I'll also echo his sentiments on the science, in that it was well-written excepting the black hole question.
I'm a little bit upset with myself for not having this on the second word.
vandyhawk wrote:As far as Jerry's rounds, I may have been a bit harsh in saying they didn't belong in the set, but that was my initial reaction upon reading through them (they were the only two we didn't use on Sat).
I kinda wish you hadn't -- I negged a lot on the packet that actually was used for the final and wonder whether the outcome from one of the Jerry packets might not have been more to my liking. Alabama A may beg to differ.

I had tremendous fun, actually. Contra Dwight, I agree that the difficulty of bonuses was remarkably consistent. Contra "Contra Dwight", I'd be willing to say too consistent. "The monster that ate all 30-point bonuses" was invoked for yet another third part [this one from mythology] that we hadn't a chance with. We zeroed just about nothing, either, even when we completely failed to have heard of the subject. Tuning the variance of bonus (part) difficulty once the mean has been properly pegged is kind of a minor thing, to be sure, and I speculate many folks would like to set it to 0 anyway.

The soc. sci. distro seemed to lean strongly toward anthropology, which I happen to hate, and away from sociology (which I also hate), from economics, especially microeconomics (one demand bonus all day, but what a sweet one), and political science (which is to be expected, since it just can't be converted to quizbowl questions for shit). I'd reform the social science distro to include more of this other stuff at the expense of anthro. At least one person from my school complained that a lot of the social science was history of social science, but I reserve my own personal judgment on that till I reread the packets, 'cause I didn't pick up on it.

EFT was sufficiently conservative about the canon that by the end of the tournament, the rest of my team was playing the "what hasn't come up yet" game, and we were using it successfully. Mind you, the rest of my team were sophomores, although one of the sophomores did come from TJ. At some point, we just knew there was a list of (for example) Latin American authors that had to get exhausted, and, sure enough, it did.

And if that's all I can gripe about on the packet side, I must be pretty happy with it, and so I am. Thanks very much to the writers.
QB-Dinosaur wrote:how was this piece not satire?
Gordon Arsenoff
Rochester '06
WUStL '12
User avatar
aestheteboy
Tidus
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:07 pm

Post by aestheteboy »

If answers like Legendre, Night Cafe, Tlaloc, and Fundamental Orders of Connecticut were among the hardest of the set, I'd imagine (at least in terms of tossups) the answer selection was just appropriate and definitely not too hard for a novice tournament. Legendre is kind of obscure, but the other three I've heard at high school level (Tlaloc as the third part of bonus and the other two as tossups).

Do the writers plan to make the set available to the public (i.e. to those who didn't participate)? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could sent it to me at izumickk @ hotmail.com.
Daichi - Walter Johnson; Vanderbilt; U of Chicago.
Daichi's Law of High School Quizbowl: the frequency of posting in the Quizbowl Resource Center is proportional to the likelihood of being overrated.
User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

For all those who haven't received the set yet, we will make it available shortly. I'll post when that's ready. As a corollary, feel free to send the set to someone who asks for it.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance
User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5796
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA »

I'd just like to say that there were plenty of 30able bonuses in the set, even in Jerry's packets. Were the third parts harder than a typical novice tournament? Sure. But a good-sized upper crust of teams still managed a 20+ bbp, including plenty of actual age-appropriate teams for the format. Especially in the Brown tournament itself.

I certainly didn't have a problem with the bonus difficulty, as it seemed like every bonus save a few (Samnite wars and climax community, anyone?) were 10able, the good majority were 20able, and one out of every four or five was fairly easily 30able. There's nothing inappropriate about that, I don't think.
User avatar
ezubaric
Rikku
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: College Park, MD
Contact:

Post by ezubaric »

I'm late to the party as usual, but this set was excellent, and the tournament was competently run (esp. considering the relative inexperience of the people there) despite late arrivals. I hope PARFAIT turns out as well.

My one complaint was that my team negged itself into oblivion, but that was the fault of us, not the questions. :grin:

I do agree that there seemed to be too much anthro (everyone askable was pretty much asked). To keep that from happening at this level, perhaps the soc sci distribution should be scaled back slightly? (In my dream world, replaced by computer science.)
Jordan Boyd-Graber
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2018-present
UC Boulder, Founder / Faculty Advisor 2014-2017
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2010-2014
Princeton, Player 2004-2009
Caltech (Pasadena, CA), Player / President 2000-2004
Ark Math & Science (Hot Springs, AR), Player 1998-2000
Monticello High School, Player 1997-1998

Human-Computer Question Answering:
http://qanta.org/
wwellington
Wakka
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 10:54 pm
Location: Lansing, MI
Contact:

Post by wwellington »

every bonus save a few (Samnite wars and climax community, anyone?) were 10able
Is climax community really an impossible bonus? Neither that nor succession is that difficult (the third part I don't remember).
User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Post by cvdwightw »

ezubaric wrote:To keep that from happening at this level, perhaps the soc sci distribution should be scaled back slightly? (In my dream world, replaced by computer science.)
I think if the social science distribution had been expanded to include geography, this could have alleviated some of the the "what askable hasn't been asked?" late-tournament phenomenon. Geography averaged somewhere under a question per round; bump it up to about a question a round or a little more and you've replaced some of your social science problem. Also, while the psych distribution hit most of the "canonical" psychoanalysts + Milgram and Zimbardo, there's probably more stuff in the psych distribution that could be asked if needed.

Also, since Jordan brought it up, the only questions I remember on computer science were "hash" and "tree" (both of which I frauded, making this probably the only tournament where I've answered two computer science tossups correctly). Am I forgetting things (they might have shown up in the packets I didn't hear), or was the dearth of computer science a result of not that much really being askable at this level?
dschafer
Rikku
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Carnegie Mellon University

Post by dschafer »

First off, I want to preface these comments with the overall qualifier that this was a fantastic set of questions. While I do have what I hope is constructive feedback, it is mostly on very minor matters that did not significantly affect my great enjoyment of the tournament. Writers/Editors: Thanks.

I thought that the overall difficulty of the packets was good, though I thought it was a tiny bit too difficult; glancing over the stats from both Brown and W&M EFT sites, it seems like all of the teams with more than 18 PPB or so were teams with upperclassmen and grad students. I wouldn't mind seeing the top few teams of underclassmen able to hit 20 PPB. Even so, I thought the bonus difficulty was fairly consistant, and I thought that most of the bonuses fairly distinguished between teams with significant knowledge of the subject matter. I also have no objection to the "Title, Author, Less famous title" or "Title, Author, Character from title" bonus sequence; it seems to reward both knowledge of the title itself for the first part and "list knowledge" for the second part.

I thought the first two playoff packets had a significant jump in difficulty from the prelim packets; I know my team's bonus conversion dropped by almost 8 points per bonus when we went from the prelim packets to the first two playoff packets. Again, as I thought that the prelim packets were a tad on the difficult side anyway, I would have preferred the playoff packets not jump further from there.

Again, I want to emphasize how much I enjoyed the tournament; it was a great set, and a great way to start off the year.

EDIT: On CS: Our team of 4 CS majors greatly enjoyed the hash and tree question. The general issue with novice-level CS that I've seen is that the canon is so small that it is hard to avoid transparancy; if you can narrow it down to a (data structure / sort / class of problems), you've immediately narrowed down the answer space to a very small selection, and if you can't narrow down what the question is asking about for a long time, the question is probably hard to follow.
Last edited by dschafer on Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
Posts: 1880
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Post by Sima Guang Hater »

cvdwightw wrote:Also, since Jordan brought it up, the only questions I remember on computer science were "hash" and "tree" (both of which I frauded, making this probably the only tournament where I've answered two computer science tossups correctly). Am I forgetting things (they might have shown up in the packets I didn't hear), or was the dearth of computer science a result of not that much really being askable at this level?
I wrote a tossup on quicksort
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Brown University, 2009
Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Medicine Intern, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT, ACF, PACE
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Sin
Posts: 6131
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Mike Bentley »

cvdwightw wrote:
ezubaric wrote:To keep that from happening at this level, perhaps the soc sci distribution should be scaled back slightly? (In my dream world, replaced by computer science.)
I think if the social science distribution had been expanded to include geography, this could have alleviated some of the the "what askable hasn't been asked?" late-tournament phenomenon. Geography averaged somewhere under a question per round; bump it up to about a question a round or a little more and you've replaced some of your social science problem. Also, while the psych distribution hit most of the "canonical" psychoanalysts + Milgram and Zimbardo, there's probably more stuff in the psych distribution that could be asked if needed.

Also, since Jordan brought it up, the only questions I remember on computer science were "hash" and "tree" (both of which I frauded, making this probably the only tournament where I've answered two computer science tossups correctly). Am I forgetting things (they might have shown up in the packets I didn't hear), or was the dearth of computer science a result of not that much really being askable at this level?
Quicksort came up in a playoff packet and there was a bonus arguably on computer science on parallel processing. I think there could have definitely been more bonuses, but I'm not going to complain too much about the distribution at this tournament. I'd like to see a larger distribution at "regular" or harder tournaments.

But it has seemed like CS has been in a steady decline since its high point at last year's PARFAIT. The packets our team heard at ACF Nationals had 0 comp sci tossups and there were maybe 2 or 3 bonuses. Chicago Open wasn't too much better, with I think 3 tossups and maybe 3 bonuses. The Science Monstrosity "tournament" was hard pressed to include 1 tossup per "packet", although I blame that more on the complete disorganization of that tournament. I can't remember any CS questions besides the ones I wrote for Sun 'n Fun, although I could be wrong.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by DumbJaques »

But it has seemed like CS has been in a steady decline since its high point at last year's PARFAIT. The packets our team heard at ACF Nationals had 0 comp sci tossups and there were maybe 2 or 3 bonuses. Chicago Open wasn't too much better, with I think 3 tossups and maybe 3 bonuses. The Science Monstrosity "tournament" was hard pressed to include 1 tossup per "packet", although I blame that more on the complete disorganization of that tournament. I can't remember any CS questions besides the ones I wrote for Sun 'n Fun, although I could be wrong.
I mean, do you seriously hold the opinion that CS should come up once a game? 6 times in 11 or so games seems just fine to me. When you think about it, there's a 1/1 "other science" distribution. I don't think one of those 1/1 should always be Comp Sci when it's met to encompass earth science and geology, meteorology, astronomy, in most tournaments math theory, and other science things. I don't think CS should be anything greater than 25% of this subdistribution.
Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE
User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

I want to mention something to people discussing the distribution. First, here's the distribution used per packet for the tournament:

4/4 science
4/4 literature
4/4 history
3/3 fine arts
3/3 RMP
2/2 social science/geography
1/1 trash

Of the science distribution, we had a hard requirement of 1/1 each of physics, chemistry, and biology. The remaining 1/1 was marked "other" and typically included math, CS, astro (if there was any), and earth science. We tried to be relatively diverse in choosing that 1/1 but as you can see, it's implausible to expect more than about 3/3 of any one minor science topic in the tournament given those constraints. Perhaps future tournaments might consider scaling back some of the subdistribution requirements in the future, but that's what we were working with. So I hope that explains this part.

For the social sciences, which are getting a lot of attention, we wanted to write things that we thought people would get. So we had to stick with a lot of canonical topics, including some that are more "historical." I don't know why it is that people seem to think that this set was antro-heavy; the social sciences actually varied quite a bit between psychology, economics, sociology, anthropology, a smattering of poli-sci, and even the odd geography question. I'll be happy to provide the actual answers from the tournament if people would like, but if you think it leaned too much in one direction, I encourage you to look again.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance
evilmonkey
Yuna
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:23 am
Location: Durham, NC

Post by evilmonkey »

Set aside the fact that I am ignorant, but is modern Political Science canonical? I hear tossups about Locke, Hobbes, Rosseau, Machiavelli, Montesquieu and the like, but I have never seen or heard one that references Mearsheimer, Waltz, Morganthau, or any of the others that I am learning about in my Intro to IR class (or their respective theories). Am I missing something? Shouldn't theorists whose articles are noted enough to be in an intro-level class be in the canon? Or am I just insane?

(Sorry that this doesn't really belong here)
Bryce Durgin
Culver Academies '07
University of Notre Dame '11
Texas A&M '15
User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed »

3D Lemmings wrote:Set aside the fact that I am ignorant, but is modern Political Science canonical? I hear tossups about Locke, Hobbes, Rosseau, Machiavelli, Montesquieu and the like, but I have never seen or heard one that references Mearsheimer, Waltz, Morganthau, or any of the others that I am learning about in my Intro to IR class (or their respective theories). Am I missing something? Shouldn't theorists whose articles are noted enough to be in an intro-level class be in the canon? Or am I just insane?

(Sorry that this doesn't really belong here)
IR theory is slowly creeping into the canon right now. There was a tossup on "Liberalism" at EFT last year (and a Nye tossup at I think ACF Regs) and a tossup on "Realism" at ACF Fall last year. There was also a Ken Waltz bonus at Penn Bowl last year. Earlier, there was a Francis Fukuyama tossup at Manu Ginobili.

In all humility, this is happening in large part due to the efforts of myself and Ray Sun, two political science majors who specialized in IR. We put IR theory into the third part of bonuses, and eventually other people started writing about the subject too. That's what you gotta do.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Sin
Posts: 6131
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Mike Bentley »

DumbJaques wrote:
But it has seemed like CS has been in a steady decline since its high point at last year's PARFAIT. The packets our team heard at ACF Nationals had 0 comp sci tossups and there were maybe 2 or 3 bonuses. Chicago Open wasn't too much better, with I think 3 tossups and maybe 3 bonuses. The Science Monstrosity "tournament" was hard pressed to include 1 tossup per "packet", although I blame that more on the complete disorganization of that tournament. I can't remember any CS questions besides the ones I wrote for Sun 'n Fun, although I could be wrong.
I mean, do you seriously hold the opinion that CS should come up once a game? 6 times in 11 or so games seems just fine to me. When you think about it, there's a 1/1 "other science" distribution. I don't think one of those 1/1 should always be Comp Sci when it's met to encompass earth science and geology, meteorology, astronomy, in most tournaments math theory, and other science things. I don't think CS should be anything greater than 25% of this subdistribution.
No, I'm obviously not advocating once per game. I think everyone admitted that PARFAIT had too much CS, I was just saying that since then, it seems like there's been a reaction against it. Such as in this tournament, where CS came up 4 times in 13 or 14 packets, or at the CO and ACF Nats where it was also under 1/4 of the "other science" distribution. I think it's not unreasonable to except a CS question in every other packet (so at least 3/3 in a 12 round tournament), but since last year's PARFAIT, it seems like this has not been the case.

I almost feel that maybe packets should be expanded to 22/22 or something so we can add a bit more variability. It seems that most people like having 3/3 Fine Arts and 3/3 RMP rather than 5/5 total of these, which certainly squeezes out some other categories. An extra 2/2 might allow for more minor science, cross-disciplinary questions, geography or social science, non-trasy current events and other things that maybe are slightly underrepresented at different tournaments.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Mike, I honestly don't think there's been a reaction against CS. When people are writing the "other" part of the science distribution, they tend to stick with what they know best; for me this is math and CS, but for others it might be earth science or astronomy or environmental science or something else. I don't see a conscious effort to exclude CS questions, it may be just something that happens because not enough people know how to write good CS questions. Also, it's worth noting that there are more CS players on the circuit now than in the past, so it's reasonable to suppose that the CS representation might increase a little to account for this in the future.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance
User avatar
ezubaric
Rikku
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: College Park, MD
Contact:

Post by ezubaric »

Bentley Like Beckham wrote:too much CS
Stop talking silly talk; such a thing is impossible.

But just to be clear, I was not implying that EFT had too little CS. I mean, sure I'll always take more, but I thought there was "enough."

-Jordan
Jordan Boyd-Graber
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2018-present
UC Boulder, Founder / Faculty Advisor 2014-2017
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2010-2014
Princeton, Player 2004-2009
Caltech (Pasadena, CA), Player / President 2000-2004
Ark Math & Science (Hot Springs, AR), Player 1998-2000
Monticello High School, Player 1997-1998

Human-Computer Question Answering:
http://qanta.org/
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Sin
Posts: 6131
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Post by Mike Bentley »

grapesmoker wrote:Mike, I honestly don't think there's been a reaction against CS. When people are writing the "other" part of the science distribution, they tend to stick with what they know best; for me this is math and CS, but for others it might be earth science or astronomy or environmental science or something else. I don't see a conscious effort to exclude CS questions, it may be just something that happens because not enough people know how to write good CS questions. Also, it's worth noting that there are more CS players on the circuit now than in the past, so it's reasonable to suppose that the CS representation might increase a little to account for this in the future.
Sorry I didn't make this clear. I'm not really saying that there has been a conscious effort to exclude CS from tournaments, it just seems like there has been a relative dearth in some of the bigger tournaments this past year.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
Morton's Fork
Lulu
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Boston

Post by Morton's Fork »

Dennis wrote:Stuff. Then Stuff about stats.
I would be very interested in these stats.
z2trillion
Kimahri
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:42 am
Location: NJ
Contact:

Post by z2trillion »

My only complaint was the Czochralski process clue in the semiconductors tossup. To the best of my recollection, silicon was a correct answer up to that point, so I negged with that.

-Mason
Greek Myth God
Lulu
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Tennessee, Knoxville

Post by Greek Myth God »

I had a few complaints about a few small problems I found in question clues. The one tossup that stands out to me was the myth tossup that started with "She put her son Bootes in the sky as a constellation," considering that one Bootes was not Demter's son, and two that Aphrodite put him in the sky, I negged on that. But again, only a very small complaint. I thought overall the questions were good.
Susan
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1829
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:43 am

Post by Susan »

Actually, there are plenty of sources that list Bootes as a son of Demeter/Ceres and that credit her for his placement in the sky (on a cursory search, I couldn't find any that credited Aphrodite). It's debatable at best.
Greek Myth God
Lulu
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Tennessee, Knoxville

Post by Greek Myth God »

Well I like to consider myself something of a Greek myth geek, and I think I have pretty good credentials, having placed nationally at the national Latin convention. And the real myth sources (Meridian's, Morford's, Parada) would tend to agree with me, but hey, its Greek myth, so there is plenty up for discussion. All I know is that I buzzed where I knew I should have, and if I was playing a Latin quizbowl round, my answer would have been correct. Alas, this isn't Classics quizbowl...speaking of, I'd like to see a lot more Classics questions hehe :P
User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) »

Greek Myth God wrote:hehe :P
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White
User avatar
Scipio
Wakka
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:12 pm

Post by Scipio »

Well I like to consider myself something of a Greek myth geek, and I think I have pretty good credentials, having placed nationally at the national Latin convention. And the real myth sources (Meridian's, Morford's, Parada) would tend to agree with me, but hey, its Greek myth, so there is plenty up for discussion. All I know is that I buzzed where I knew I should have, and if I was playing a Latin quizbowl round, my answer would have been correct. Alas, this isn't Classics quizbowl...speaking of, I'd like to see a lot more Classics questions hehe :P
I get the impression that you are a new player, so first of all welcome. Having said that, a few points:

1) Susan Ferrari is pretty much flawless in her knowledge of Greek myth, so if I were you I would listen to her (see, for instance, here: http://www.hsquizbowl.org/phpBB2/viewto ... ight=chows) . Just saying.

2) Since I'm me, I would definitely listen to her. Also, a "real" source is less a textbook, and more an ancient authority, like Hyginus. Check out his Astronomica (specifically 2.4) for a discussion of Bootes.

3) A better suggestion may have been that perhaps the author of the question should have included "Aphrodite" as a possible answer there, although like Susan I can't recall a source listing Aphrodite as the answer (which doesn't mean that one does not exist, mind you). If I had been playtesting this round, I would not have known to put in a prompt, and apparently this also slipped by not only Susan but also Seth Teitler, whose knowledge of myth surpasses even Susan's.

Also, have you read Graves's Greek myths book? It is really good for alternate myths, and I suspect you'd find it very, very useful.
Seth Lyons Kendall
University of Memphis, 1993-1997
University of Kentucky, 1997-1999, 2000-2008
Greek Myth God
Lulu
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Tennessee, Knoxville

Post by Greek Myth God »

Thanks, I'll look into those. In retrospect I was just wrong, but oh well.
User avatar
Morton's Fork
Lulu
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Boston

Post by Morton's Fork »

Any results from the individual question statistics?
vandyhawk
Tidus
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:42 am
Location: Seattle

Post by vandyhawk »

Morton's Fork wrote:Any results from the individual question statistics?
I'm guessing it'll be a while. Our scoresheets are probably still in the mail to them, and entering all the data looked like no small task.
User avatar
Frater Taciturnus
Auron
Posts: 2463
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:26 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Frater Taciturnus »

ok, if Brown is doing question by question analysis, I think it might be a good idea to note that CNU v. W&M heard packet 10, not packet 2, despite it being a round 2 match.
George Berry
[email protected]
they/them/their(s)
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007
User avatar
vcuEvan
Auron
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Richmond VA

Post by vcuEvan »

dsfcaptains2005 wrote:ok, if Brown is doing question by question analysis, I think it might be a good idea to note that CNU v. W&M heard packet 10, not packet 2, despite it being a round 2 match.
This was a common error due to the labeling of the files. It didn't end up mattering too much though thankfully.
User avatar
Frater Taciturnus
Auron
Posts: 2463
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:26 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Frater Taciturnus »

Adamantium Claws wrote:
dsfcaptains2005 wrote:ok, if Brown is doing question by question analysis, I think it might be a good idea to note that CNU v. W&M heard packet 10, not packet 2, despite it being a round 2 match.
This was a common error due to the labeling of the files. It didn't end up mattering too much though thankfully.
Well, for question analysis, each instance of this should be documented, or the data returned on packets 2 and 10 will be probably deviant from the actual numbers. But yeah, it didn't make a real impact on the game, as both packets were pretty much the same in difficulty.
George Berry
[email protected]
they/them/their(s)
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007
Dennis
Lulu
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:02 am
Location: Providence, Rhode Island

Post by Dennis »

This information is important, except the only sites who were able to arrange everything in time to do this were the Vanderbilt and Oklahoma mirrors. Thanks, though.

I already have the stats from our prelim rounds we read (1 - 9) put in, and I have Oklahoma's and Vanderbilt's stats to deal with, which I will sometime in the near future. I can make our stats available if people are interested in those in the mean time (mostly 10 rooms for each of the rounds).
Dennis Jang
Brown Quiz Bowl
User avatar
Morton's Fork
Lulu
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Boston

Post by Morton's Fork »

Consider me interested. Although I don't have the packets, this will be very interesting.
ktour84
Lulu
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:09 am

Post by ktour84 »

Could someone send me the set at [email protected]?
User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Hey, I apologize to people waiting for the set. I suffered a catastrophic OS failure around the time of the tournament and I'm just now back to normal. I'll try to get the questions online today.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance
User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Both the 2006 and 2007 EFT sets are now available as ZIP archives. Sorry for the wait.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance
User avatar
Morton's Fork
Lulu
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Boston

Post by Morton's Fork »

Very nice thanks.
Shoe
Kimahri
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:54 pm

Post by Shoe »

Thanks for the tournament, Brown. It was enjoyable. I just wish that transportation from New York to Providence was a bit more frequent- we caused you trouble coming in because of the rigid bus schedule. Sorry.
Locked