Yes, there’s a rehearsal on set in which everyone gets a chance to see how everything works, including the signalling device.
It’s always been more than 2-3 minutes. In fact, I read that somewhere (this thread, an article, or on the Jeopardy! contestants’ Facebook page) that at some point they increased the rehearsal time so that newcomers have more time to get used to the button.
This is also a sort of solution, but it likely makes for very bad television.
For one, people at home who can’t read can no longer play along, and even those who can read are not going to like Alex constantly getting interrupted. For two, the expected value of buzzing in early is pretty high, which means you’ll get a lot more people buzzing in and guessing at the question, which seems like an adjustment in the wrong direction. It makes being quick on the buzzer even more relevant!
I’ve never been on Jeopardy, but I’ve participated in other quiz contests. The one I was in, you could buzz in at any time. A lot of times, I got to a point where I decided that I was capable of answering the question quicker than I actually figured out the answer. So I buzzed in before I knew the answer, and then finished figuring it out in the time it took the moderator to call on me.
Usually, when I decided I was capable of answering the question, I was right. Usually. But it’s still going to lead to more wrong answers.
Was there an advantage to buzzing in first in those contests? Or was it like my suggestion where everyone who buzzes in before some threshold time gets an equal chance?
If the first, I agree that there’s an incentive to buzz in earlier. You should buzz in as soon as you think your chance of being right is good enough to risk it. And you will be wrong more.
If you can buzz in later with no penalty, then why not wait until closer to the limit to see if you actually figure it out?
There is some of this in Jeopardy already. Ken Jennings has said that at buzz-time, if you think you’ll be able to come up with the answer, you should buzz in. You do have a few seconds to think before the timer runs out. It’s not clear to me how allowing earlier buzz-ins, but not privileging them over later buzz-ins, will lead to people to prematurely buzz in.
Does any contest anywhere do this?
No, it appears to be an original idea, and a very good one at that.
Excellent point, well done. Random selection it is.
Yeah, I was in Knowledge Bowl in high school (got to be on local TV even), and we could buzz in at any point and the questioner would stop reading and let you take a crack at it.
I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t want a dice roll added to Jeopardy. I mean sure, you could run a game like that and it might be fun but I don’t want a game I enjoy watching being fundamentally changed like that.
And if you want that fairness, why have a buzzer at all? Just have all the contestants answer all the questions every time. Let them avoid penalty by writing “pass”.
But what if the clue is “this is the only thing one should do when in the leftmost lane of a freeway.”
Ok, they avoid penalty by writing “:(”.
Yeah, buzzer skill (however that manifests) is in fact one of the skills inherent to Jeopardy (or other quiz shows). I don’t see a problem with leaving it in the game.
I find buzzer skill to be the least interesting part of Jeopardy, and even actively irritating when you can see and hear contestants hammering away at their buzzer to no avail.
Note that it wouldn’t change anything at all for the home viewer, or even really the contestants themselves. Alex asks a question, one of the podiums lights up, that person chooses an answer. How the determination is made right now is already essentially a black box.
Nobody is excited by buzzer skill but you need a way to see who answers. I personally find some random selection to be quite lame.
It’s kind of random right now.
This. Kind of hard to believe anyone appreciates this aspect. Takes all kinds, I guess!
Disagree. The current system is the best of all the possible (flawed) solutions. Seeing the other contestants “hammering away” let’s me know they they at least thought they also knew the answer.
I read an interview somewhere online with James where he said he had constructed a buzzer at home (with electronics and duct tape) so he could practice. This is an option to all contestants. They all talk about practicing and studying the knowledge part, maybe they should also practice the hand-eye part.
Ken Jennings practiced with a clicky-pen.
Jeopardy is a great game and a great show, and changing it risks screwing something up.
You can’t do nearly as many questions if they’re writing down answers.
Clearly they should if they want to be really successful.
This might be a thing that’s pretty hard to practice effectively. Ken Jennings describes it as not actually reacting to the light coming on, but anticipating when the light will come on based on when Alex finishes reading the question. Practicing with a buzzer at home isn’t going to replicate that, which is why returning champions do have a real edge.
All the posters who want to make Jeopardy ‘fairer’ remind me of Peter King and his ilk wringing their hands over making NFL overtime ‘fairer’. First it was if the team that wins the coin toss, gains 20-30 yards (depending on the kick-off return) and kicks a field goal, they win. This was seen as unfair to the loser of the coin toss. The rule was changed so that the initial possession must result in a touchdown for the winner of the coin toss to win. Now, if a team wins the coin toss, drives for a touchdown and wins the game, it is seen as unfair to the loser of the coin toss, as they never got to possess the ball. When will it end?
Is there a reason we shouldn’t try to make games better or more fair?
I understand the people who think that this change will make the game worse. I disagree, but it’s a matter of opinion.
I’m not sure I understand the argument that it’s bad to try to improve games. The rules of games change over time. Ideally, they change in a way that makes them better in some way. This is a change that I think will make Jeopardy better (in the sense that Jeopardy is a trivia contest, so removing aspects of the game that influence winning that aren’t based on trivia is an improvement).
Like, imagine (although it’s silly) that instead of pressing a button in your hand, you had to sprint across the studio to hit the button. Obviously, being able to sprint quickly would be a part of the game. And I can imagine people saying, hey, Sprint-Jeopardy is both a physical and mental challenge. People can practice answering questions, but they’ve also got to be in peak physical shape. And, honestly, from a certain perspective, the running/trivia biathlon actually seems like kind of a cool contest. Well-rounded dominance. Maybe there should be more of a physical component. Maybe a game that was half Jeopardy and half American Gladiators would be an even better game show!
Is anyone actually making that argument for Jeopardy? Do you really like that “pressing a button quickly after a light comes on” is a valuable part of the contest? Should we make reaction time more relevant, or does Jeopardy have the exact correct balance of reaction time/trivia knowledge?
I am pretty suspicious of a claim that reaction time should be part of the contest, but that we shouldn’t increase its value; it’s exactly the right amount right now. Sounds like just status quo bias.