There have been a couple of cases on Jeopardy and Millionaire where a contestant came back after a flawed question, I believe. And then there’s the case of Rick Rosner, who unsuccessfully sued Millionaire over a flawed question regarding elevation of capital cities.
OttoDaFe is correct, the question specifically referenced a child, but it was a terrible Final Jeopardy question, in that it was worded so poorly (not the subject matter). I remember noticing at the time that Alex even seemed to have trouble parsing the question when he read it.
See, this is interesting. If that $100 question was, say, the first question of the game, it could have implications through the whole game. The person who lost that money might tend to change his actions (bidding on Daily Doubles, deciding whether or not to ring in on questions) as opposed to if he had won that money. It’s hard to tell when $100 really matters.
Now, if it’s near the end, I would agree that it wouldn’t matter.
A bunch of my American History geek friends and I really think that the Final Jeopardy today 7/13/09 was not only inappropriate for a kids week but just plain wrong. The answer was: In this war, the area that became Indiana was acquired.
All the kids got the “incorrect” answer, which made the far in front favorite lose. Alex said it was “The American Revolution”. Well, that is really debatable in history circles. The Continental Congress negotiated with Britain for some land in Indiana but the land had never been truly owned by Britain and had always been in dispute with the tribes. The possible answers could have been: “Old Northwest Indian War”, “The Ohio Indian War”,“Miami Campaign”,“War for the Ohio River Boundary”, or just plain “Indian Wars”.
So one kid who probably is pretty good in American History bet according to conventional wisdom, #2 kid bet a paltry sum, and they all got it wrong, so #1 kid loses the whole thing.
What is that kid supposed to do? I think Jeopardy should really “do the right thing” when kids are involved!
I completely disagree. Since the only contestant who gets money from Jeopardy is the winner, the only thing that matters is how the contestants’ scores are relative to each other. Thus, in your scenario, the show is being unfair to the contestant who actually got the answer right.
Incidentally, I will have to defer to you as to what the show’s actual practice is, as I haven’t watched it regularly for years.
Nitpick: Every contestant who appears on Jeopardy gets money. The only one who gets what he actually won is the winner. The other two get smaller, fixed amounts, in addition to whatever parting gifts are involved.
Very good. My point about the contestants caring about their scores relative to each other still stands, though. Also, the winner gets to play again, which is definitely worth money.
Regarding yesterday’s (Monday) kids game, the question was along the lines of “what holiday was commemorated by a stamp of Whistler’s Mother”, with the answer being “what is Mother’s Day” (which no kid answered, though one or two got wrong).
I object on the grounds that Mother’s Day isn’t a “holiday”, either technically nor in common parlance (at least, not in my circles).
Back in 1980, I appeared on a college TV quiz show. One of the questions was “Who is the only American President to have been impeached?” We said Andrew Johnson. And we were told the correct answer was Andrew Jackson.
After the show my team protested this point but we were told that the ruling of the judges was final even if they were factually wrong. I’m guessing Jeopardy has a similar rule in effect.
Nope. I was on Jeopardy! in 2000, came in second, and was awarded only the parting gift shown. The show does this to encourage betting on the final clue and on Double Jeopardy questions.
In addition to this, hotel, airfare and meal costs to appear on the show are the responsibility of the contestant. Had I come in third place (which was likely - I only pulled out second because I was the only one who got Final Jeopardy right) I would have lost money on the deal.
This changed in 2002, precisely to deal with the issue that you mentioned (losing money for appearing). This has led to situations where the third place finisher ends up making more money on a particular show than the winner.
Consider me educated. I was not aware of this.
I have to say I wasn’t disappointed too much with the outcome in my situation - second place for me was a week’s vacation in Puerto Rico, and my wife and I wound up using this as our honeymoon.
Well, the right thing would be to not have them on at all. It’s for grownups. Let the brats play on some Nickelodeon quiz show or someplace where wrong answers earn a shower of green slime.
AuntiePam said:
Unfortunately, a situation like this is impossible to judge without knowing the actual “answer”. Usually the specific wording of the answer specifies something significant. It doesn’t matter if the meaning is similar if the answer specifies something about a reference to physical abuse, or a small child, or something unique to the phrase origin.
It would be fair to say that “car” and “automobile” are synonymous, but if the answer refers to “this 10 letter word”, then “car” is not correct.
Honestly, even if the answer Trebek gave was wrong, I don’t see why they would have the contestant back. The contestant didn’t actually give an answer. Therfore, the situation would probably be the same if Trebek had given a different answer.
So is the Wikipedia entry on Indiana wrong when it says “At the conclusion of the French and Indian War and one hundred years of French rule, the region came under the control of the Kingdom of Great Britain”?
The Four Horsemen ride, the Seven Seals are broken, the Midgard Serpent is set loose, and Huitzilopochtli devours the world.
Wikipedia is often wrong when no source is given, so it wouldn’t surprise me. A lack of source usually means that no one actually did research, and merely gave what was considered common knowledge. If that common knowledge is disputed in a reputable source (and I assume U.S. History experts wouldn’t say it unless it was), then it falls afoul of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View Policy, and is, therefore, wrong.
This is the case for the answer in question. It was about the origin of the term.
- the origin of Patsy isn’t really known, but that definitely isn’t that.
(No, I didn’t remember it, specifically, I went to J-Archive.)
“Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz, and Lucille LeSueur.”
“Who are three people who have never been in my kitchen?”
“I’m sorry, that’s absolutely wrong. The correct response is, ‘What were the real names of Cary Grant, Tony Curtis, and Joan Crawford?’.”
“Be that as it may, Alex, those people have never been in my kitchen.”