I am pretty close to thinking for certain that the people running the show now are tweaking the questions to extend the players hang time.

Maybe they think it generate additional interest and therefore more revenue.

I on the other hand find it boring .
It's not that I dislike the contestants , it's not that

The redundancy is arduous.
We miss you Alex

I agree -- both with the tweaking AND missing you Alex.

Little 'beady-eye' makes me sick. At least the scientist was better than him.

The program has become almost unwatchable. While I enjoy Jennings as a host, the other host truly sucks. Couple this with a couple of strange, multiple show winners, and I’m about done.

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
I am pretty close to thinking for certain that the people running the show now are tweaking the questions to extend the players hang time.

Seems unlikely.

Were that actually happening, somebody would eventually blow the whistle and Jeopardy would lose credibility and a big chunk of audience.

There was an answer, I think it may have been a Final Jeopardy answer, w/in the last couple evenings, for which the question was "What is ``O Canada?``." The current Champion is Canadian. Of course she nailed it. Jennings noted those questions are created and scheduled long before they know who the contestants will be.

quote:

Originally posted by Tinyman:
Little 'beady-eye' makes me sick. At least the scientist was better than him.

Initially I didn't care much for Jennings and kind of liked Bialik. But, since they've been swapping back-and-forth between the two I've reversed my position. I like Jennings well enough and don't care for Bialik much at all.

I am getting tired of seeing these super champs. I read an article from a former 5 + game winning streak who advised that after a few games the returning champion has such an advantage they are almost impossible to beat.

I wish they would limit wins to about 10 or so.

I’m surprised Mayim Bialek is as good as she is. She added a good balance.

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
I’m surprised Mayim Bialek is as good as she is. She added a good balance.

Well, she's no dummy. PhD in neuroscience.

The new Jeopardy producer is Michael Davies, president of Embassy Row. The only reason I know that is because he is co-host of one of my favorite football (read soccer) podcasts.

I'm becoming convinced that the outcomes are fixed.

I like Jennings as host. Mayim is too animated for me. There was a recent woman on a winning streak who irritated me as well with her commentary.

It’s been a known fact they can tweak the questions and also select the new contestants.

^^^^^^^^^^^
IDK I thought that was solved with the 64 thousand dollar question. Huge scandal back then.

quote:

Originally posted by Apphunter:
I am getting tired of seeing these super champs. I read an article from a former 5 + game winning streak who advised that after a few games the returning champion has such an advantage they are almost impossible to beat.

I wish they would limit wins to about 10 or so.

How are they 'impossible to beat?' Even the latest 'super winner' (can't remember his name - James, maybe - the poker player who squinted a lot) was apparently forced into a loss by the show runners because he was winning too much money. Sure, a player may 'get the hang of the show,' and develop confidence and a groove/rhythm, but if they don't know the answers they don't know the answers. Nobody can win unless they (generally) buzz in quicker and answer more questions than the other players.

There are also two elements to winning these kinds of games. I've never made it onto Jeopardy!, but I was on my High School's quiz team for 3 years. One element is, of course, knowing the answer (for example, that Enola Gay dropped the Hiroshima bomb). However, an even more important aspect is knowing that you know the answer. For me, I would buzz in once I knew that I knew the name of the plane (at this point, I might not necessarily remember the exact answer). Then, between buzzing and giving my answer, I would retrieve the information from my long-term memory ("Oh, yeah, it was the Enola Gay!"). So, you had to be both knowledgeable AND fast on the trigger.

I don't see how 5+ game winners gain an insurmountable advantage, since every new show has new categories (I would do GREAT in Military History, The Solar System, and Cat Breeds, but crappy in The Rennaissance, Classic Literature, and Fashion). Winning 5 games does not give you the ability to know more than the other players, UNLESS you already know more than the other players.

I’ve seen the commercials too it’s not her intellect but her presence & personality.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackmore:

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
I’m surprised Mayim Bialek is as good as she is. She added a good balance.

Well, she's no dummy. PhD in neuroscience.

The new Jeopardy producer is Michael Davies, president of Embassy Row. The only reason I know that is because he is co-host of one of my favorite football (read soccer) podcasts.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^^^
IDK I thought that was solved with the 64 thousand dollar question. Huge scandal back then.

IIRC, that involved giving the contestant(s) the answers. When they 'got rid of' James (the guy who was challenging Ken Jennings' winning streak), they didn't 'cheat,' per se. Apparently (and I read this here on the Forum), they had easy questions (out of 60 questions in the first two rounds, only 1 was left un-answered) and they put two contestants in who were really quick on the buzzer. So, they manipulated the field and players in such a way that put James at a disadvantage. I imagine an analogy to this would be having a horse race in the rain, knowing the favored horse is not good with wet tracks, and entering other horses known to be good wet track runners.

Now, I would argue this is blatantly unethical, but doesn't *technically* constitute 'cheating,' according to the standards of the game show business. . .

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
How are they 'impossible to beat?' Even the latest 'super winner' (can't remember his name - James, maybe - the poker player who squinted a lot)...

James Holzhauer.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
... was apparently forced into a loss by the show runners because he was winning too much money.

His last game was definitely strange. I don't know whether they asked him to throw the game or whether he decided enough was enough (there were reports his daughter was upset with her dad being gone so much), but something was clearly up, I thought.

There were other times I got the impression he was purposely laying off so his competitors' weren't totally shut out.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
There are also two elements to winning these kinds of games. ... knowing the answer ... [and] ... knowing that you know the answer.

Plus knowing you know more quickly than do the other contestants.

Take last night's show, for example: There were a lot of "easy," to me, anyway, answers. Yet Mattea got beat on the buzzer time after time. The woman doing most of the winning damn near had a run-away. Even then: Her lead was so great the only way she was going to lose was if she blew Final Jeopardy--which she did. (I was pretty sure I knew that one, too, and I did--though it was more "I think it's ..." than knowing for sure.)

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
I don't see how 5+ game winners gain an insurmountable advantage, since every new show has new categories ...

Yup. And, according to Ken, both categories and answers are chosen for each show long before they even know who the contestants will be.

Yes: They've had an above-average number of Champions this season. They've also had several runs of one hit Champions in a row.

Look: I miss Alex Trebek, too. Yeah, the show just doesn't seem quite the Jeopardy it was with Alex. But it's still good entertainment. And it seems maybe the spate of... *cough* ... "unusual" candidates is over. I hope so. That was truly getting old.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Apparently (and I read this here on the Forum), they had easy questions (out of 60 questions in the first two rounds, only 1 was left un-answered) and they put two contestants in who were really quick on the buzzer. So, they manipulated the field and players in such a way that put James at a disadvantage.

That occurred to me, too. But James was quick on the buzzer, too. So I dunno.

quote:

Now, I would argue this is blatantly unethical, but doesn't *technically* constitute 'cheating,' according to the standards of the game show business. . .

^^^^^^^^
Having a flexible morality always helps.You see this in sports and all aspects of life. The College scandal is a good example of gaining an advantage.

We haven’t watched in quite a long time now. Kind of liked Ken Jennings. Didn’t like watching the show with Bialik. Ultimately, she seemed to take a step back, and didn’t appear very often (I guess she was involved in some controversy too) and Jennings appeared to have landed the job. After that, I don’t know, it gradually became clear that we just didn’t care if we missed it.

After game #1 they know 100 questions that the champion is good at,

After two games they know 24 subjects that the champion is good at and
Which subjects they are dumb at.

After three Wins they know 36 subjects that might favor the champion.
And so on