What are clues for?
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:19 pm
I've been thinking about this a lot over the past year, and had a few discussions with people in passing; I'm interested to see what more people think about this topic.
In previous set discussions, I've put forth various versions of this position: "A tossup clue is supposed to be gettable; if you do not think that it is, then don't include it, even if it satisfies every other cluing criterion." Those posts were from the point of view of someone who likes to cultivate narrow but deep specialties. It can be frustrating to have a clue fly over your head (and everyone else's) and then make the mental calculation that you're one clue closer to a buzzer-race. (Obviously it can be nigh-impossible to figure out what people might know about a subject, and just because nobody gets a clue doesn't necessarily mean that it was ill-advised. For instance, given the process he described in the CO thread, I don't think anybody can say that Matt didn't make a good-faith, serious effort to pick clues that people had a real shot at.)
In response, people have posted various versions of "A clue that nobody gets can still be interesting and/or fun to listen to." There are also positions that boil down to "this question is for posterity," i.e. "I think this topic ought to be more well-known in quizbowl, so I feel justified in tossing it up/cluing it even if nobody gets it." Having now written a bunch of questions that probably had ill-advisedly hard (ungettably so) clues in them (especially for VICO), I think I understand these positions a little better...
On top of these three positions ("clues are for people to buzz on," "we all have to listen to these clues," and "clues are studied by future quizbowlers"), there's also the idea that a hard clue can help a knowledgeable player, even if they don't buzz on it.
That's four things that clues can be for: what are some others? For the various kinds of questions, what do people think is the best balance between these approaches? (For instance: how much of a responsibility do high-difficulty editors have to try to make clues gettable by at least someone? How much "interesting/hilarious but ungettable" is OK at regular difficulty and below?)
In previous set discussions, I've put forth various versions of this position: "A tossup clue is supposed to be gettable; if you do not think that it is, then don't include it, even if it satisfies every other cluing criterion." Those posts were from the point of view of someone who likes to cultivate narrow but deep specialties. It can be frustrating to have a clue fly over your head (and everyone else's) and then make the mental calculation that you're one clue closer to a buzzer-race. (Obviously it can be nigh-impossible to figure out what people might know about a subject, and just because nobody gets a clue doesn't necessarily mean that it was ill-advised. For instance, given the process he described in the CO thread, I don't think anybody can say that Matt didn't make a good-faith, serious effort to pick clues that people had a real shot at.)
In response, people have posted various versions of "A clue that nobody gets can still be interesting and/or fun to listen to." There are also positions that boil down to "this question is for posterity," i.e. "I think this topic ought to be more well-known in quizbowl, so I feel justified in tossing it up/cluing it even if nobody gets it." Having now written a bunch of questions that probably had ill-advisedly hard (ungettably so) clues in them (especially for VICO), I think I understand these positions a little better...
On top of these three positions ("clues are for people to buzz on," "we all have to listen to these clues," and "clues are studied by future quizbowlers"), there's also the idea that a hard clue can help a knowledgeable player, even if they don't buzz on it.
That's four things that clues can be for: what are some others? For the various kinds of questions, what do people think is the best balance between these approaches? (For instance: how much of a responsibility do high-difficulty editors have to try to make clues gettable by at least someone? How much "interesting/hilarious but ungettable" is OK at regular difficulty and below?)