1. You get to Google during the question, the machine learns how to recreate your Google searches / though process
2. You get guesses from an automated system, you can upvote or downvote what it's thinking
3. You highlight important phrases from the text and perhaps paraphrase them so that it can work better
Anyone else have different flavors? Would anyone be interested in playing such a thing? Presumably it would be read much more slowly than usual.
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
The challenge with this as opposed to chess is that especially with concrete quizbowl clues, I'm not sure what the attraction would be. If both sides can google, the only variable would be computer speed and typing ability. A clue like "This state once featured a campaign slogan, Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard," well, unless you're monumentally bad at searching online, you're both going to produce the same result. I guess it's a little more interesting on more abstract clues which may not so easily be determined by Internet searching, like "In the bottom right hand corner of this painting, a cherub clutches a yellow ball."
I have, however, been interested in at least seeing how a more totally team focused quizbowl match would work, in which conferring is allowed and encouraged at all times, maybe even to the point of reading each clue, giving a few seconds for discussion/conferral, and then moving on, with the teams deciding if they would push the buzzer or not. I don't think I'd like this on a regular basis, but I think it would be an interesting gameplay experience.
Cheynem wrote:The challenge with this as opposed to chess is that especially with concrete quizbowl clues, I'm not sure what the attraction would be. If both sides can google, the only variable would be computer speed and typing ability.
For the sake of argument, let's say that it's a quiz bowl variant where there was pause after each word based on how informative the word is. E.g.,
This state once featured a campaign slogan ...... Vote ... for the Lizard ...... ...... not the Wizard ...... ......
So there's a real challenge to figure out what to search for. But agreed, if there's something like plot descriptions or painting descriptions, it's far less googleable. That would be the more interesting case research-wise. I wonder how much harder it is to write Google-resistant questions.
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
Cheynem wrote:
I have, however, been interested in at least seeing how a more totally team focused quizbowl match would work, in which conferring is allowed and encouraged at all times, maybe even to the point of reading each clue, giving a few seconds for discussion/conferral, and then moving on, with the teams deciding if they would push the buzzer or not. I don't think I'd like this on a regular basis, but I think it would be an interesting gameplay experience.
I agree that this would be fascinating, although you'd have to seat the teams very far from each other (maybe even in different rooms) so that each wouldn't overhear the other.
Andrew Nadig
MannhiemMannheim Manheim Township, 2005-11
Carnegie Mellon University, 2011-15