QB classification test?

[quizzical1]

Make a test based on category, captain, generalist, buzz confidence, and that sort of thing

ab cd efgh

a and b = top 2 categories (art, myth, science, etc.)
c and d = rate how good with top 2 categories (c -> a, d -> b)
e = confident with captain (c = yes, n = no)
f = generalist or specialist (g = gen., s = spec.)
h = confident with buzzing a lot or not (c = yes, n = no)
g = 1-5 with each (1-5 works in reverse with n, 1 means never touching a buzzer)

How can I improve?

[Good Goblin Housekeeping]

what?

[Vainglorious yet Victorious]

In what direction would you want to improve?

[Stained Diviner]

Do mods still have to approve the first ten posts that a person makes?

[Vainglorious yet Victorious]

I believe so, yes.

[a Joe]

I actually get what Elliot is doing. He's trying to create a system similar to a Myers-Briggs type indicator to make a general, coded picture of a Quizbowler that, in theory, would tell someone what they need to know about a player very quickly (say, while you're scouting your opponents at Nats). Let's use high-school me as an example:

My top two categories were History and Geography, so ab would be, say, "HG".
I was very good in hist and decent in Geo, so let's say on a scale of one to five, I would be a 4 in history and 3 in geography. So CD would be "43".
I was very confident as captain, so e would be "C".
I was a generalist, so f would be "G".
I was confident, so H would be "C".
Not sure what he's talking about with g, so let's just say 3 for the example.

My Quizbowl Classification, under this system, would then be HG-43-CG3C.

Now, I don't think this is a particularly good idea for a simple reason: every player is much more nuanced than any code or number could provide, and everyone has their own quirks and idiosyncrasies that cannot be captured via coding like this. Reducing people to numbers generally isn't a good plan in general, and it probably won't tell you much about your opposition anyway.

If you really wanted to do something like this, though, make it half the length.

[bradleykirksey]

Now, I don't think this is a particularly good idea for a simple reason: every player is much more nuanced than any code or number could provide, and everyone has their own quirks and idiosyncrasies that cannot be captured via coding like this. Reducing people to numbers generally isn't a good plan in general, and it probably won't tell you much about your opposition anyway.

1- Good job parsing that! I was super lost!

2- You can, genuinely, make that argument against most personality tests. Still doesn't mean that people don't love them and they have some limited use.

[PadraigF]

I actually get what Elliot is doing. He's trying to create a system similar to a Myers-Briggs type indicator to make a general, coded picture of a Quizbowler that, in theory, would tell someone what they need to know about a player very quickly (say, while you're scouting your opponents at Nats). Let's use high-school me as an example:

My top two categories were History and Geography, so ab would be, say, "HG".
I was very good in hist and decent in Geo, so let's say on a scale of one to five, I would be a 4 in history and 3 in geography. So CD would be "43".
I was very confident as captain, so e would be "C".
I was a generalist, so f would be "G".
I was confident, so H would be "C".
Not sure what he's talking about with g, so let's just say 3 for the example.

My Quizbowl Classification, under this system, would then be HG-43-CG3C.

Now, I don't think this is a particularly good idea for a simple reason: every player is much more nuanced than any code or number could provide, and everyone has their own quirks and idiosyncrasies that cannot be captured via coding like this. Reducing people to numbers generally isn't a good plan in general, and it probably won't tell you much about your opposition anyway.

If you really wanted to do something like this, though, make it half the length.

That's absolutely genius! Thank you so much for sharing that information...

[quizzical1]

I actually get what Elliot is doing. He's trying to create a system similar to a Myers-Briggs type indicator to make a general, coded picture of a Quizbowler that, in theory, would tell someone what they need to know about a player very quickly (say, while you're scouting your opponents at Nats). Let's use high-school me as an example:

My top two categories were History and Geography, so ab would be, say, "HG".
I was very good in hist and decent in Geo, so let's say on a scale of one to five, I would be a 4 in history and 3 in geography. So CD would be "43".
I was very confident as captain, so e would be "C".
I was a generalist, so f would be "G".
I was confident, so H would be "C".
Not sure what he's talking about with g, so let's just say 3 for the example.

My Quizbowl Classification, under this system, would then be HG-43-CG3C.

Now, I don't think this is a particularly good idea for a simple reason: every player is much more nuanced than any code or number could provide, and everyone has their own quirks and idiosyncrasies that cannot be captured via coding like this. Reducing people to numbers generally isn't a good plan in general, and it probably won't tell you much about your opposition anyway.

If you really wanted to do something like this, though, make it half the length.

It would be from 1-10, but still a good idea.
Btw your comments are very insightful. Thank you.

[quizzical1]

Not sure what he's talking about with g, so let's just say 3 for the example.

G is about how confident from 1-5.
If not confident, 5 is not confident at all and 1 is a bit unsure.
If confident, 5 is super confident and 1 is ok confidence.