All mirrors of 2018 ACF Regionals have finished. The packets will soon be posted to the official packet archive (in standard docx format).
In addition, I am temporarily releasing the online packets, which allowed most moderators to track buzz points. Both versions of the set (1/20 and 1/27) are available. This is intended to be a reference tool for the buzz points (for use with the detailed stats). It is not a permanent packet archive; I cannot guarantee how long it will stay up or if it will eventually be posted elsewhere.
Audio of 12 matches at the UIUC site, recorded by Andrew Wang
Audio of 12 matches at the UIUC site, recorded by Tejas Raje
Video of 7 matches at the Virginia site, recorded by me
Thanks to Andrew Wang for letting me accidentally borrow your webcam for so long.
For the slim chance that I post more better-produced quizbowl videos in the future or even live stream myself working on the detailed stats, you can subscribe to my channel.
Detailed stats warm-up survey
I know that many people are eager to see the detailed stats, but it will take a few more days to iron things out. Sorry to disappoint everyone, and thanks for your patience.
However, while I work on preparing them, I would like to invite you all to participate in an informal survey.
I've said before that my priority is to finally make valuable new quizbowl datasets exist. By that, I'm not just talking about fancy numbers like conversions and buzz points. I'm really interested in learning more about the perceptions that players and authors have about quizbowl questions, and I think that addressing this topic is important to the progress of quizbowl.
For a long time, I have wanted to run an experiment before revealing the detailed stats. I don't have a formal survey ready as originally planned, but these are the goals I wanted to accomplish:
- To measure the difference between expectations and reality. How does a question's perceived difficulty compare with conversion? How reliable is players' judgment of the whole set?
This might have taken the form of an exit poll given as a prerequisite to viewers of the detailed stats. For example, you might be asked of a given question: how many 10s/–5s do you think there were? where do you think the first buzz was? where was median/mean buzz location? I would have liked to poll authors too, but naturally they're too busy writing questions. In the future, an "entrance poll" could be integrated into the editing process. Most authors already consider such concerns anyway, but if they made explicit predictions, we could test how well they agree (like I once did for a vanity packet).
- To get people to actually engage with detailed stats. Ask yourself, what questions do you want to have answered? What do you want to get out of them? What will it take for other people to start making them? To be honest, it can be discouraging to release detailed stats and rarely ever receive any germane responses (and to hear that I've ruined tournament experiences by inflicting miserable spreadsheets on people for nothing…). We now have an excellent opportunity for real discourse: more than 500 players and 100 staff took part in ACF Regionals. Many of you wrote questions that made it into the set, which was played in 69 rooms around the world – a historic sample size for detailed stats on the exact same questions. This is our chance to think seriously about what's the big deal with detailed stats before our observations interfere with any relatively unspoiled ideas about them.
As an incentive to participate, email me a good-faith quantifiable prediction by Monday night and I will give the most impressive prognosticators early access to the detailed stats spreadsheets. Please state whether you were a player, moderator, or just an observer; and disclaim whether you have seen any preliminary ACF Regionals detailed stats or have seen detailed stats before.