Why do so few participate in the PM-based quiz?

Personally I do find them typically very difficult! Of course, everyone thinks that a question to which they know the answer is ridiculously easy, and one to which they don't is impossibly hard. I always look at the quizzes in both threads but don't answer very often because I generally don't know the stuff.

I agree that they do have a tendency to over-focus on both Europe and military history, but of course we have a number of posters here who are more interested in other things. I see nothing wrong with people setting quizzes that reflect their own interests, having done a number myself. If someone is taking the time to set the quiz it is really up to them what subject they cover.

In contrast to most people who've answered, I often find the format rather off-putting, especially the pictures. I like seeing the picture questions, and I agree that it's good to have things that aren't just text, but I find them among the hardest of all questions. For example, there are often questions that ask us to identify towns, which seem to me completely impossible - one medieval central European skyline looks much the same as another to me. I particularly wonder how it helps having questions like this in the researchable quiz, because I don't see any way of researching it. Aion's example of the Hess picture makes a lot of sense from the point of view of the researchable quiz, but a lot of them don't, at least to me.

I do think it makes sense to keep the researchable and the non-researchable quizzes separate. I started the former because there was a discussion about how researchable the quiz should be, and since some people seemed to like the idea of researching (because it encouraged them to learn new stuff) while others didn't like it (for fear of turning it into a Google-fest) it made sense to separate them, and then people could do whichever they liked, or indeed both.

It is particuarly important to try to make the questions in the researchable quiz researchable *without* being too easy from a Google point of view. If you look at the first quiz in the researchable thread, which I did, I tried to do this in a number of ways. For example, question 1 has a date and a language, which I thought would give people enough of a clue to start researching, but it doesn't give enough information to get the answer immediately. Number 3 is a picture, of course, but I hoped that it looked sufficiently distinctive for people to be able to make educated guesses and then check them. The same with number 4, an apparently metal Christian symbol. The pictures in number 8 might have been harder, but I anticipated that everyone would get the first one (Hannibal!) and probably the third one (Gordon Brown) and might be able to work out the second one (Robert Johnson - obviously a pre-war blues singer, and he's by far the most famous). Reading up a little on these characters, especially Hannibal and Brown, should give a clue to what the link is, and that would be enough to guess the fourth. I liked question 14 because I basically told everyone how to work out whom the pictures portrayed, so it was simply a matter of looking at the distinctive elements in each one and finding out which saints they are associated with!

So personally, I would like at least the researchable quiz questions to feature a few more clues like this, so that those of us who don't know the stuff will have some idea of where to start looking. I think this doesn't apply so much to the non-researchable quiz, because there you either know it or you don't. Ideally, I suppose the non-researchable quiz would have less obscure questions, for obvious reasons (I wouldn't have expected most people to answer most of the questions in my quiz discussed above if researching hadn't been allowed).
 
1) I hardly ever find questions I can answer anymore without taking a wild guess or researching. Out of the last 2 quizes I was pretty certain of just two answers and could have taken an educated guess at maybe 2 others.
2) I have a strong dislike of researching questions
3) I don't have the time to spend on quizes at present.

This topic comes up a lot and frankly there's no easy solution. You either make them so easy that everyone can take part and then they're no challenge, make them researchable with hints and then it's more about your google skills or stick with the current format and have few participants. You won't ever please everybody.
 
luceafarul said:
- The quizzes are too difficult or focuses on uninteresting topics.

I don't answer most of the time on account of difficulty, but I don't think that's a big problem.

- The format is wrong.

I'm fine with the format.

- It is too Eurocentric.

Also doesn't bother me, though I could see how it would bother others.

One of my personal gripes with it is that they seem to take an awfully long time, often a week and a half or so. I think we could do to cut it down to 4-5 days per quiz. Just my personal opinion.
 
When I introduced this PM-based quiz (they're playing it on another forum and it runs quite well :)), my initial idea was:-

1) maybe 5-8 of the questions shld be those 'easy' questions and the remainder the 'specialist' questions
2) shld be very broad-based
3) participation by anyone is possible and it's all in fun

I guess somewhere along the way, it just evolves... :)

PS I don't participant anymore as I was too busy spamming in (yet) another forum. :ack: And the questions are also mostly beyond me, esp the pix ones.
 
Maybe, we could have a number of different PM quiz threeads-
one Easy, one Intermediate, and One Hard.
We would rely on an honour nsystem for people to keep to the thread of their level, and if they feel mor confident, they can move up?
 
Personally, I don't like the all picture quizzes. IMO it
means one has to be an art expert to be able to answer
the questions.
 
Didn't stop here for month, I guess...

1) It is pretty difficult. No problem IMHO. Especially, it became more difficult and specialized since we simply ran out of easy AND interesting questions.
2) Format is perfect.
3) Eurocentrism...maybe. But, couldn't that simply reflect the fact that most (not all!) History Buffs here are Europeans, or of European descendence?

Why I don't participate (anymore)? No time. New job, new city...
But I still enjoy reading those quizzes and making some short guesses from time to time.
 
Nice to see you again Doc. Congrats on the new job and new city. :)

I should add that even if I don't take part in a quiz, often because of time actually, I do go off and read about matters brought up and am always grateful.
 
I am unashamably classified as a lurker on the PM Quiz.
The quizzes are too difficult or focuses on uninteresting topics.
In general although I find the answers to be a facinating array of many interesting topics I think that they are a little too obscure. Put another way: choose one theme per quiz (military, ancient world, empires, personalities etc.) and make it a bit simpler. Not too simple though since there are other quizzes for that.
- The format is wrong.
The format is great. Flashy is good. Obscure is not good.
- It is too Eurocentric.
Perhaps a little... but given the majority of posters come from these places it is to be expected. If keeping to a specific theme for one quiz and then changing topics for the next quiz, reponses may increase.

The obscurity thing still bothers me. Only a PhD should know everything about nothing and I am sure that we don't need to turn this great quiz into an exercise for the Doctors....
- Other possible reasons which only non-participators know.
Posting the leader board is cool. I like the friendly rivalry that goes on but think that it tends to lead to the counterproductive "too difficult for the dumber kids" syndrome. I haven't had a crack yet because I have only been able to answer fewer than half the questions without resorting to Google. Although many hours have been passed in interesting surfing as a result of the quiz I won't post because I don't think it is a clear representation. Clearly researching is interesting and from a historians POV very important but is it truly a representation of the participants knowledge if they are googling for an answer? If the leader board is a true representation of the knowledge of the participants and not a shining example of a good search engine then I shall join.
 
For me, personally, it is the first option. Maybe it was inevitable once the heavy guns (luceafarul et al) got into the show, but I myself am no historian, nor do I make my living on any moderatly related area. My interest is only that, an interest. So, for the past months or year, there are just too many questions of which I don't have the slightest clue, and now I see that even former habitués like privatehudson are not at ease with it. As he says (I think it was him), a problem is not that questions are too obscure or difficult per se, it is that they are so without giving you a chance to get a grasp at it. Either you know what the hell is being talked about, or more often than not, you will find yourself completely lost, unless you browse your search engine. And that, at least for me, makes all the fun go away (I'm not not really the type of guy for the research quiz).
I believe, though, that it does not have to be this way. The quiz can continue to be interesting, fun and non-trivial without having to resort to a question that exclusevely takes you to a point whether you know a single obscure fact or you don't. The pic questions are a possible step in that direction, but unfortunately they too suffer many times from the problem of picturing precisely obscure places and characters.
I think it would be good if we had more questions that demanded you to associate basic stuff to produce an answer that is not obvious. After all, is that not the basic quality of any good game or quiz: simple rules, simple tasks, simple facts, but non-linear associations of these simple basics?

Oh, the fact that I don't have much free time to spare on CFC at the moment doesn't help either...
 
I would pretty much agree with all of that although the quizzes are always going to either be too easy or too hard for lots of individuals. I guess a similar criticism could be made against the movie stills quiz where pretty much all of them so far have been obscure.
 
I used to participate pretty heavily in the beginning, but have since dropped out. My main problem was actually that it became very Asia-centric.

Once the quiz develops a bias, that bias will replicate itself. Because who will do well on an Asia-centric quiz? People who are into Asian history. And what kind of quiz will they write after they win? An Asia-Centric one.

I maintain that the way to fix the quiz is to add a distribution; that is, mandate that you need x questions on continent y, z questions on continent c, etc. That way, "this quiz is x-centric" is no longer a valid excuse, and broad knowledge across all cultures and continents is rewarded.
 
The quizzes are too difficult or focuses on uninteresting topics.
The quizzes have just the right level of difficulty for me on the whole, but from what I have read so far this seems to be by far the main reason why some people are not participating. But I believe that lowering the difficulty would be a bad idea, as that would make it difficult to seperate out the top competitors. I think that every quiz should contain a few easier and a few harder questions, however none should be completely easy.
The format is wrong.
Since I joined these quizzes a year ago the format has been revolutionised, imo. We have gone from simple text-based question/answer quizzes to a much more complex and exciting format. However, that does not mean that a few questions in a simple style should not still be asked. I think that the quizzes now require much more effort to produce and answer than they used to - but I think it is well worth it, because these quizzes are just so much fun, I even think about the questions when I'm not on CFC sometimes. That's why I think that the format is one of the strengths of our current quizzes.
It is too Eurocentric.
It is Eurocentric, yes. But the majority of posters has already indicated that this is not the problem. I think the quizzes should be Eurocentric in the sense of the word - centered around Europe. The questions can be mainly European, but there should also be questions about other continents and the relationships between them and Europe.
On the whole, I don't think that the number of competitors is too low at the moment. I always had about 10 submittants to my quizzes, and I think that's plenty. Remember, the more participants, the smaller the proportion that will actually ever get to set a quiz.
My conclusion: I think things should be kept the way they are, but keeping in mind the points which were mentioned.
Hornblower said:
If the leader board is a true representation of the knowledge of the participants and not a shining example of a good search engine then I shall join.
Googling or other research is strictly forbidden in the regular PM-based quiz, and I believe that everyone who submits adheres to these rules. Of course, cheating cannot be proven, but I believe that all the regulars here strictly observe the rules.
 
SeleucusNicator said:
I maintain that the way to fix the quiz is to add a distribution; that is, mandate that you need x questions on continent y, z questions on continent c, etc. That way, "this quiz is x-centric" is no longer a valid excuse, and broad knowledge across all cultures and continents is rewarded.
I think placing restrictions like this onto quizmasters is a bad idea. It should be left to the quizmaster's responsibility to come up with a quiz which is balanced in the way I have described (Eurocentric, but not European).
 
Ciceronian said:
I think placing restrictions like this onto quizmasters is a bad idea. It should be left to the quizmaster's responsibility to come up with a quiz which is balanced in the way I have described (Eurocentric, but not European).

Idealistic, but how many will actually comply of their own free will?
 
Maybe one idea would be to rotate the quizmastership not only between the winners. That would provide (even) more diversity and might be an incentive for people to join.

Edit. It would also make restrictions on the content dispensable.
 
While the new format problems aren't a big deal, it was a small issue for me on Aion's last quiz because I was at home (with my parents' infuriatingly slow internet connection) and thus didn't really want to bother downloading the national anthems. Lots of pictures are also a bit troublesome to muddle through there, too.

But I'm back at school now, so it's all good.
 
While we're griping, there's still only one contestant in the researchable quiz.
 
mitsho said:
For me, it's that I
1) don't have the time atm.
2) I would need to guess most things and
3) I'm not really in the mood for researching - if it is even allowed - most of the time.
Exactly the same for me here!

Generaly I have less and less free time to spend on internet (and on this site as well)...
 
Thanks for all the feedback so far.
I really should have addressed some of these posts earlier, but unfortunately the last couple of days have been anything but good for personal reasons.
First a few random comments:
PrinceOfLeigh said:
I don't contribute because it often looks to me like a test to see who is prepared to google for longest rather than who is more knowledgeable.
I don't google. I have no reason to suspect anybody else to google either. I expect and I am pretty sure that all participants respect the rules.

The History Thread appears to be the 'Cut and Posters' paradise. It happens quite a bit on the History threads whereby someone will attempt to win a debate by hitting the other poster with a huge number of figures which I very much doubt they could simply 'know'.
And so what? If you engage in a debate here, which I rarely do myself because I find it too time-consuming and rarely worth it, you have to back up your claims with facts which is not just derived from our head. After all, there is or at least should be, a difference between history and story-telling.
And a historian only rarely possesses the luxury of too many sources.

thetrooper said:
Another point: how many people frequent this part of the forum anyway? I notice the same people every time I visit here (maybe 30-40 different members). I wouldn't call it poor attendance if you get 8-10 participants in a quiz. We could of course make links in our sigs to advertise everywhere we roam.
As far as I can see, this thread is usually looked upon by more than 1000 people.
And I would love to advertise in my sig, but the truth is that I am so computer-challenged that I already had to leave out some of the links I wanted to include.:cry:

nonconformist said:
Maybe, we could have a number of different PM quiz threeads-
one Easy, one Intermediate, and One Hard.
We would rely on an honour nsystem for people to keep to the thread of their level, and if they feel mor confident, they can move up?
And who should decide what is Easy and what is not?

Serutan said:
Personally, I don't like the all picture quizzes. IMO it
means one has to be an art expert to be able to answer
the questions.
No you don't.
Only on a few occasions has the question about the maker of a painting, its title or what artistic school it belongs to been posed. Usually paintings are used for illustrating a person or an event.



Rambuchan said:
I think there is something behind this first part. Quiz masters, in general, are often keen to share / demonstrate their in-depth knowledge on a subject but this often means that the questions are very hard for most folk. Quiz masters should recognise that it's a quiz to which people are supposed to submit answers and in which they should be encouraging folk to participate, not a demonstration of their specialism in a given subject. Just write an article and post a new thread if you want to do something like this. There should always be some easy questions to encourage new folk to get involved, that's not always the case.
I can only speak for myself regarding this, and then I think you are mistaken.
My questions are not intended as self-promotion. Neither are they actually very obscure. just to take two of the topics I often use and which I am relatively knowledgeable about. When I for instance use Mother Jones or Knights of Labour, those are very important topics in labour history.
Admittedly I used the Menstad battle in one quiz, but a central person involved is a very well-known figure.
Or. When I use Christian Cannabich, we are talking about a man who was once one of Europe's most important and influential musicians.
Now you might say that it is the obscurity of the topics that is relevant here. In the first case, see below. In the second, I can't see why music should be les relevent than many other topics.
In both cases I could very easily find some minor events/people if I wanted to demonstrate what a magnificent buff I am.
And finally, I feel that including some topic in a quiz guarantees me more attention than to write an article about it. How many would care about an article about Joe Hill? How many would post? My estimation: about 5, including an one-liner from the resident "village drunk" (You didn't copyright that term, so I am impertinent enough to nick it:p )...
Also, I am not a lean, mean, article-producing machine. This is, on the whole, a nice community. I want to do my share around here.But even an old anarchist refuses to churn out +150 articles a year for no economic compensation.


Well yes. This is a major flaw imo. The cultural and geographical focus (not subject matter) is always very exclusive and confined, especially considering the vast array of expertise from around the world that is on offer in CFC. If you bear in mind what I say to the first point, this need not be the case. If the quiz master doesn't mind NOT indulging themselves and showing their learnedness on a subject, then I don't see why more variety cannot be provided. Quiz masters don't have to demonstrate expertise all the time. So why not put a few easier ones in on areas of the world that you aren't the leading authority on? That would both add variety to the geographical and cultural focus of the questions and also produce some easier questions.
I have given this a lot of thought and I realize that this is valid and important critique. I also think that it is a part of a huger problem complex which is dominant here and indeed many other places, the negligence of huge, important groups in mainstream history.
The key-words are race/culture, gender and class.
To be trivial.
We are all products of our background to a not modest extent.
And.
Most people here come from a European(USA is integrated in this)culture cirle. Most people here are men and boys. Most people belong to the middle or more exactly coordinating class.
Personally, given my background, the third of this gives me most indigestion.
If you go the infested swamp that is OT, you will find a lot of rich statements concerning this.
A recent example: In one thread, one of those I call the usual suspects, this time a certain high-falluted young man from one of the countriest in the former Eastern Bloc, is proposing to take the right to vote from so-called stupid people. With stupid people he evidently mean mostly workers who disagree in tax-cuts for the super-rich and privatization of public services. On another thread a geek-girl proposes political influence based on how much you "contribute" to society.:rolleyes:
Now this is not very brilliant thoughts, by not very brilliant people, and they are certainly not innovative nor new.
Of course, most people on history forum are usually on a much higher level, but we get an indication of what sort of community it is, and given the sociological indicators the great majority possesses, we can't really be surprised that many a quiz will be centered around dead, wealthy, white, men.
I also admit my guilt. I have been to lax or in some cases too sensitive to critique. After receiving some bilt over the fact that I used quite a lot of labour- and social history in my quizzes, I cut down the percentage, probably too much. Recently I have also had too little woman-related topics. And it is true that I have been ignoring geographical/cultural diversity a couple of times.
But then again, given the facts and the reactions on this thread so far, wouldn't this mean that such a quiz might generate much less interest?:crazyeye:

In conclusion: The two biggest reasons I can see are a) Too difficult for your average punter and b) too Eurocentric for the diverse population in CFC.
In conclusion, I disagree with a), I agree, with my modifications added, to b).

My conclusions so far is then:
1.There is disagreement about whether the questions are too difficult or not.I can't see how we can solve this.
2. Most people, but not all, are happy with the format.
3. While most people don't think Eurocenticism is a problem, I personally find it to be a flaw. I also see this as part of a bigger problem.Imposing some sort of restriction may solve this.

Another observation: There could be an idea to introduce some more quizzes, so that this forum could offer some of us the opportunity to hand out information without having to write tons of essays. I for instance, could very well run a Norway quiz, if there is some interest for such a project.
 
Top Bottom