Only Connect Page 48

Quote: Rood Eye @ 12th November 2018, 8:06 PM

I was, however, surprised to see a connections answer deemed correct when given after the third clue - despite the fact that, although it applied to the first three clues, the given connection did not apply to the fourth clue.

Surely, in order to be correct, a connection must apply to all four clues?

View original

Yes I thought that too. Surely that's the risk of gambling at an early stage. To take it to its natural conclusion, you could give an answer after the first clue and it must always be deemed correct.

Quote: Billy Bunter @ 12th November 2018, 9:32 PM

Surely that's the risk of gambling at an early stage.

View original

Yes, until tonight I (and I think millions of other people) thought there was a danger in buzzing too soon in case the connection you'd spotted between the clues so far revealed was not continued in the subsequent clue(s).

Strangely (one might even say ridiculously), contestants are now in a situation where their chance of getting the answer right reduces with every clue revealed because, clearly, there are more connections between the first two clues than there are between the first three, and more between the first three than there are between all four.

I think almost every OC viewer has witnessed lots of occasions upon which a contestant has seen a clue revealed and immediately slammed down on the buzzer in a manner clearly suggesting that it confirmed a possible connection put into their mind by preceding clues. On the basis of tonight's strange ruling, they had absolutely no reason to wait for any confirmation if they'd already spotted a connection between the clues already revealed.

I find it almost impossible to believe that tonight's ruling was in line with official OC policy.

I heard the OC rules were to the left of cricket and the right of Mornington Crescent?

The two question editors who wrote themselves into the closing banter should be ashamed of that foods named after famous people question. Either all Italians or all different nationalities.

Quote: Kenneth @ 13th November 2018, 11:07 AM

The two question editors who wrote themselves into the closing banter should be ashamed of that foods named after famous people question. Either all Italians or all different nationalities.

View original

As I have mentioned this in the past, dare I take it from that you remembered what I said here previous? It is one of the VERY ANNOYING unwritten rules that the connections should be ALL the same or all different.

I am spitting nails over this and have emailed the "main" editor you had a dig at to see what he has got to say about it as I have lost track of the ones I have sent in that flouted "their rules", and I emphasise the "their" as I also notice that one of the past editors has also appeared as a question setter - that's the second one. Jobs for the boys?

I'll let you know what he has to say about it.

I thought that one was going to ruffle a few feathers here

On a side note - why do they regularly buzz in with 2 seconds to go while clearly having no idea of an answer? You don't know then you don't know. No shame in that. Buzz in and pluck a word out of the ether and you look a wally.

Apart from the wrongness in principle of allowing an answer that was correct in respect of all the clues visible at the time of buzzing but incorrect in respect of clues yet to be revealed, the practical consequence of allowing that answer is that the Time Ladies won the contest - whereas they would have lost had their answer to the "eponymous foods" question been disallowed.

Quote: Rood Eye @ 13th November 2018, 5:51 PM

Apart from the wrongness in principle of allowing an answer that was correct in respect of all the clues visible at the time of buzzing but incorrect in respect of clues yet to be revealed, the practical consequence of allowing that answer is that the Time Ladies won the contest - whereas they would have lost had their answer to the "eponymous foods" question been disallowed.

View original

Although, to be fair, the other team had a similar situation in the sequences round when, after the clues "Room 5" & "Give it 4%", they gave the answer "France 2" (ie adding 96 to the decreasing numbers in the clue), which was accepted by Victoria. However, once clue 3 was revealed as "Turn the volume up to 3", clearly that didn't work. The answer was actually "(eg) Starter for 2" - something to do with binary misreadings - didn't understand it.

Quote: Billy Bunter @ 13th November 2018, 6:50 PM

Although, to be fair, the other team had a similar situation in the sequences round when, after the clues "Room 5" & "Give it 4%", they gave the answer "France 2" (ie adding 96 to the decreasing numbers in the clue), which was accepted by Victoria. However, once clue 3 was revealed as "Turn the volume up to 3", clearly that didn't work. The answer was actually "(eg) Starter for 2" - something to do with binary misreadings - didn't understand it.

View original

I understand what you're saying Billy, but the situation is not at all similar because when you add 96 to "Turn the volume up to 3", you get "Turn the volume up to 99" and, by pure chance, many hi-fi amplifiers and receivers have numerical volume-displays that read from 0 to 99.

Accordingly, by adding 96 to the numbers in all the clues, you do get four meaningful expressions as a result and the sequence is, therefore, a sound one.

Since the words "many a mickle makes a muckle" is also a meaningful expression I don't think meaning is enough! It's got to be well used for a start, hasn't it?

Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 13th November 2018, 8:41 PM

I don't think meaning is enough! It's got to be well used for a start, hasn't it?

View original

I see your point but adding 96 to the numbers in the clues does result in four expressions that are used in English. The sequence produced by that rule is, therefore, a sequence, albeit not a particularly fascinating one.

You could argue that they were lucky to have that answer allowed and I wouldn't disagree with you. However, I would maintain that allowing the answer was not outrageous.

In stark contrast, I would most certainly argue that allowing the answer given in the "eponymous foods" question was utterly outrageous.

Quote: Rood Eye @ 6th November 2018, 12:10 PM

Edgar Allan Poe

HG Wells

Albert Einstein

Jesse James

View original

A month ago, I posted the above connections question and, on last night's show, there was a connections question in which the answer too was "they all married their first cousins".

The only one of my clues (above) included in the show was Albert Einstein but Victoria was kind enough to say that HG Wells and Edgar Allen Poe were also members of that same slightly incestuous group.

Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 20th November 2014, 8:02 PM

Warning, they do have sports questions...

View original

Memo to the producers of Only Connect: Stop the two question editors from shoehorning their names into Victoria's opening and closing banter. It's cringe-worthy and lame. No one gives a f**k who they are. The jokey references to them are neither clever nor amusing. Every time their names are mentioned it's like the show is being shat on. If they are so desperate for glory, put them in a little sound-proof, and preferably air-proof, adjudication box.

Quote: Kenneth @ 30th January 2019, 12:00 PM

Memo to the producers of Only Connect: Stop the two question editors from shoehorning their names into Victoria's opening and closing banter. It's cringe-worthy and lame. No one gives a f**k who they. The jokey references to them are neither clever nor amusing. Every time their names are mentioned it's like the show is being shat on. If they are so desperate for glory, put them in a little sound-proof, and preferably air-proof, adjudication box.

View original

Totally agree, this week especially was toe-curling embarrassment. Presumably it's meant to amuse but to whom - the TV audience? The panellists? Victoria? Finishes up falling flat on its face and annoying to boot.

I expect "The Clique", as I like to call them, and writes this guff presumably, thinks it's f**king hilarious.