Are contestants seeded from the beginning of the series?

[Ben Hunter]

It would make sense that the producers of the show would try to keep potential octochamps from meeting in the normal part of the series so that they could amass a nice stock of octochamps for use in the end-of-series knock out tournament. So do the producers try and spot the most talented countdowners in the auditions and then stagger their appearances through out the series so that they are kept apart?

[Charlie Reams]

Yes.

[Dinos Sfyris]

Unless anyone knows different I was told (by Sarah Foulkes I think) that it was just random

[Jon O'Neill]

Lies. Definitely separated.

[Dinos Sfyris]

I figured as much.

[Debbi Flack]

To some extent it depends when they audition. If it is later on then you end up with almost back to back octochamps, like this time. Sarah told me that they do try to keep them relatively separate where possible.

[Gavin Chipper]

Are contestants told of their "seeding" - that they've done well in the audition and may be kept apart from other good players?

[Jon O'Neill]

No, I think it's a sort of semi-secret, like the way they space the letters to stop three of the same thing coming up in the same round.

[Julian Fell]

Hmm... this is interesting, especially the categorical way Charlie and Jono replied (as usual, I'm not sure to what extent they're taking the piss...)

Around the time I was on - especially following the neverending run of octochamps in series 47 - people were making this same claim, that the producers noted the best participants from the auditions and then deliberately kept them apart in the recordings. But Damian always vehemently denied this, saying that there were rarely any standout performers in auditions (Scott Mearns being the one exception) and so such an exercise would be pointless. And I believed him; certainly, I didn't score particularly well at my audition. Has he changed his tune since then?

[Howard Somerset]

I'm sure I've seen a post by Damian in a much older yahoo group, not the one that fathered this forum, in which he said that the players who stand out in auditions are definitely separated in the preliminary rounds.

[Ben Wilson]

I've seen posts from Damian stating it both ways- that contestants aren't seeded in the heats by ability, but earlier he stated that certain contestants are given priority placement- often (at least in times gone by) at the start of a series (think Allan Saldanha, definitely Scott Mearns, Tom Hargreaves, and (almost) Conor). It's probably something that's evolved and changed loads over the years.

[Damian E]

Lets rewind please - the question was "Are contestants seeded from the beginning of the series?" - the answer to that is an emphatic NO. We need approx 110 contestants for a series, and we find them as we go along. We do not have the whole 110 in place prior to recording the first show - so its impossible to seed them.

Having said that, if someone terrific comes along and then somebody else terrific comes along, it would be madness to put them up against each other in a preliminary game. Imagine a heat game featuring Chris Wills v Conor Travers, it would be ridiculous.

Over a series, we MIGHT get 2 people who pass the audition with distinction. These two people will be kept apart deliberately. The rest of the contestants are put together totally randomly, and from these, we still get Octochamps and series winners.

No, I think it's a sort of semi-secret, like the way they fix the letters.

Thanks for that Jono. All the new potential visitors to this site, who don't know you or your dry humour, will now be wondering what on earth is going on. I give up.

[Matthew Green]

It is an entertainment show above all. There's no way they would want to have put Kai against Junaid (who probably would have beat him) when people will love watching an 11yr old and all the media coverage that comes with it.

[Mike Brown]

Thanks for that Jono. All the new potential visitors to this site, who don't know you or your dry humour, will now be wondering what on earth is going on. I give up.

This raises a very interesting point, I think. Should we now be extra-careful what is said on C4C, because of its effect on the show? I don't really know, to be honest. Things are inevitably going to be said that are not liked by everybody and the more members and visitors that come, the more likely it is that this sort of issue will arise. I suppose this is one of the reasons why I try to be careful about what is published on The Countdown Page - with the Web, you never know who is reading, and it's so easy to forget when we're on here that it's not just a private conversation in a dark corner of a pub.

As for Jono's comment, maybe I should point out to passing readers that the letters have been sorted to some extent in the past to prevent all instances of the same letter from coming up in the same round by spreading them throughout the pack (I suspect this practice has now been discontinued or relaxed somewhat, as we often seem to get doubles these days - in fact, I vaguely recall a post by Damian to this effect some time ago, but maybe I'm dreaming), but they're certainly not rigged per se to produce high-scoring words.

[Ben Wilson]

Maybe we just need a disclaimer, 'all views expressed in these posts are those of the sarky git who posted it and not those of c4c in general, and definitely not Damo's, Granada's or Channel 4's.'

[Charlie Reams]

I watched the "letter fixing" process first hand about 6 weeks ago. It's not truly random, because the letters are picked from piles by hand with only a limited amount of shuffling, but the fixing doesn't seem to go much beyond preventing the really nasty letters appearing next to each other (and even that will sometimes get through the net.) So if anything the letters on apterous/CountGen are probably a bit nicer than they should be.

[Damian E]

The instructions given to the studio floor, are and always have been, that the letters are shuffled after every show.

I think the term shuffle lends itself to the image of someone with a pack of cards, but obviously the Countdown letters are far too big and heavy to do that kind of shuffle with, so instead they are thrown around randomly into different piles, face up, so we are sure the letter isnt rotated 90 degrees or upside down when its selected from the vowel or consonant box.

Whilst i concede with Charlie that it may not be 'truly' random, its as random as it could possibly be, and any suggestion that we or anyone else has a clue what words will come out during the course of the show, as a result of this method of shuffling, its total and utter bollocks. Using the word 'fixed' opens up all kinds of unsavoury thoughts about what goes on behind the scenes, when in actual fact, nothing inappropriate takes place.

At the risk of boring you to death, i'll go one step further to clarify. After each letters game, the 9 letters used are removed and KEPT together. So after all 11 letters games are played, we'll have 11 piles of 'used' letters. Then, if we need to do a retake of a letters selection, which is pretty common, (it could be Carol's mike rustling, her bracelet thumping against the chrome on the letters board, a contestant taking WAY to long in between each choice, or a cougher in the audience) then we can quickly get those relevant letters back and reshoot the selection without too much time delay.

Once the show is over, those 11 piles are broken down and manually played around with, for want of a better term, in order to split them up from how they have just been. If we put them back as they were, then the following show, you would get all the same rounds and same words coming out. This isn't fixing, its rearranging the letters with a view to making another programme. The only game-related thing that we known of in advance before a show starts, is the conundrum. The rest is down to chance.

[Mike Brown]

At the risk of boring you to death, i'll go one step further to clarify.

Don't apologise Damian, us geeks love this kind of stuff!

[Damian E]

MIke Brown said This raises a very interesting point, I think. Should we now be extra-careful what is said on C4C, because of its effect on the show? I don't really know, to be honest. Things are inevitably going to be said that are not liked by everybody and the more members and visitors that come, the more likely it is that this sort of issue will arise.

I don't think so Mike, it wouldn't be fair or welcomed. People should be able to say what they like, but so long as that includes a right to reply from those who make the show. Opinion-based comments are never going to be 100% rosy from our point of view, but if people post factual claims about rigging the contestant running order or fixing the letters, i reserve the right to have a go back and defend the programme.

Has anyone noticed, that we've barely had more than a handful of female quarter-finalists in the last 5 years or so. If we rigged the contestant running order, don't you think we'd have lined up 8 of the worst possible players in history in front of Debbie Flack, in order to get a female octochamp?

Some of you guys need to get real.

[Mike Brown]

I don't think so Mike, it wouldn't be fair or welcomed. People should be able to say what they like, but so long as that includes a right to reply from those who make the show. Opinion-based comments are never going to be 100% rosy from our point of view, but if people post factual claims about rigging the contestant running order or fixing the letters, i reserve the right to have a go back and defend the programme.

Fair comment, Damian. I also realise that in the scheme of things C4C doesn't have a huge influence on the viewing figures, but I'm sure that in general all the web-based stuff that goes on is a positive thing for the programme.

Has anyone noticed, that we've barely had more than a handful of female quarter-finalists in the last 5 years or so. If we rigged the contestant running order, don't you think we'd have lined up 8 of the worst possible players in history in front of Debbie Flack, in order to get a female octochamp?

Sadly, Countdown does attract rather more male contestants, especially at the top end of things, but having said that there have been several women in this series alone who looked like they might put a string of wins together only to bow out after just a couple. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the next female series champion appears.