Re: COUNTDOWN 30TH CHAMPIONSHIP
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:10 pm
Is there a prize for the winner of this?
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
Well, the winner of the Supreme Championship in 1996 got a trip to Paris to see a recording of Des chiffres et des lettres and a nice glass trophy.JackHurst wrote:Is there a prize for the winner of this?
If that's the case, I might just lose my first game.James Robinson wrote:Well, the winner of the Supreme Championship in 1996 got a trip to Paris to see a recording of Des chiffres et des lettres and a nice glass trophy.JackHurst wrote:Is there a prize for the winner of this?
So, it might be something on a similar line............
No problem, thanks for your work on the player stats, made things a lot easierGraeme Cole wrote:Like. Many thanks for taking the time to put that together, Michael.
"Cue an idiotic scene when trying to pick the numbers"?Rhys Benjamin wrote:WARNING: THIS LINK CONTAINS SPOILERS.
Updated with today's game. Great game but this is a tad harsh, and I'm not that much of a cad!
http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... -boom.html
This should read: " ".James Robinson wrote:
Oh yeah - and the players' scores are also in this new format.James Robinson wrote:WOW, Amazing pic thanks to Mark Foster's Twitter feed.
Look behind Rachel and Mark, CECIL (or should it now be CECIS) has been given a MEGA-MAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/MarkFosterSwim/stat ... 0919772162
Crikey, so the old "calculator style" heritage is being to bed then after next week.Jon O'Neill wrote:Oh yeah - and the players' scores are also in this new format.James Robinson wrote:WOW, Amazing pic thanks to Mark Foster's Twitter feed.
Look behind Rachel and Mark, CECIL (or should it now be CECIS) has been given a MEGA-MAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/MarkFosterSwim/stat ... 0919772162
Didn't know that - pretty interesting! I actually think they're an improvement.Innis Carson wrote:This wasn't done out of choice - during rehearsals they found that the old 7-segment displays that used to display the scores and numbers targets didn't work properly in the new Mediacity studios, so they had to improvise with monitors. They're not too bad-looking really, I'm sure everyone will get used to them quickly.
There's stuff in the background?James Robinson wrote:WOW, Amazing pic thanks to Mark Foster's Twitter feed.
Look behind Rachel and Mark, CECIL (or should it now be CECIS) has been given a MEGA-MAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/MarkFosterSwim/stat ... 0919772162
Don't forget to look at Rachel too, she's hot in that photo.Jon Corby wrote:There's stuff in the background?James Robinson wrote:WOW, Amazing pic thanks to Mark Foster's Twitter feed.
Look behind Rachel and Mark, CECIL (or should it now be CECIS) has been given a MEGA-MAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/MarkFosterSwim/stat ... 0919772162
This. The previous day Innis described them to me as "cartoony", and so I feared the worst and thought they might have used pink Comic Sans on a lime green background. But it's just the same font, style and colour as the letter and number cards. It's been done well, and I got used to it very quickly.Andy Platt wrote:I hated them for about 2 minutes, then I quite liked them.
Typical British traditionalism kicking in a couple of minutes before logic and reason then.
Do you not realise some of the stuff you say is offensive?Rhys Benjamin wrote:WARNING: SPOILERS IN THE LINK.
Updated with today's game. POTENTIAL SPOILERS: It just seems tense reading it back. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... -boom.html
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Because they're in a particular studio, a certain display won't work? Three doors down and it's fine - this isn't mobile phone reception we're talking about!Innis Carson wrote:This wasn't done out of choice - during rehearsals they found that the old 7-segment displays that used to display the scores and numbers targets didn't work properly in the new Mediacity studios, so they had to improvise with monitors. They're not too bad-looking really, I'm sure everyone will get used to them quickly.
It probably comes down to something tiny but essential. If I had to guess, I'd plump for this: those old displays that they must have used for about 10 years probably have RS-232 serial port connectors, and the trendy, shiny new MeDiaCiTYuK doesn't have a single computer in it that's old enough to have a serial port.Gavin Chipper wrote:This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Because they're in a particular studio, a certain display won't work? Three doors down and it's fine - this isn't mobile phone reception we're talking about!Innis Carson wrote:This wasn't done out of choice - during rehearsals they found that the old 7-segment displays that used to display the scores and numbers targets didn't work properly in the new Mediacity studios, so they had to improvise with monitors. They're not too bad-looking really, I'm sure everyone will get used to them quickly.
Yes, I know what satirical means. Yes, I do use it.Jennifer Steadman wrote:Rhys - if you don't know what 'satirical' means, don't use it.
Yeah, Damian said it was something to do with connectors. Basically, they can't plug them in.Graeme Cole wrote:It probably comes down to something tiny but essential. If I had to guess, I'd plump for this: those old displays that they must have used for about 10 years probably have RS-232 serial port connectors, and the trendy, shiny new MeDiaCiTYuK doesn't have a single computer in it that's old enough to have a serial port.Gavin Chipper wrote:This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Because they're in a particular studio, a certain display won't work? Three doors down and it's fine - this isn't mobile phone reception we're talking about!Innis Carson wrote:This wasn't done out of choice - during rehearsals they found that the old 7-segment displays that used to display the scores and numbers targets didn't work properly in the new Mediacity studios, so they had to improvise with monitors. They're not too bad-looking really, I'm sure everyone will get used to them quickly.
(I don't know the actual reason. This is probably completely wrong.)
Actually, it's completely right ! 100%.Graeme Cole wrote: It probably comes down to something tiny but essential. If I had to guess, I'd plump for this: those old displays that they must have used for about 10 years probably have RS-232 serial port connectors, and the trendy, shiny new MeDiaCiTYuK doesn't have a single computer in it that's old enough to have a serial port.
(I don't know the actual reason. This is probably completely wrong.)
Can you make it so the the latest game always goes to the top? It's a pain having to scroll through all of them every time a new game happens.Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?
You've spelt RIGOROUS wrong.Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?
And HEPARIN.Kirk Bevins wrote:You've spelt RIGOROUS wrong.Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?
I'm afraid I can't do that.Thomas Carey wrote:Can you make it so the the latest game always goes to the top? It's a pain having to scroll through all of them every time a new game happens.Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?
I know, it was supposed to be an annoying pun.Kirk Bevins wrote:You've spelt RIGOROUS wrong.Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?
LOLSATIRERhys Benjamin wrote:I know, it was supposed to be an annoying pun.Kirk Bevins wrote:You've spelt RIGOROUS wrong.
LITERALS for eight?Jon Corby wrote: LOLSATIRE
Out of interest, is CECIL simply wired up to a new display, or is it a new random number generator altogether? It's probably too early to draw any meaningful statistical significance (Raccoon Boy?) but of the 12 games so far this week, 6 have been in the 300s, with 5 in the upper half (315,356,379,381,381,396). COUNTDOWN ROCKED BY 'FIX' SCANDAL?Countdown Team wrote:Actually, it's completely right ! 100%.Graeme Cole wrote:(I don't know the actual reason. This is probably completely wrong.)
Fixed that for you.Jon O'Neill wrote:Daily Mirror
The trouble with any sort of viewing figures analysis is that it's tough to isolate the positive or negative effect of this tournament from the impact of the show being moved to 2.40pm. Is this data (easily) available?David Williams wrote:This maybe belongs in a viewing figures thread, or even in the coincidences one.
I didn't tell anyone other than family that I was on last week. And in that week the only person who has mentioned seeing me is someone who was recording it every day because their husband knows Dave Hoskisson, but didn't know when he was on. I've been to a chess club with about forty people there who all know me at least by sight, I've spoken to a dozen or so people at a football match who each know other people who know me, I've been on a walk with a dozen people who know me very well. Add that to other friends who I'd have expected to get in touch if they'd seen me, and you're probably talking of a hundred people of mainly similar age and disposition to me, plus their immediate families. And not one of them saw Countdown last Thursday.
I'd be very surprised if David's experience is due to the fact that this is a champions' series. In fact, quite a few of the games have been at a fairly "normal" standard anyway (albeit the higher end of normal), and it's only as we move through the tournament that this will change.Conor wrote:The trouble with any sort of viewing figures analysis is that it's tough to isolate the positive or negative effect of this tournament from the impact of the show being moved to 2.40pm. Is this data (easily) available?David Williams wrote:This maybe belongs in a viewing figures thread, or even in the coincidences one.
I didn't tell anyone other than family that I was on last week. And in that week the only person who has mentioned seeing me is someone who was recording it every day because their husband knows Dave Hoskisson, but didn't know when he was on. I've been to a chess club with about forty people there who all know me at least by sight, I've spoken to a dozen or so people at a football match who each know other people who know me, I've been on a walk with a dozen people who know me very well. Add that to other friends who I'd have expected to get in touch if they'd seen me, and you're probably talking of a hundred people of mainly similar age and disposition to me, plus their immediate families. And not one of them saw Countdown last Thursday.