c4countdown

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:No idea if he's actually recording or whether mine and Oliver's fellow auditionee Ian is having a bit of fun with me. The first recording back is Monday 7th September, where you'll be able to marvel at my unexplainable bouts of shitness.

Oh - are you recording then?

Did we have fun Jeff?

When will you be recording/transmitting Ian, since you were at the same audition is Jeff and Ollie?

You are mean.

Who is mean?

Where is mean?

Why are you being so cryptic Ian?

I just want too know when you're recording/transmitting.

Douglas, you are starting to sound like Jason!

Ian didn't pass the audition; he thinks you knew that and are taking the mick.

Thanks Kirk for clearing that up, Ian I did not know that but sorry if that's how you felt.

Is their a different pass mark at the auditions for different groups? As in because a lot of young males go on the show they have too score higher at the audition. I can't believe Babs Speak got on the show and Ian failed it...

After something of a marathon I'm filming 20th October. It should have been 3rd June, but Jeff got stuck in Dubai when his little one went down with chicken pox and they couldn't fly home (shame). After several false starts it's finally 11:45 on Tue 20/10/09, and I'm cacking my sweet hiney. Any tips, anyone, please?

Yes, enjoy it!

Lesley Hines wrote:Any tips, anyone, please?

Be cool. It's fun.

Still no dates

Oliver Garner wrote:Still no dates

Try approaching less attractive girls, they're usually more compliant.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Oliver Garner wrote:Still no dates

Try approaching less attractive girls, they're usually more compliant.

Very clever
I meant no recording dates.

Lesley Hines wrote:After something of a marathon I'm filming 20th October. It should have been 3rd June, but Jeff got stuck in Dubai when his little one went down with chicken pox and they couldn't fly home (shame). After several false starts it's finally 11:45 on Tue 20/10/09, and I'm cacking my sweet hiney. Any tips, anyone, please?

Speaking from experience, it's not nearly as nerve-wracking as you'd expect it to be, and you barely notice any nerves once you're a couple of rounds in. The production team are great as well, from Jeff and Rachel right down to floor-people etc., and as said before you will genuinely have a cracking time.

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote: . . . my sweet hiney . . .

. . . a cracking time.

Can I see a theme developing here?

Douglas Wilson wrote:
Is their a different pass mark at the auditions for different groups? As in because a lot of young males go on the show they have too score higher at the audition. I can't believe Babs Speak got on the show and Ian failed it...

Could anyone shed any light on this, as i will be applying at some point over the next year or so after practising some more on Apterous. But as a 23 year old male, if i need to be up to the standard of some of the currant crop of octochamps then there is little point applying if i should be expected, at this stage anyway, of scoring 100+ in every game

J.Levison wrote:
Could anyone shed any light on this, as i will be applying at some point over the next year or so after practising some more on Apterous. But as a 23 year old male, if i need to be up to the standard of some of the currant crop of octochamps then there is little point applying if i should be expected, at this stage anyway, of scoring 100+ in every game

That's ridiculous. Only 3 people in Countdown's history have scored 100+ in every game. You'll notice the people who do well become octochamps - that's because their opponents aren't as good as the top players. Simple. You can be on Countdown if you are reasonable at both letters and numbers games. Usually getting a 7 letter word in most rounds passes you the audition and if you are within 10 (preferably 5 I guess) on the numbers.

Derek Hazell wrote:

Jeffrey Burgin wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote: . . . my sweet hiney . . .

. . . a cracking time.

Can I see a theme developing here?

Bum bum!

I think we arsed for that.

Since there seems to be a lot of newbies on the forum, who might be getting involved with the show proper, I thought I'd bump this.

Anyone?

Douglas Wilson wrote:Since there seems to be a lot of newbies on the forum, who might be getting involved with the show proper, I thought I'd bump this.

Anyone?

I believe that Jack Worsley is on the last preliminary of the series, that's December 7th.

But, after that, we obviously don't know, since they're not starting the new series til Sunday.

Interesting they're doing that for one day, then the following day they're recording that 8 Out of 10 Cats/Countdown crossover show.

James Robinson wrote:

Douglas Wilson wrote:Since there seems to be a lot of newbies on the forum, who might be getting involved with the show proper, I thought I'd bump this.

Anyone?

I believe that Jack Worsley is on the last preliminary of the series, that's December 7th.

That's correct.

Anyone other than Jack in this series?

Anyone?

Douglas Wilson wrote:Anyone?

Philip jarvis perhaps?

Douglas Wilson wrote:Anyone?

There are a few I've recently heard of.

Chris Butler & Matt Conway have recorded, and Niall Seymour is recording in the next block, I believe.

James Robinson wrote:Niall Seymour is recording in the next block, I believe.

Didn't niall Seymour kick up a stink in the reapplication thread two years ago?

Hang on, I'm thinking of Douglas wilson here, aren't I?

Aren't I?

Well I had my audition today.. not too brilliant tbh. Missed the 9's, and only solved 1 numbers game. Reckon I came about 2nd or 3rd out of 6, so will be waiting - not too hopefully - for the letter. There's always next time I guess

Adam Dexter wrote:Well I had my audition today.. not too brilliant tbh. Missed the 9's, and only solved 1 numbers game. Reckon I came about 2nd or 3rd out of 6, so will be waiting - not too hopefully - for the letter. There's always next time I guess

When I went for audition, they said most people get on the show, so 2nd or 3rd of 6 should definitely be enough. I also missed all three 9s at my audition along with the other 7 people there.

I had my audition last Tuesday. Didn't get through due to too many silly mistakes. I didn't deserve to get on given my performance but it's annoying as I'm better than many that do get on! I'll try again.

Niall Seymour and Kieran Bray filmed yesterday I believe.

Chris Marshall wrote:I had my audition last Tuesday. Didn't get through due to too many silly mistakes. I didn't deserve to get on given my performance but it's annoying as I'm better than many that do get on! I'll try again.

Niall Seymour and Kieran Bray filmed yesterday I believe.

It is annoying what nerves can do to performance, Chris.
You've played some good games on apterous. I hope you pass your next audition.

Looking forward to seeing Niall and Keiran on.

What standard is roughly the benchmark for getting on the show? I get mainly 6's and 7's and home and get the odd 8 or 9 as well. I am thinking of sending away my application form to get on the show, also when they ask for a photo for the application form what should it be? I know some ask for a passport photo and some ask for you doing something interesting, what is most likely to get me noticed? Any help from anyone who has 'been there and got the t-shirt' would be much appreciated .

David Barnard wrote:What standard is roughly the benchmark for getting on the show? I get mainly 6's and 7's and home and get the odd 8 or 9 as well. I am thinking of sending away my application form to get on the show, also when they ask for a photo for the application form what should it be? I know some ask for a passport photo and some ask for you doing something interesting, what is most likely to get me noticed? Any help from anyone who has 'been there and got the t-shirt' would be much appreciated .

I wouldn't worry about any of that. Just attach a photo. You really don't have to get noticed or anything. I was really nervous about my audition because I hate the whole "tell us about yourself" thing that you always do on training courses etc - and there was none of it. You play the game, and that's it. It sounds like you're more than ready as well, but it depends I suppose on how well you want to do/think you can do against how much better you could get with some practice if you can be arsed.

Jon Corby wrote:

David Barnard wrote:What standard is roughly the benchmark for getting on the show? I get mainly 6's and 7's and home and get the odd 8 or 9 as well. I am thinking of sending away my application form to get on the show, also when they ask for a photo for the application form what should it be? I know some ask for a passport photo and some ask for you doing something interesting, what is most likely to get me noticed? Any help from anyone who has 'been there and got the t-shirt' would be much appreciated .

I wouldn't worry about any of that. Just attach a photo. You really don't have to get noticed or anything. I was really nervous about my audition because I hate the whole "tell us about yourself" thing that you always do on training courses etc - and there was none of it. You play the game, and that's it. It sounds like you're more than ready as well, but it depends I suppose on how well you want to do/think you can do against how much better you could get with some practice if you can be arsed.

I also suppose its how I hold my nerve in the auditions I have never done that sort of thing, I think I have got what it takes but just the teapot would be nice. Thanks for the advice though Jon.

David Barnard wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

David Barnard wrote:What standard is roughly the benchmark for getting on the show? I get mainly 6's and 7's and home and get the odd 8 or 9 as well. I am thinking of sending away my application form to get on the show, also when they ask for a photo for the application form what should it be? I know some ask for a passport photo and some ask for you doing something interesting, what is most likely to get me noticed? Any help from anyone who has 'been there and got the t-shirt' would be much appreciated .

I wouldn't worry about any of that. Just attach a photo. You really don't have to get noticed or anything. I was really nervous about my audition because I hate the whole "tell us about yourself" thing that you always do on training courses etc - and there was none of it. You play the game, and that's it. It sounds like you're more than ready as well, but it depends I suppose on how well you want to do/think you can do against how much better you could get with some practice if you can be arsed.

I also suppose its how I hold my nerve in the auditions I have never done that sort of thing, I think I have got what it takes but just the teapot would be nice. Thanks for the advice though Jon.

Good advice there from Jon. It's also worth noting that if you fail at an audition, you can apply again - I think you get 3 attempts, unless the rules have changed recently. So you needn't feel too nervous at the first one.

If you did want to practice to improve first, then there's always http://apterous.org/index.php

I attached a passport photo in which I looked reaaaaaaaaaaaaaally miserable, and used it as a means to make a rather half-arsed joke about how I don't always look that miserable. It's a passport sized box on the form, so I guess a passport photo is assumed. I doubt they care though. The vetting procedure for Countdown is basically non-existent, and what people look like is a complete non-factor.

Mark Deeks wrote:I attached a passport photo in which I looked reaaaaaaaaaaaaaally miserable, and used it as a means to make a rather half-arsed joke about how I don't always look that miserable. It's a passport sized box on the form, so I guess a passport photo is assumed. I doubt they care though. The vetting procedure for Countdown is basically non-existent, and what people look like is a complete non-factor.

Cheers Mark, I bet they were glad they accepted you as we got 10 shows of pure entertainment.

David Barnard wrote:I bet they were glad they accepted you as we got 10 shows of pure entertainment.

11 shows wasn't it?

Edit: Oh.

Heh heh heh.

Chris Marshall wrote: Niall Seymour and Kieran Bray filmed yesterday I believe.

Hold up. Damian wouldn't let me on because at the time I'd "played 4000 games on apterous, which creates a skill imbalance compared to the average armchair fan who plays along with 100 or 200 shows a year".
Niall's a quality player and has 3300 under his belt (let's say 3000 at time of applying?) and been around a lot longer than I have. Can't help but feel a tiny bit hard done to there.

Niall's rating 1295
Your rating 1661

With all due respect to Niall, it's nothing to do with how many games you've played.

Wow, I don't think I knew that somebody had actually got a firm "no" for being too good. Do you think you can you apply again? What if you allow yourself to get worse?

Andy Platt wrote:

Chris Marshall wrote: Niall Seymour and Kieran Bray filmed yesterday I believe.

Hold up. Damian wouldn't let me on because at the time I'd "played 4000 games on apterous, which creates a skill imbalance compared to the average armchair fan who plays along with 100 or 200 shows a year".

Wait a second, you've been completely barred from going on? Not told 'yes, but you'll have to wait a bit whilst we get a few more apterites out of the way first'?

This is possibly the lamest thing I've ever heard, since Countdown is- was- the only show nowadays that selected players purely based on skill. Then again, this is Damian Eadie we're talking about.

This should be a lesson to all people planning on practising on apterous before going on the show- FOR THE LOVE OF KIRK, USE A PSEUDONYM.

Nah not completely barred- told to try again in 12 months and see "what the situation is" then, bit like Josh H was I guess, but I'm really not hopeful.

Fuck I miss Ben.

It makes sense to not have too many contestants in one series of the standard to possibly be a series winner. As has been previously mentioned, they already space out those who do exceptionally well in the auditions.

I would hope that this apterites 'rule' wouldn't affect more average players. I'm not sure I approve of encouraging players to use pseudonyms. Charlie used to say 'real names only' on apterous, but some of the daft usernames appearing recently can't be real! Still, I no longer play newbies after my second experience of rather dodgy banter in game chat.

They need to at least warn potential contestants if they're going impose such a counter-intuitive "no apterites who have played X games" rule. If someone is enough of a fan of Countdown to want to be on it, there's a pretty good chance they'll look for Countdown websites and stumble upon apterous, and once there they're surely far more likely to think "I should play lots of games to get better and increase my chances of getting on the show" than "I better not play lots of games because then I might be rejected for being too good". As it stands, they're only punishing enthusiasm rather than skill/social awkwardness/whatever they think they're punishing.

Innis Carson wrote:They need to at least warn potential contestants if they're going impose such a counter-intuitive "no apterites who have played X games" rule. If someone is enough of a fan of Countdown to want to be on it, there's a pretty good chance they'll look for Countdown websites and stumble upon apterous, and once there they're surely far more likely to think "I should play lots of games to get better and increase my chances of getting on the show" than "I better not play lots of games because then I might be rejected for being too good". As it stands, they're only punishing enthusiasm rather than skill/social awkwardness/whatever they think they're punishing.

This. Plus you know everyone who goes on with at least a smidgeon of ambition will be practicing somewhere somehow.

One fair point is that in the last series the demographic of the finals was very well balanced. Graeme/Mark/Paul/Carl, standard kind of 20-35 guys, Nikki and Jayne there too, representing domestic goddesses everywhere, and Dave & Dave flying the flag for the over 50s. It would kind of suck from a viewer perspective to have 8 guys between 18 and 30 in the finals and that's what Damian is trying to avoid, I think. He told me in our e-mails that one of the complaints about the show that people have is when 'online fanatics' roll the average armchair fans over by 115-40 or some such, and I do agree to some extent - I guess it's better TV when it's a close game. However, the most enjoyable game of last series was Deeks-Butcher (perhaps most would probably argue Cole-Williams just for the epic finale... but the point remains). That wasn't exactly close. It was just great entertainment from Mark/Jeff/Rachel topped with some quality words from Mark. If every show was like that, the ratings would be crazy high. Now, I'm not as clever, nor as funny as Mark, but I'd damn well give it a go, and that's what the show's about for me. It does kind of annoy me when some quiet guy with no personality goes on and loses comfortably first game, bringing pretty much nothing to the show.

I don't necessarily agree with artificially limiting the number of apterites in a series, and I think Countdown's long tradition of valuing skill over other factors in the audition is important and something that makes the show unique, but I can understand the reasoning behind it if it's actually started to discourage people from applying. I don't think Damian makes these decisions through any dislike of Andy or apterites in general, but only in what he perceives to be the best interests of the show. He, better than anyone here, knows what viewers complain about, what they praise the show about, why they watch and why they turn off. So although I don't like the idea of turning someone down, even temporarily, for being too good, it is apparently a necessary evil.

While on the surface it seems nasty, how many other game shows would have their series producer email the applicant personally to explain the decision, and enter into a discussion about it? From what I've heard of other game shows you're lucky if you get any kind of response from anyone at all if your application is declined.

I don't think it's a "ban on apterites rated over X" or a "ban on apterites who have played over Y games", either. Rather, I think the motive is not to eliminate high-standard apterites from the show completely, but merely to prevent there being a new all-conquering lexonerd every other week. When such a high standard becomes the norm, people watching at home are going to stop thinking "wow, this player really stands out, they're really good" and start thinking "yawn, I can't compete at this any more". The winner-stays-on format doesn't help; you only need six excellent players in a 110-episode series for half the shows to feature one. Two or three in a series though, that gives the casual viewer a better chance of watching a game they can compete in.

I really don't think Andy or any other apterite is being permanently excluded, and I'd struggle to understand why that would be a good idea anyway. When I applied (albeit eleven months ago now), I, like Andy, was rated about 1600 and I must have played over 2000 games. The Countdown team obviously keep tabs on apterous for likely applicants, so they must have known this or could find it out. Yet they still called me within two hours of receiving my application to offer me a phone audition. For a more recent example, look at Jack Worsley. Another excellent player, getting a higher octotototototal than I did, and he was accepted. Their issue isn't with high-standard players competing, it's with there being too many in a series.

That's why I think Andy should take Damian up on his offer to apply again at the end of the year. I hope he does get on some time in 2013, and I look forward to seeing him play. Until then, I motion that Andy's posting rank on the forum is changed from "Rookie" to "Too Awesome For Countdown".

Julie T wrote:It makes sense to not have too many contestants in one series of the standard to possibly be a series winner.

But it depends on whether Andy or Josh just happened to apply when a lot of other Apterites did, or whether it was just an average amount. If Damian only wants x Apterites a series when say x+2 are applying each time, it's not a case of spreading them out, but turning them away.

It seems like a pretty untenable situation. Either you let people on purely on skill, or you cherry pick for TV purposes. Using apterous as a way to identify people who are likely to be 'too good' will just lead to even more people playing under pseudonyms and the 'problem' (of too many good players) persisting.

Graeme Cole wrote:I don't necessarily agree with artificially limiting the number of apterites in a series, and I think Countdown's long tradition of valuing skill over other factors in the audition is important and something that makes the show unique, but I can understand the reasoning behind it if it's actually started to discourage people from applying. I don't think Damian makes these decisions through any dislike of Andy or apterites in general, but only in what he perceives to be the best interests of the show. He, better than anyone here, knows what viewers complain about, what they praise the show about, why they watch and why they turn off. So although I don't like the idea of turning someone down, even temporarily, for being too good, it is apparently a necessary evil.

While on the surface it seems nasty, how many other game shows would have their series producer email the applicant personally to explain the decision, and enter into a discussion about it? From what I've heard of other game shows you're lucky if you get any kind of response from anyone at all if your application is declined.

I don't think it's a "ban on apterites rated over X" or a "ban on apterites who have played over Y games", either. Rather, I think the motive is not to eliminate high-standard apterites from the show completely, but merely to prevent there being a new all-conquering lexonerd every other week. When such a high standard becomes the norm, people watching at home are going to stop thinking "wow, this player really stands out, they're really good" and start thinking "yawn, I can't compete at this any more". The winner-stays-on format doesn't help; you only need six excellent players in a 110-episode series for half the shows to feature one. Two or three in a series though, that gives the casual viewer a better chance of watching a game they can compete in.

I really don't think Andy or any other apterite is being permanently excluded, and I'd struggle to understand why that would be a good idea anyway. When I applied (albeit eleven months ago now), I, like Andy, was rated about 1600 and I must have played over 2000 games. The Countdown team obviously keep tabs on apterous for likely applicants, so they must have known this or could find it out. Yet they still called me within two hours of receiving my application to offer me a phone audition. For a more recent example, look at Jack Worsley. Another excellent player, getting a higher octotototototal than I did, and he was accepted. Their issue isn't with high-standard players competing, it's with there being too many in a series.

Fair.

I think the thing was with Jack that he was about 1200 when he applied - he's just a lot younger and cleverer than most of us, thus improves faster. Could easily be 1900-2000 by finals. Damian told me that he doesn't really mind a load of 1200 rated apterous players going on because they are kind of normal standard for countdown.

Graeme Cole wrote:That's why I think Andy should take Damian up on his offer to apply again at the end of the year. I hope he does get on some time in 2013, and I look forward to seeing him play. Until then, I motion that Andy's posting rank on the forum is changed from "Rookie" to "Too Awesome For Countdown".

Lol. Cheers. I think a lot of people think I'm better than I actually am, though.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

David Barnard wrote:I bet they were glad they accepted you as we got 10 shows of pure entertainment.

11 shows wasn't it?

Edit: Oh.

Should have been 11 if it wasn't for Carl '900' Williams

David Barnard wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:

David Barnard wrote:I bet they were glad they accepted you as we got 10 shows of pure entertainment.

11 shows wasn't it?

Edit: Oh.

Should have been 11 if it wasn't for Carl '900' Williams

I'd be interested to know whether the Apterite ban covers just a certain demographic of player. Virtually all of the 1600+ rated players on Apterous are men under the age of 30, so would Andy's audition have been procrastinated if he were female or a pensioner (or a female pensioner) with the same rating and number of games played? I wonder.

I imagine going on the same logic, it would be easier for a good 50+ player or female to get on, as the armchair viewer could more easily associate themselves with that sort of player.

I admit to not watching Countdown much before going on it. I watched the whole of series 64, the back end of 63, used to watch it in the late 90's when getting home from school, and had a bit of a phase during the Des O'Connor era. Never did I watch regularly, though.

When I did, I always used think, I could win that bugger. Not the series, but a show. For the most part, playing along at home, I could win on normal words without all the bullshitty Apto stuff that I have no idea what it meant. It was part of the attraction of winning and definitely the attraction of applying. Only after applying did I practice anything.

If they lose that element, they lose the audience and the applicants. So I understand it. But I don't think this new policy ought to last too long. After all, how many high-standard Apterites actually applied to go on this year anyway? Who's left that hasn't been on? Most of the elite calibre Aptos have been on, or don't want to go on. I think that stretch of series from, what was it, 60 to 64 or something, of a talent level never previously seen on Countdown, isn't going to happen again. That was a brief bottleneck and it's passed now. I think there were 14 Apterites in series 65, but only one - Graeme - was a high calibre Apto before he went on. The rest of us got better after we applied, but Graeme was the only 1500 hundred and upwards. Who else was turned away? Josh was turned away, but it wasn't for 65 I don't think - what, therefore, was the problem?

Turning people away might avoid having a QF lineup like in series 63, if that's their aim, but I don't think there's much risk of that any more anyway.