c4countdown

Haha. What an exclusive!

Oh wait, this has been common knowledge for years. Never mind.

I was half expecting them to have a quote from someone on the forum mentioning it. I wonder who gave them the exclusive tip-off. Maybe a former member who has grown bitter and determined to ensure Countdown's destruction?

Ben Wilson wrote:Oh wait, this has been common knowledge for years. Never mind.

I'm not sure it is common knowledge among people who don't go to this forum.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Ben Wilson wrote:Oh wait, this has been common knowledge for years. Never mind.

I'm not sure it is common knowledge among people who don't go to this forum.

Not true in my experience. Almost invariably when I mention that I'm a big fan of the show to anyone who doesn't really watch it, I'll be told that it's fixed because DC are fed the answers. Many seem to think that anagram solvers are used too. Bear in mind it's been ten years since this was widely reported.

If you'd watched the show for years, given that there's probably been over 100 different "lexicographers" in the Corner, don't you think it would take a massive suspension of disbelief to think that every single one of them was brilliant at the game?

Lucy Gowers wrote:there's probably been over 100 different "lexicographers" in the Corner

37, close.

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Lucy Gowers wrote:there's probably been over 100 different "lexicographers" in the Corner

37, close.

I'm sure that there were at least 64 different lexicographers (including Mary) in Series 1

The new article is completely silent on whether any sort of computerised assistance is used. My guess is that most people reading it will assume that it must be, and no doubt this was the NOTW's intention.

What I don't think any of us know is how frequently DC's best offering has been fed to them by unseen helpers.

The NOTW also doesn't find it necessary to mention that Rachel really is all on her own, as was Carol. Again, I'm sure they want their readers to infer that Rachel has off-screen help as well.

Lucy Gowers wrote:Not true in my experience. Almost invariably when I mention that I'm a big fan of the show to anyone who doesn't really watch it, I'll be told that it's fixed because DC are fed the answers. Many seem to think that anagram solvers are used too. Bear in mind it's been ten years since this was widely reported.

I wasn't aware of that article. I also haven't had the same experiences talking to people about Countdown as you have.

If you'd watched the show for years, given that there's probably been over 100 different "lexicographers" in the Corner, don't you think it would take a massive suspension of disbelief to think that every single one of them was brilliant at the game?

Well maybe, but then again it's been Susie pretty much all of the time in recent years so newer viewers won't necessarily consider that.

The NOTW also doesn't find it necessary to mention that Rachel really is all on her own, as was Carol. Again, I'm sure they want their readers to infer that Rachel has off-screen help as well.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's open to interpretation if it's not made clear on Countdown itself.

Lucy Gowers wrote:If you'd watched the show for years, given that there's probably been over 100 different "lexicographers" in the Corner, don't you think it would take a massive suspension of disbelief to think that every single one of them was brilliant at the game?

I suspect a lot of people don't think about it too much, and so think that merely having a dictionary in front of you makes it much easier.

Clive Brooker wrote:The new article is completely silent on whether any sort of computerised assistance is used. My guess is that most people reading it will assume that it must be, and no doubt this was the NOTW's intention.

The team in the gallery have an electronic version of the ODE, but it doesn't do anagram solving, they just use it to check words slightly faster than Susie could, and to double-check her adjudications. There was considerable discussion about my PARDNER for example, since the two versions were not consistent on whether it was US spelling (invalid) or US usage (valid).

Clive Brooker wrote:What I don't think any of us know is how frequently DC's best offering has been fed to them by unseen helpers.

Well, at least one of us would know that... Having appeared in over a thousand episodes, Susie is obviously fairly good now and does get a good proportion of the words herself. Most of the really spectacular stuff comes from Damian, because he's just insanely good at the game. Very occasionally other people in the gallery get some great "raw" spots -- I remember Kate was ecstatic to beat everyone with PESSARIES and there have been a few other examples.

Scoop of the year then.

What next, the Berlin wall toppled?

D Eadie wrote:Scoop of the year then.

What next, the Berlin wall toppled?

Yeah, like that will ever happen! Crazy Germans!

My sneak preview of next week's NOTW tells me that the exclusive is going to be:

"COUNTDOWN DOES NOT GO OUT LIVE!
When Jeff Stelling says, "Hello, it's Monday 8th June" he's lying! The show is pre-recorded!".

NOTW readers - you heard it here first!

!!!!! (a few spare !s in case I didn't use enough).

Simple I may be. A loyal fan of countdown I am, but I am pretty saddened by the idea of backroom help in Dictionary Corner. It is only a game (I know) and that should apply to every one (IMO) - or come clean about it all. What about Rachel?

Why does Susie have backup but not Rachel?

Steve Durney wrote:Why does Susie have backup but not Rachel?

I reckon it's because Susie is primarily there to adjudicate words from contestants and define words - she is a lexicographer after all. She is not really employed because of her anagramming ability (whereas Rachel is employed because of her numerical agility). If they wanted to have an anagram expert next door then they would stick another chair in dictionary corner and have Damian sat there but he's too ugly so he stays in the gallery and sort of helps produce the show.

Kirk Bevins wrote:If they wanted to have an anagram expert next door then they would stick another chair in dictionary corner and have Damian sat there but he's too ugly so he stays in the gallery and sort of helps produce the show.

I'm sure Damian will be delighted with that compliment, Kirk

I got LFDDIE, couldnt spot it was fiddle

People seem to be suspicious of the numbers lady more than they are of the lexicographer in terms of receiving assistance. This seems odd to me, especially considering its much more common for the average viewer to find something that beats rachel rather then something that beats DC

JackHurst wrote:its much more common for the average viewer to find something that beats rachel rather then something that beats DC

I'm not convinced by this, but would be interested to see what others think.

Michael Wallace wrote:

JackHurst wrote:its much more common for the average viewer to find something that beats rachel rather then something that beats DC

I'm not convinced by this, but would be interested to see what others think.

Maybe in her first few weeks, but she hardly misses anything now (and certainly nothing easy), whereas DC usually misses at least a couple per game, sometimes very gettable ones too.

Michael Wallace wrote:

JackHurst wrote:its much more common for the average viewer to find something that beats rachel rather then something that beats DC

I'm not convinced by this, but would be interested to see what others think.

Every so often there is a numbers round like the infamous 579 a few weeks ago which gives all the casual viewers a chance. For the record I missed it. I think it's much rarer to see comparable chances from DC - TRIPOD and LAXNESS are two I can remember - but that's casting my mind back over several series.

DC do 11 games a show, whereas Rachel does 3 games a show, so its inevitable that the chance to outdo the experts on the programme is greater when its a word round.

Having said that, Rachel is shit-hot and barely misses a trick, but when she does, its easy to forget that 3 long days in studio can sometimes wipe out the mind and we're all human after all.

Sure, DC don't get everything and never will. But Susie and Rachel are both fantastic at what they do, and you'd have to trawl the length and width of the planet to find anyone capable of matching them in terms of presentation, ability and all-round brilliance.

And even then, you won't succeed. Celebrate the show for what it is, and treasure Rachel and Susie while we're lucky enough to have them. Both joyous to work with, both outstanding in their fields, and both irreplaceable. And for what its worth, Susie is highly competent at the game of Countdown, particularly the letters games, and of course it goes without saying that Rachel blows the socks off her predecessor, as does our leader and friend the Stellmeister.

D Eadie wrote:Celebrate the show for what it is, and treasure Rachel and Susie while we're lucky enough to have them. Both joyous to work with, both outstanding in their fields, and both irreplaceable. And for what its worth, Susie is highly competent at the game of Countdown, particularly the letters games, and of course it goes without saying that Rachel blows the socks off her predecessor, as does our leader and friend the Stellmeister.

D Eadie wrote:Susie and Rachel are both fantastic at what they do.

Never disputed.

Clive Brooker wrote:

D Eadie wrote:Susie and Rachel are both fantastic at what they do.

Never disputed.

Never will be disputed!

LONG LIVE COUNTDOWN!!!!!

I see that Carol Vorderman is in the Daily Mirror today giving her fourpenceworth http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/200 ... -21426806/

Apologies if this link does not work

You would have thought that Rachel would have been mentioned in the same article

marc meakin wrote:You would have thought that Rachel would have been mentioned in the same article

Mmm, presumably "Carol never cheated but these new people have to" is more interesting than "Carol never cheated and neither does the new Carol, but DC have an earpiece which everyone's known for years".

Totally agree that Susie and Rachel are brilliant.

marc meakin wrote:I see that Carol Vorderman is in the Daily Mirror today giving her fourpenceworth http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/200 ... -21426806/

Apologies if this link does not work

You would have thought that Rachel would have been mentioned in the same article

Love one of the sponsored links
Edit : It was for Apterous but when I clicked on the article again, it didn't seem to appear

It shows you how serious this whole earpiece thing is if it's mentioned on Have I Got News For You, as it was last night!

James Robinson wrote:It shows you how serious this whole earpiece thing is if it's mentioned on Have I Got News For You, as it was last night!

To do HIGNFY justice, they did make it quite plain that there has always been an earpiece, that it has always been known that there was an earpiece, and that the presenters on most TV shows have an earpiece connecting them to the producer.

I see what they do as more important than how they do it. What's good for the programme is to show the best available - but not infallibly, so that just once in a while the viewer gets a kick out of beating the experts. And that works well, and has for as long as I've been watching.

But the dishonesty has always grated with me. Not the fact that words come through the earpiece, but the congratulations given to celebrities for reading aloud, and to Susie for words she hasn't got herself. If Carol came up with a late solution given to her by a member of the crew she said so, so you were pretty confident everything else was her own work. I'd like to see Susie acknowledge once in a while that a "late eight" wasn't all her own doing.

That will happen, David, from September onwards.

Heh, I just saw the mention on HIGNFY and popped over here to see if it was mentioned.

I remember the 'shocking' news when it came out years ago. My girlfriend, at the time, mentioned she had read it and therefore concluded that the whole show was rigged and even the contestants knew the letters. I was somewhat outraged by this illogical logic and lost my usual composure and called her an idiot which resulted in me not getting any sex for about 3 weeks. However, revenge was mine, 9 years later, when I proved her wrong by going on the show and losing spectacularly (long after we spilt up and when she probably wasn't even watching). Ha!Showed her, huh?

George

D Eadie wrote: Sure, DC don't get everything and never will. But Susie and Rachel are both fantastic at what they do, and you'd have to trawl the length and width of the planet to find anyone capable of matching them in terms of presentation, ability and all-round brilliance.

And even then, you won't succeed. Celebrate the show for what it is, and treasure Rachel and Susie while we're lucky enough to have them. Both joyous to work with, both outstanding in their fields, and both irreplaceable. And for what its worth, Susie is highly competent at the game of Countdown, particularly the letters games, and of course it goes without saying that Rachel blows the socks off her predecessor, as does our leader and friend the Stellmeister.

Well said.

Friend of mine who is a "casual" viewer said that he knew the "cheating" stuff was no-news-day fodder because he says he's found the odd max when DC didn't, which obviously an anagram generator would never allow. It amazes me how many people quote that story when they find out I was on etc. They just say "Oh yeah Countdown, they cheat on that don't they?". Mildly irritating.

It's never bothered me because I never felt the show suggested that Susie + guest were sweating away like the contestants in the first place. The contestants are contesting, the presenters presenting.

So from September DC is going to acknowledge "The producer got this one" are they? So how often will we hear that on average I wonder? 1 or 2 per show, more? Place your bets, Apterites...

I can't see anything wrong with the way things are done now. If you say 'The Producer got that one' people are still going to think 'Yeah, but he's using a computer.' The important thing is to make sure the average viewer realises that no anagram solvers are used, not (necessarily) just that Susie doesn't get all the words herself. Is this going to be made clear?
Of course, the alternative reason for Susie explicitly saying who got the word is to give Damian's ego a boost.

D Eadie wrote:That will happen, David, from September onwards.

It is not immediately obvious why such a change would have to wait until September, Damian, unless you have so many shows already in the can. I hope you aren't implying that after next week we will have to survive a three-month summer break before the next series begins?

M. George Quinn wrote:revenge was mine, 9 years later, when I proved her wrong by going on the show and losing spectacularly (long after we spilt up and when she probably wasn't even watching).

You can't trick me, you were just fed certain words through an earpiece such that you would lose your first game and maintain the illusion.

Neil Zussman wrote:I can't see anything wrong with the way things are done now. If you say 'The Producer got that one' people are still going to think 'Yeah, but he's using a computer.' The important thing is to make sure the average viewer realises that no anagram solvers are used, not (necessarily) just that Susie doesn't get all the words herself. Is this going to be made clear?
Of course, the alternative reason for Susie explicitly saying who got the word is to give Damian's ego a boost.

It'd be fantastic if every time Susie admitted to a word coming from The Producer, we'd get a cut out of Damian's face appear in the corner of the screen.

A bit like this (but without such old images, and preferably with Damian pulling a really cheesy grin and sticking a thumb up in the air):

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

D Eadie wrote:That will happen, David, from September onwards.

It is not immediately obvious why such a change would have to wait until September, Damian, unless you have so many shows already in the can. I hope you aren't implying that after next week we will have to survive a three-month summer break before the next series begins?

Err there is a 1 month break in the summer. Series 61 is already well underway with recordings and they are into September now for transmission dates already.

Neil Zussman wrote:I can't see anything wrong with the way things are done now. If you say 'The Producer got that one' people are still going to think 'Yeah, but he's using a computer.' The important thing is to make sure the average viewer realises that no anagram solvers are used, not (necessarily) just that Susie doesn't get all the words herself. Is this going to be made clear?
Of course, the alternative reason for Susie explicitly saying who got the word is to give Damian's ego a boost.

Nah, anytime my name is ever mentioned on the show i always make sure its edited out. Prefer to be kept out of it really.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Err there is a 1 month break in the summer. Series 61 is already well underway with recordings and they are into September now for transmission dates already.

Thanks for the information, Kirk. It doesn't surprise me that there should be something of a break, but a whole month does seem unnecessarily harsh. Do we at least get cricket?

I'll post my link here as well as it's more relevant in this titled thread:

I was on BBC Radio York yesterday. Link here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0 ... 3_06_2009/

Scroll forward to 2 hours 17 minutes to hear my bit.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I was on BBC Radio York yesterday. Link here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0 ... 3_06_2009/

Scroll forward to 2 hours 17 minutes to hear my bit.

Haha - she's still getting your name wrong. And you're still too nice to correct her.

Rachel was on Tony Snell's show on Radio Merseyside this morning, explaining that some survey revealed that some percentage of people in your area don't know what things abroad cost and it was a good idea to write down the exchange rate before you go. And doubtless other things, but my toast was ready.

Available to obsessives on the internet, no doubt.

David Williams wrote:Rachel was on Tony Snell's show on Radio Merseyside this morning, explaining that some survey revealed that some percentage of people in your area don't know what things abroad cost and it was a good idea to write down the exchange rate before you go. And doubtless other things, but my toast was ready.

Available to obsessives on the internet, no doubt.

Or join the Euro - the currency for people who can't handle arithmetic.

Short and sweet - yet still manages to spell Neil's surname wrong.

http://www.herefordtimes.com/sport/4469 ... own_eight/

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Or join the Euro - the currency for people who can't handle arithmetic.

Not quite the universal panacea - my last three foreign holidays were Norway, Switzerland and the USA. Besides, it's a bit difficult to do on an indivdual basis, isn't it?

David Roe wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Or join the Euro - the currency for people who can't handle arithmetic.

Not quite the universal panacea - my last three foreign holidays were Norway, Switzerland and the USA. Besides, it's a bit difficult to do on an indivdual basis, isn't it?

True. And in the USA you get screwed by sales tax if you just travel from state to state. But the euro is not such a disaster as the Daily Telegraph would like us to believe.

David Williams wrote:I see what they do as more important than how they do it. What's good for the programme is to show the best available - but not infallibly, so that just once in a while the viewer gets a kick out of beating the experts. And that works well, and has for as long as I've been watching.

But the dishonesty has always grated with me. Not the fact that words come through the earpiece, but the congratulations given to celebrities for reading aloud, and to Susie for words she hasn't got herself. If Carol came up with a late solution given to her by a member of the crew she said so, so you were pretty confident everything else was her own work. I'd like to see Susie acknowledge once in a while that a "late eight" wasn't all her own doing.

D Eadie wrote:That will happen, David, from September onwards.

Not a lot, though.

I'm glad Jeff Stelling is keeping it hush-hush.

I remember how angry Des O'Connor used to get when he thought about that.