Topic: Incorrect answers

[D-type]

I'm not really sure how to put this without upsetting some people so please accept this in the spirit it is meant.

There seem to be a few cases creeping in when the answer stated by the poser of the question is wrong in some way.  What appears to be happening is people find a picture on the web, possibly on a site in a foreign (to them) language and post it without checking the answer out. 

To give a fictitious example:  A poster might believe that the puzzle picture is of a "Hans Schmidt's BMW Eigenbau" and hold out when someone says "BMW **** by Hans Schmidt" and other similar names until they finally say "Eigenbau" which the poster believes is the car's name.  Now, "Eigenbau" is not a model name - it is, I believe, the German word for "home-built".

In some cases when someone points out the error nothing happens.  Nobody corrects the title.  Sometimes the puzzle poster doesn't even acknowledge the posting or admit the mistake.

I feel that as the site is developing and the puzzles are getting more obscure the need for accuracy is becoming more important.

[Allemano]

Usually as far as I experienced here there are always some clever minds online who correct mistakes within few moments. But eventually it's in the hands of the authors to change the topic's subject if they had been proved wrong. It seems there's indeed sometimes a little stubbornness on that subject...

[fyreline]

OK, I guess I'm glad someone brought this up . . . I think.  Maybe.

I've been participating in "name that car" auto quizzes online for many, many years. In all that time, over numerous different boards, I've seen numerous examples such as the one alluded to by D-type above. Sometimes it's a poster requesting countless rounds of "more information" including everything but the car builder's hat size and bathroom habits. Sometimes it's a somewhat stubborn insistance that your answer include the word "cabriolet" instead of "convertible". Once in a great while they will post a car that you absolutely know, and when you answer they tell you you're wrong - even though it can be proven that you're not.

Fortunately, on this board at least, these instances are either very rare or they are treated with the lightness they deserve.  After all, the puzzles are supposed to fun, entertaining and informative (in that order, I think). When you post a car you have the wrong information on, it can easily lead to misunderstandings that destroy the fun.  I guess my point is that the most important guideline should always be the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not take thyself too seriously.  After all, no one knows everything and the odds are that there is someone out there who does know more about the car you posted than you do.

I think it's important that we always strive for accuracy and completeness of our information when we post a puzzle.  Make sure you know what the car is, and make a reasonable determination about what you're going to require as far as an answer is concerned. Don't get too carried away.

Let's keep this a place where everyone wants to come and participate.  I thoroughly enjoy my visits here, and I want everyone else to feel the same. May I take this occasion to wish all of you a happy and blessed holiday season.

[Allemano]

I second that to 100%.

[woodinsight]

I agree with that absolutely.

It's very important that information on the vehicles featured here is as accurate as possible.

I have to say that's it's annoying sometimes to have a correct guess - the XXX Special - answered with a yes without any further discussion as to the background to the subject, year, who built it etc.

In quite a few of my own postings I don't know the answer but I'm not afraid to admit that and try to encourage puzzlers to come forward with more information or thoughts.

I hate to see puzzles ending up unsolved and would rather provide enough clues to prevent this.

If this site wants to become the definitive centre of automobile esoterica then I think that more discussion on obscure vehicles should continue after their identity has been solved.

I hasten to add that there are many members who go out of their way to add further information and photographs and I would encourage others to do likewise.

That's my thought for today - please take it in the spirit it's meant - having fun and satisfaction when one gets it right should be what it's all about.

[barrett]

I agree with all that's been said, especially woodinsight's last point. It's quite frustrating when no more information is forthcoming about rare cars, ok some of them can be easily found on the web and often it's not really necessary but for the very obscure cars it's nice to learn as much as you can without having to leave the site.

I must say though in the short time I've been a member here I have been constantly impressed with the knowledge and sportsmanship shown by the other members, and the willingness to share that knowledge with young'uns such as myself. There are faults sometimes, and the occasional bout of stubbornness, but overall it's a great place full of kind people and all I can really say is keep up the good work!

[knightfan26917]

I think it's important that we always strive for accuracy and completeness of our information when we post a puzzle.

...especially since some manufacturers aren't truthful or forthcoming about information they provide about their own models.....

I agree with all that's been said, especially woodinsight's last point. It's quite frustrating when no more information is forthcoming about rare cars, ok some of them can be easily found on the web and often it's not really necessary but for the very obscure cars it's nice to learn as much as you can without having to leave the site.

And that is the point ... WITHOUT HAVING TO LEAVE THE SITE.

If I want to know about a certain model after seeing what it is ... I sometimes will search online, but I much prefer the information to be posted (or at least linked to) within the thread for the puzzle.  To me, it just gives a more rounded experience....



Cort | 37.m.IL.pigValve.pacemaker | 5 Monte Carlos + 1 Caprice Classic |* Chicagoland Meets, 2011?
MCs.CC + CHD.models.HO.legos.RadioShows + RoadTrips.us66 = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort
"Somebody snitched on me" ... Barry Gordon ... 'Nuttin' For Christmas'

[Allemano]

woodinsight, I agree with you, but keep in mind that this place is created by not professional enthusiasts which spend here most of their freetime.
Sometimes it's simply impossible to answer as comprehensive as desired. Having so many open puzzles it would be an 8 to 5 job + nightshift  incl. research, translations etc.. (and yes, I already spend(t) way too much time here!!!)
It would be nice when other puzzlers step in to add as much as possible to solved puzzles. Many of you already do that!

[woodinsight]

Allemano, yes I take your point.

Although I realise that the majority of people contributing to the site do actually have other commitments such as work, family, etc., I have to apologise for thinking that everyone has the time like myself - semi-retired, children almost all grown up, etc.

In the future I will endeavour to add images and information to some solved puzzles that are lacking in this respect.
I'm also considering writing some articles and contributing some insight into the vast number of books covering the motoring field.
Although I will still post individual cars when I come across them I'll probably concentrate more on group puzzles next year.
Recently I've been spending too much time on here myself partly due to a health problem that keeps me at home at the moment. All that should be finished soon and I hope to be travelling in Europe again come next spring.

[fyreline]

I just wanted to bump this discussion back to the top. It's worth re-reading, I think. This site has continued to feature some of the most challenging puzzles, and knowledgeable, friendly individuals anywhere on the web and I don't want to see that deteriorate. I only mention it because I am seeing a trend starting to slowly creep back in here and there . . . and that is puzzle posters continually doing what is called here in the USA "moving the goalposts". An obvious American football reference, what it means is changing the rules of what constitutes a score in the middle of the game - such as asking a question, receiving a correct answer, and then deciding to ask more questions. For instance, posting a picture of a car and asking "What is it, and from when?". An answer is received stating "It's an XYZ-mobile, from 1947" (which turns out to be correct). The puzzler then says the puzzle is locked for the respondent until he or she can state who made it, and where?  THAT is "moving the goalposts". These secondary questions were NOT part of the puzzle. In a few even more egregious circumstances, yet a third round of requests for ever-more-detailed information is made.

I think we all like to find out all we can about the puzzle cars that are posted . . . and the more information, the better . . . but let's please try to keep the puzzle/solution process simple. If you ask what a car is, and from when - and you get the correct answer to those two questions - award the point and move on. Moving on can of course include asking if anyone has further information on the car in question, or posting it if you have it yourself. Another issue is, if you post a puzzle car and you yourself don't know what it is (and these are some of the most interesting cars), determining what is the correct solution can be a lot harder.

I hope these comments are taken in the spirit in which they are intended . . . an attempt to keep the site entertaining and fun. All of the above comments are my opinion only, based on what I've been seeing. Let's remember this site isn't a forum for anyone to demonstrate how much more they know than anyone else, or to endlessly string puzzles along asking ever-more-detailed questions. Again, just my opinion. I should also add that I don't think the solution is to post a puzzle that requires a ten-part answer. Let's keep it fun and informative, shall we?

What do YOU think?

[Arunas]

I just wanted to bump this discussion back to the top. It's worth re-reading, I think. This site has continued to feature some of the most challenging puzzles, and knowledgeable, friendly individuals anywhere on the web and I don't want to see that deteriorate. I only mention it because I am seeing a trend starting to slowly creep back in here and there . . . and that is puzzle posters continually doing what is called here in the USA "moving the goalposts". An obvious American football reference, what it means is changing the rules of what constitutes a score in the middle of the game - such as asking a question, receiving a correct answer, and then deciding to ask more questions. For instance, posting a picture of a car and asking "What is it, and from when?". An answer is received stating "It's an XYZ-mobile, from 1947" (which turns out to be correct). The puzzler then says the puzzle is locked for the respondent until he or she can state who made it, and where?  THAT is "moving the goalposts". These secondary questions were NOT part of the puzzle. In a few even more egregious circumstances, yet a third round of requests for ever-more-detailed information is made.

I think we all like to find out all we can about the puzzle cars that are posted . . . and the more information, the better . . . but let's please try to keep the puzzle/solution process simple. If you ask what a car is, and from when - and you get the correct answer to those two questions - award the point and move on. Moving on can of course include asking if anyone has further information on the car in question, or posting it if you have it yourself. Another issue is, if you post a puzzle car and you yourself don't know what it is (and these are some of the most interesting cars), determining what is the correct solution can be a lot harder.

I hope these comments are taken in the spirit in which they are intended . . . an attempt to keep the site entertaining and fun. All of the above comments are my opinion only, based on what I've been seeing. Let's remember this site isn't a forum for anyone to demonstrate how much more they know than anyone else, or to endlessly string puzzles along asking ever-more-detailed questions. Again, just my opinion. I should also add that I don't think the solution is to post a puzzle that requires a ten-part answer. Let's keep it fun and informative, shall we?

What do YOU think?

I totally agree! 

[Allemano]

[nicanary]

I agree in general principle. However, I think there is an option available  where different questions can be asked as the puzzle progresses up the 3 levels of proficiency.  A point can be awarded to a Rookie for the basic information, but the Experts , and later maybe the Pros, could be asked to elucidate further. It's a way of getting the most out of a puzzle, which are becoming increasingly hard to find.

I have intended to use this system in the past, and then totally forgotten what I had meant to do, and transferred it to the Solved section. That's just my age showing. Personally I think it's a legitimate "tool" for a puzzle-setter, but only as long as he indicates clearly at the outset that this is going to happen.

[fyreline]

nicanary-

That's an intriguing concept, and one that I wouldn't mind seeing implemented. It wouldn't discourage rookies (whose participation is sparse enough as it is), yet allows Experts and Professionals to participate and/or elucidate on puzzles they otherwise could not take part in. I like it.

[nicanary]

nicanary-

That's an intriguing concept, and one that I wouldn't mind seeing implemented. It wouldn't discourage rookies (whose participation is sparse enough as it is), yet allows Experts and Professionals to participate and/or elucidate on puzzles they otherwise could not take part in. I like it.

I think it is only fair to tell you that this is not my idea - it was proposed to me by one of the editors in a private message. I thought it was a good idea, and intended to implement it myself, but had forgotten all about it.

The major drawback is, that once the car has been identified, then further questions will be relatively easy to answer thanks to the wonders of the web. It'll be meat and drink for most of the Pros.

[fyreline]

Oh, I agree - but the fact that rookies would be allowed to identify the car first doesn't really represent much of a change, does it?  Are that many puzzles started off at higher levels?  And with the "new" system proposed, the difference would be that instead of moving to the "solved" category, they could enter the next category up, where more information could be added. Perhaps those cars that the rookies could not identify could be moved up as usual with the added tag "not yet solved". Additional points could be awarded at these higher levels at the original poster's discretion, based on further information added. In any case, I do like the idea of the collaborative effort to glean as much information on every puzzle car as possible. It seems to me that any added effort to make this happen would be worth it. Just my opinion, of course.

[nicanary]

This site is an ideal opportunity to compile  a record of what could be the world's greatest selection of rare and unusual cars (sorry Arunas - no offence intended). I'm as guilty as anybody of just selecting an image and being satisfied with an answer along the lines of date,make and model. Perhaps we should concentrate more in the higher levels of Expert and Pro , on requesting some background to the car, provided of course that the puzzle-setter is aware of the correct information. There are a lot of people on this site who are more knowledgeable about a specific area - such as coachbuilding, veteran cars, motor sport, trucks and military vehicles. I should imagine that each and every one of the regular puzzle-setters could come up with additonal questions if it were necessary.

It's been said from time to time that we may run out of cars to feature, but whenever I pick up my Georgano I find pages of the darned things that I've never heard of. It's just a case of finding an image which can be reproduced, which isn't always easy. I've been in touch with one of the site's editors today and we briefly discussed trying to keep new members interested - some guys answer a few, then disappear for good. Some reach the Experts, find it all a bit too much bother, and also vanish. We really need a few more people prepared to set questions, as well as answer them. Any ideas welcome.