h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Talk of homeopathy reminds me of the definition of Feng Shui: The ancient Chinese art of extracting large sums of money from gullible people.

Water

as in chicken, ham ...

Point of order: it's not my quiz.

Swl created it - anyone can set questions. I did sort-of design the scoring system but that's it.

-------------

Right the fall-out from "happily violence" continues.

Short version: don't panic. Your safe.

Long version:

We have a system that operates on trust, I cannot monitor what people do or do not do when they play. I only ask that we keep it basically fair so no-one has an electronic advantage over anyone else, it's down to innate knowledge or ability to puzzle out a clue. The test I have in mind is "would it affect the outcome, if someone did it?"

Therefore, I'd say keyword searches on something like google would remove all element of mystery from a puzzle and it's supposed to be a game of guesses (and frankly I think h2g2 researchers tend to be so widely read they are pretty damn good at guessing), even my most fiendish riddles don't survive that long. That's why I say no google or wikipedia.

The reason why I enforced this policy against Shagbark the other day was they posted a link to a website directly concerned with "minium"

I figure you could only have found that if you were searching for it (in fact it was one of the things I read as I put the question together!)

Right so this is where the judgement call comes in.

I look at the link to coca-cola and water, as something like someone demonstrating a point. 'what I was saying is true - see?' in the manner in which you might back up something said to get a QI bonus.

That's qualitatively different, I think, to someone saying "hey look at this cool link I found to Minium - maybe the answer is in here?"

What you're talking about is so far away from the actual answer that it can't possibly affect the outcome

Though I think it probably traces a fine line, but if I have to call it I'd say this doesn't break the spirit of the rule whereas sharbark's search did.

Now I also accept Shagbark made a mistake - they thought the 'no google' etc rule stopped after the main thread closed. This was an error becuase when they did it there was one clue left to solve (the one about rubrication) plus the bonus question so the QI thread was still very much in play and their search threatened that by offering up the answer.

I think the rule of thumb I'd use is avoid using search engines until after I've posted the scores - then do what you like, discuss minium or whatever into dust - as it cannot then affect the outcome.

If someone says is X worth a QI, I might ask them to provide a link I can go read but it's a matter of judgement, I accept I won't always get it 100% right but that I've tried to think through all the issues involved and come to a reasonable compromise position that as an "elf" in charge of a forum it falls to me to call on whether I think someone is breaking the rules I ask people to play by in a way which will affect the outcome.

If anyone thinks I've got this wrong - or has a suggestion for how it could be better managed leave me a message on my space. I'm interested in how QI can be improved.

So, summing up, I don't think you've broken the rule but Think before you Link, in future!

It's not sugar, Taff.

Water as in chicken ham etc...

No but there is an animal extract involved.

Gelatine?

...should have said water as added to...

It won't be horsehair

gelatin is a bit obvious - ?

Dammit Mr D. You got there again!

you're welcome to the blue though

Not gelatine.

just for a

japanese beef

Kobe beef (5th after Saffron)

Taff -5

>> No but there is an animal extract involved. <<

it's not the crushed-up beetles that they use in red food colouring is it? (Awaits )

RF

Nope.

MMF picked up the klaxon for "cochineal" for my last QI.

Given the vast plethora of things it *could* be, why don't we start with some category questions, on the lines of "is it a kind of beetle" to help narrow down the possibilities?

Did you say it was part of an animal?

Does said animal have feathers, fur, an exoskelton or none of the preceeding?


Geggs

Feathers.

pheonix eggs

roc eggs

Nope

Nope.

""most valuable, naturally occurring,""

water,

""edible""

ice

ice cream made from the snows of the hymalayas

Is the feathered fiend most often to be found in water, on land, or in the air?


Geggs