In which the Author remains convinced that ITV know nothing about primetime quizzes

As Dan Peake remarked ITV haven't made a successful primetime quiz since...
[insert your own punchline here].

ITV have, in fact, shown two good quizzes in this author's memory: Duel (2008) and The Exit List (2012). That neither was successful we wholly blame on ITV's decision not to renew.

Let's Duel.

In fact, if we discount instances of friendly fire, we think ITV has only made one good quiz at all in recent memory; that being Jenny Ryan's programme. Tipping Point, by the way, does not count because it is an arcade game (not a quiz), and 1000 Heartbeats does not count because it is a multidisciplinary challenge (and/or: we forgot it). That said, we hear Rebound is being afforded a second series - if so then we might afford it a review.

This is not a picture of Revolution.

A lot of the demand to create new primetime gameshow things has been absorbed by The Cube, which is a great show, but not a quiz, and is getting a bit old. Perhaps 500Q was ITV's one attempt to find a quiz replacement before reverting to the safer territory of physical games - perhaps it was their attempt to copy the success of The Million Pound Drop Bank Job. We know something called Revolution was worked on for a while, but never good enough to be shown to us.

#givethatmanapodium

We're not actually going to pour very much over 500Q itself, mainly because there's not that much which is both interesting and not obvious to the naked eye. The Challengers are a bit redundant. The questions are (slightly) too hard, and there aren't 500 of them. The catchphrase (can you remember what it is? Exactly.) doesn't work. The set's too big. The lack of a destination has been patched, but at the cost of making the game overtly asymmetric. Position in the queue is everything.

Three wrong and you're... eliminated?

The problem is, turning our eyes upward, Sata's author knew that 500Q would be a disaster. We've already seen it fail in America - few people watched it and even fewer thought it any good. We've heard that it failed to shine in Germany, and even on paper, it seems obvious to us that 500Q is a weak format: it's just questions, not five hundred of them, not particularly fast, and with no real destination.

Some of the not 500 Questions.

What bamboozles us is that heavy resources have gone into producing 500 Questions. They've got (borrowed) an expensive set, the questions are of an ok quality, the editing is tight, and we (subjectively) like Giles. It's not going to set the world alight, but, it is watchable; Sata comfortably sat for an hour. The programme produced could (with some numbers changed) fit comfortably into the 5pm daily position.

And ITV are actually great at this. We haven't bothered writing about many of them, but over the last 2 years we've seen ITV create 4 or 5 middling-to-competent teatime alternatives. (And Freeze Out.) This one just happens to have escaped into a slightly bigger studio, and a slightly later transmission. But we can't just wrap things up there: 500 Questions as a format demands to be primetime, demands to be eventful, demands to be Big. For it to be a mediocre hour, is, due to its own nature, a failure.

We think everything wrong with the Format 500 Questions is endemic; no amount of work could save it. We cite the programme produced by ITV as evidence. What we find most annoying is that this wasn't an easy mistake to make. We think any ITV exec could and should have noticed that 500Q was a lacking format, and we think the same work done on a blank slate would probably produce something adequate; maybe even another Exit List or Duel, (which the channel could then inappropriately cancel, obviously).

We ranted last summer that BBC4 had had one successful gameshow and then given up trying. We might contrast ITV, who have almost given up on primetime quizzes, and who we doubt have the insight to ever get one right.

The Maths of The Code -- Part 2/2

We continue from part 1...

We doubt the laptop is turned on.

The question I wanted to answer - the question that first occurred to me after watching the show, is are you in a better position after getting one question if you pick a number or miss? Hitting a number is presented by Allwright as an always-good option, but in the first round, hitting a number immediately promotes you to a harder level. On the flipside, it decreases your likely game length, but not by much. There are intuitive reasons why it might be good or not good for your game to hit a number straight away, and no (apparent) way to compare the forces against each other.

I think this question is a great advert for "using maths", because it's immediately very not obvious what the answer is. It's even less obvious that it would change depending on the situation, but that turns out to be the case. Moreover, once we have the answer, we can (broadly speaking) make sense of it.

Anyway, onto the action. A game of The Code lasts between 3 and 10 sets. The average game is 8.25 sets, but more than half of games last 9 or 10 sets. 30% of games go to the last number - this makes sense because one number has to be the last picked, and 3/10 of the numbers need to be picked.

Oh, a quick note about combinations. There are 8*9*10 combinations for the code (no repeated digits) - but no-one cares about the order, so we divide by the 6 orders for each combination to get 120 essentially different combinations.

I'm going to talk a bit about paths, the routes though the 3 rounds that a game might take. I'll denote a path by 3 numbers, representing the time spent on each level.

For example, the path (1,1,1) means acing the game - picking the right numbers on your first 3 guesses. A more 'typical' path might be something like (2,4,3), answering 2 questions on the first level, 4 on the second, and 3 on the last.

(Perhaps surprisingly), there are 120 paths through the game, all equally likely. To best see this, you think about your favourite order of the 10 digits. (Say, 1234567890). Then each of the 120 equally likely possible code combinations gives a different path through the game. (Convince yourself of this if it seems unobvious).

Quite quickly, then, we can find the contestants' chances of winning the game if they are fated to a certain path - we use the chances of them surviving each set from part 1, and for the path (a,b,c) and question rate p, the chance of a win is given:

To give an example, if you know 70% of all questions, then your chances of winning the game if you were to immediately find 3 numbers:

is 67.5%. If you were destined to the path (2,4,3) which we mentioned earlier...

your chance of a win is 30.8%. 

Next to find the overall probability of winning at the start of the game. To do this we blur our condition on the path the contestants are fated to, and since each path is equally likely, it's just like taking an average.

Of course, remembering from last time that R1=R2.

Unfortunately, the distribution of the possible paths isn't symmetric like it would be if the 3 rounds were independent: a long round 1 likely means a short round 2 and 3. This means we can't really cancel the above into anything more comprehensible. In particular, we can't break down this formula to get the odds of surviving each round, which will be a shame later.

We can still put numbers into it, though, and let's set up a few examples. Suppose Clever Campbell, Borderline Brogan, and Hopeless Hayden all line up to play the Code. Campbell knows the answer to 90% of Lesley-Anne's questions, Brogan 70%, and Hayden just 40%.

At the start of the game, we give Campbell a strong 79% chance to open the safe, Brogan a fighting 36%, and Hayden a mere 5%.

All very good. We're now ready to address the question that inspired this article - what happens after 1 question?

What's now nice is that because of the uniformity of all the paths, if we just want to look at some of the paths, say - the paths of form (1,x,y) that start with getting a number correct - we can just take an average over those paths that meet the condition. That gives us the odds of success for a contestant who is destined to get a number on their first guess. [We divide out by the odds of surviving a round 1 set because we want to model the scenario that the contestant has got to the point of finding that first number.]

We do this and get the following distribution, for the chance of winning when you have got one number on the first guess.

Notice Brogan and Hayden have a better chance now - they've survived one round and are closer to the end of the game. What's remarkable is that Campbell's winning chance has now gone down, not (just) relative to if they'd guessed a wrong number, but relative to their position at the start. We'll explore the reason for this a little later.

For now, let's compare to if the contestants survive one set, but then guess their first number wrong. In this case we just calculate the opposite - the average win probability along all the other paths, and again divide out for the fact the contestants survived one round. Doing so, we find...

every player is in a better position than they were at the start - this makes sense, they're all facing the same game only with one of the incorrect numbers removed. What's interesting is that comparing the guessed correctly and guessed incorrectly scenarios, strong players like Campbell are better off having misguessed, whereas weak players like Hayden aren't. In the middle players like Brogan are mostly indifferent to the result of their first guess.

To try to make sense of this, it sometimes helps to consider the most extreme cases.

Recall this table from last time, the one telling us about the relative chances in a R1/R2 and a R3 for different player rates. Notice for a super bad player, the chances all approach 33% - they're almost totally reliant on luck - and so R1 and R3 don't look so different. It makes sense that for them, the better chance comes when the game is likely shorter.

For a super good player the R1 and R3 numbers don't look too different either - but with numbers this close to 100% we need to be looking at the chance of failure. For a 99% player, the chance of failing on R3 is around 66 times that of failing in R1, even for Campbell, the ratio is about 6.9 times as much. This makes R3 wildly more important for a good player.

(The reason for this last - to fail on R1/R2, the player needs to miss at least 2 questions - know any 2/3 and you're certain to answer correctly. But in R3 the player, 2/3 times can fail having missed only one question. When the chance of missing a question is small, then the chance of missing 1 is much larger the chance of missing 2 in a set of 3.)

Accepting that finding the first number first does give a nudge toward shorter games, and missing it a nudge toward a shorter round 3, and thinking about the extreme cases, it's hopefully possible to accept this surprising result is intuitive.

Here's a demonstration of something else that might be intuitive: guessing the first number correctly increases the likely length of R3,

and decreases the likely length of the game...

This was intuitive from some angles, but it's worth checking. We want to be sure the 'later rounds get longer' effect from getting the first guess correct doesn't outweigh the 'you're closer to the end now' effect.

In mathematical terms, we (sadly) haven't done any coupling here, we've just arranged the distributa side by side. What's apparent is the intuitive idea that compared to a miss, a hit gives you a longer likely R3, and a shorter likely game.

Hopefully, the reader is now in agreement that clever contestants want to miss on guess number 1, and less clever contestants don't. But where is the border? Unfortunately, there's not a much better answer to this than 'where we calculate it to be' - which turns out to be at a question rate of about 67.9%.

One very crude way we can try to estimate the border is looking at averages. When you hit a number on the first guess, your R2 and R3 have an average length of 3.33 sets (and R1 obviously 1), when you miss the average is 3.5 sets for R1, and 2.5 for each of R2 and R3. So (number of quotes is for effect here) """"on average"""", getting a hit on guess 1 reduces your (R1+R2) by 1.67 sets, and increases R3 by 0.83 sets.

If we plot

as a function of the rate, we should see values above one (denoting an increase in chance of winning) for low question rates and vice versa for high rates, with the curve hitting 1 around our borderline.

It should be noted before I remark that this estimate isn't very accurate, that this estimating technique is extremely roundabout. We're ignoring the fact that the round lengths are not independent variables: when one is low the others are more likely to be high. We're also ignoring the fact that the these distributions are being modified in a more complicated way than just a simple "plus 0.8333".

The plot goes like:

This estimate puts the borderline just above 58% - a fair way out, but correct in the sense of "it's in the middle". At this point I have no more elegant arguments to make - the exact value of (about) 67.9% can be found in the ways outlined earlier. That being said, I have a few more cool facts about the code (but which I'm not going to explain) that I've found using similar calculations. 

Impressively, clever players are better off if they miss on their first 2 guesses. Less good players are (unsurprisingly) better off if they get 2/2 on their first 2 guesses. It looked at first like the cut-off point might have been the same 67.9%, but a closer analysis showed:

it was around 68.5%. Also, curiously, there is a very small margin of skill in which getting 1 hit from the first 2 guesses is worse for the player than either getting 0 or 2 hits.

What about after 3 guesses? Well, unsurprisingly, the best result for all players is to get all 3 hits in their first 3 guesses. After that, though? Here's another graph. 

It's worth noting that having 1 digit after 3 guesses and having 0 digits are nearly indistinguishable. Having 2 digits, though, makes quite a difference and in accordance with the pattern already established, it's bad news for clever players and good news for the less clever.

For completeness we include the detail graph for the 3 guesses situation. This time the cutoff is around 67.5%: different again, but not particularly different.

Some closing thoughts then: from observing episodes, we think most contestants on The Code will generally fall into the "below ~68%" bracket: Matt is right to be jubilant when the contestants find a number. That said, I think some of the best contestants will fall into the "above ~68%" bracket. If you appear on a future edition of The Code, you are justified in viewing Matt's excitement when your fist digit goes green as an insult to your knowledge.

We noted at the beginning of part 1 that we assumed the question difficulty was constant. Since writing that, it has been stated to not be the case. We think that if the question difficulty increases with the round, the "good to miss" effect will be even more noticeable than we have calculated, conversely if the question difficulty increases with the number of sets faced this effect should be less true than we calculated.

The Maths of The Code - Part 1/2

Hello. We've been watching The Code (not this), the interesting new BBC quiz, with he-was-quite-good-on-the-exit-list, Matt "are you" Allwright, and she-wants-to-be-Richard-Osman-well-I-mean-who-on-earth-wouldn't Lesley-Anne "will probably read this" Brewis.

Our thoughts on the show: It's pretty good. But today on Sata we're not going to talk about The Code as Television, but as The Code maths.

 (And I promise that's the last time I do that joke.)

A warning: some of the following will be a bit mathsy, and maybe not accessible to those without a bit of intuition for these things. However, I've tried to keep the amount of 'technical' language to a minimum, (readers who have actually studied maths may even find this annoying) and generally present as much of this as possible in a easy-to-follow way for a non-mathsy audience.

My reasons for doing this are twofold: it makes a (hopefully) more interesting read, and it means you are more likely to believe what I am saying (and this is good because what I am saying is true).  

There are going to be two parts to this analysis. In the first I'll focus on the small scale; the sets of 3 questions that appear on the Code. My main aim is to produce a formula for the chance of surviving a set, (which we'll need for part 2) and along the way I'll show (surprisingly) that Round 2 is no harder than Round 1. Then in the second, I'll talk about the game as a whole, the lengths of the rounds, and a team's overall chance of victory. 

I'm not going to recite the code's rules; one can watch an episode or check the comments here. I'll refer to the sets of 3 questions and 3 answers as "sets", and the time between before getting each number of the code as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd "round". 

For the sake of reasonable maths, I have made the following assumptions, some of which may be dubious. 

1.      Aside from the fact that "you don't see all the questions", the sets don't get more difficult from round to round. (NB: this is confirmed untrue)

2.      Identifying a correct q/a pair is equally difficult to ruling out an incorrect pair.

3.      For each question, "you either know it or you don't". There are no hunches, if you don't know 2 questions (or 3), you have a 1/2 (or 1/3) chance of picking the right one - there is no advantage to comparing two uncertain questions.

4.      On round 3, there is no advantage to "picking the order" - that is, the contestants are no more likely to find a question which they know first in the running than last.

Under these assumptions, I would like to present the claim that Round 2 is no harder than Round 1 (and round 3 only slightly harder). We start with a wordsy argument to that effect:

If you know the correct question/answer pair, (regardless of what else you know) you will certainly clear a set in R1. In R2 you'll either see the correct pair immediately, or discard a wrong pair and then see it. So in this case R2=R1.

If you don't know the correct pair, but do know that both of the other pairs are wrong, then by elimination you're also certain to clear a set in R1, and again in R2 - you'll discard a wrong pair, then be left with a wrong pair and a mystery pair (which you deduce to be correct).

Suppose you know one of the wrong pairs, but nothing else. In R1 you have a 1/2 chance of guessing correctly, in R2 you might eliminate this wrong pair (if you see it), leaving a 1/2 guess, or you might have a 1/2 guess which pair to eliminate (if you don't see it), but then a safe choice between the remaining two options if you're correct.

Finally, suppose you know nothing about any of the pairs. Then you have a 1/3 chance of guessing correctly in either round. Hence, in all cases R1=R2.

Next, we'll briefly consider the best tactics for Round 3. When faced with the first pair in round 3, if the players have no idea whether it is right or wrong, we say they should reject it and move along. The best argument for this is to say that if the contestants take the answer they have a 1/3 chance of being correct, whereas if they reject it they have 2/3 chance of surviving, then a better-than-1/2 chance of either knowing or guessing the remaining pairs, making a better than 1/3 chance overall. If they find they don't know on the second pair, it then doesn't matter - they have a 1/2 chance whatever.

To justify these two arguments more carefully, consider the following work through of all 24 combinations of question order and knowledge. This will also give us the formula for the chances of getting a set correct in each round which we'll need later on.

Since we might as well (and it lines up with optimal tactics for R3), we'll number the questions in each set 1,2,3 based on the order they are opened, and assume that if contestants are reduced to guessing, they'll always reject the earliest question and accept the latest question that they don't know about. 

We use a x to represent a wrong pair, and a tick (ok, squareroot symbol) to represent the right pair. We use brackets (eg: (x)) to mean the contestants know what the pair is, and the lack of brakets to mean "no idea". These six cases are obvious, if the contestants know everything, they always clear the set, and if the know nothing they need to hope they guess correctly.

Cases 7 through 12 cover all the cases where the contestant has partial information, but will still guess correctly. In these cases all 3 rounds look the same, because luck favours the contestant.

In cases 15 and 18, being unable to open the last question means the R3 contestant fails, whereas the R1 and R2 contestants deduce (or guess, in the case of 15) the correct answer. This is the first time R3 looks harder than R1 or R2. 

Notice in case 15 that the R2 contestant only survives to see by luck - guessing to reject Q1 rather than Q2. However, the R1 contestant only picks Q2 over Q1 by luck anyway.

 

 

In cases 20, 21 and 23 the R3 contestant's tactics cause them to reject the correct pair from the start. However, in 20 and 21 the R1 and R2 contestants guess wrongly anyway - R3 does however see a disadvantage when they would have known both the following pairs were wrong (19). 

Notice in all the cases, R1=R2. It seems R3 is a bit more difficult than the others, though, there are 3/24 more cases where R3 loses, although the 24 cases aren't all equally likely.

Now we have to break out more proper maths to asses the likelyhood of each of these 24 cases. In the diagram below I've written the probability of each state, based on a contestant knowing a proportion p, of all the questions in the show's repository. We use this to calculate a total probability for surviving a single set, as a function of p.

We also include the odds of survival if the contestant guesses randomly rather than for the last question. One can check this gives the same total in each case. (*The R3 'reject first one if unknown' tactic is still necessarily used, leading to some of the strangeness in this column.)

We use our table above to calculate a total probability for surviving a set, as a function of p. 

Ok, so, what does this mean in terms of real numbers? Here's your chances of clearing a set in a certain round as a function of your question rate, p.

"Oh, that's surprising!" says the mathematician in the audience. "The R3 one looks suspiciously like a straight line to me." Indeed it does, and upon some algebra, we can confirm:

Is there a good explanation for this? Yes, and in fact we have one. Suppose the R3 player commits to take the last question if they don't spot one they know is correct among the first 2. With probability 1/3 the correct pair lurk at the end, and regardless the player is going to pick it. Otherwise, with probability 2/3, the contestant needs to notice the correct question when it appears - they do so with probability p.

Next time, we'll look at the overall game, including the argument that guessing the correct numbers is not always good for you.

----Part 2 ----

Behiveing predictably

While this jury still hesitates over its verdict on King of the Nerds UK, we discuss Hive Minds, the Fiona Bruce-fronted BBC Four replacement for Only Connect.

Google says: A hive mind is a group mind with almost
complete loss (or lack) of individual identity. A bit harsh.

Oh sorry! We meant to write "lateral-thinking-quiz" there, but "replacement for Only Connect", well, it just spilled out. Goodness. Still, just under seven years after Only Connect began, BBC Four have decided to see if there was anything else in the quiz category worth trying.

Excuse me a moment, because this is still a review of Hive Minds, but I feel a need to ask an otherwise unasked question. Only Connect began nearly seven years ago, and is not in any sense, a recent success story. Its audience has been steadily growing, and for a number of years it was very often the most-watched programme each week on its channel.

Why, then, has it taken so very long for BBC Four to attempt any other game or quiz programme? From the perspective of the UK landscape, maybe most game/quizzes seem to vulgar for the generally sophisticated BBC Four style, but OC was a perfect example that there is an appetite for an enhanced quigame, a BBC Four quigame.

I say this with half an eye on the world scene. There are huge cult successes like The Genius, WIDM, and De Slimste, that would fit more naturally on BBC Four than anywhere else on the UK channels. We see around the world, broadcasters taking risks, and often succeeding with, complicated, elegant, intelligent quizzes and games. There is a channel, in BBC Four, generally happy to risk alienating the mainstream viewer in favour of an occasional quiet, excellent, hit, and with a proven success on their books. 

None of them are quiz books. None.

In 2012, VCM could joke about being simultaneously the best and worst quiz on BBC4. Now, she lives on BBC2 and space was opened on BBC4 for something new, something impressively different.

Yet instead, 6.5 years after the first clue was revealed, BBC gave us The Quizeum, a show I literally couldn't watch enough of to review coherently, and now Hive Minds. And so I want to set this complaint out separate from the review proper: Hive Minds is hugely, hugely uninnovative. Almost everything about it has been carbon-copied or nearly-carbon-copied (silicon-copied?) from OC. There is no need to list, here, it will take enough restraint from the reviewer not to mention it in every sentence of the review proper. 

Perhaps, one would argue, there is no need to change what works, and indeed perhaps. This would irritate me less if Hive Minds were being made three or four years ago, or today, but accompanied by some other, more-experimental offering(s) from BBC Four. But it isn't, and so a general moan must foreshadow actual assessment of the programme.

This author then, as an admittedly staunch supporter of the quigame, is a little miffed that BBC4 has taken so long to rekindle its relationship with the genre, and is a little saddened further that the offering is so meagre.

And now the review proper.

Unremarkable titles, and a point early for the best original music this author has heard on a quiz in a number of years. Host Fiona Bruce, rather than being an entertaining-person-who-turns-out-to-be-knowledgeable, is a knowledgeable-person-who-turns-out-to-be-entertaining.

It is actually some accomplishment to be neither so similar in style to VCM that one could criticise, nor different but so much worse that one could criticise. Bruce manages this rather well; presenting the persona of slightly-over-excited-teacher: keen on the facts, but also often on the verge of laughter. We acknowledge her positive first impression on us, (something VCM didn't manage) although warn that it takes time for a host to become 'great' in the way that Only Connect's has.

We meet the teams, who are always three Only Connect players sat in a different order, and then before round 1, a demonstration of the 'Hives' that make up the show's USP. 

Euuuuuuugh.

 

And, well, now seems about the time to mention it: there is a massive problem with Hive Minds. I will explain shortly why the problem is so awful, but let me first explain why it is a problem.

The Hive graphics are awful. They are simply horrid, firstly aesthetically they are not nice, but much more importantly, they are too visually noisy to be read easily. Each letter, in white, is surrounded by a black outline on all sides, then brownish shadow on some sides, then a hexagon, which is not monochrome but instead has a white light effect across the top, and on the top two sides. Then, as well as each hexagon having a depth-fade effect, to make it look like an individual object rather than part of a connected grid, there is a dark-brown and light-brown outline around each hexagon, meaning that, on the visual path between the white of one letter, and the white of the next, there are around 8 other colours to be seen, many of them paler versions of the other colours around. The grid is difficult to read. It is quite difficult to follow out an answer once you have been told where it is. It is exceptionally difficult to scan for an answer, or for a few answers.

Other commenters have suggested the font should be squarer, and perhaps in lower-case rather than CAPS. This author agrees on both fronts, but thinks that by far the most important thing is to reduce the amount of visual noise between grid cells. Regardless, the problem is very precise: the grid needs to be easier to read.

Why is this awful? Perhaps it is already obvious to the reader: but Hive Minds ought to stand strong on its play-along value. Few viewers will have knowledge comparable to the on-screen players, (some may, of course) but the Hive - like the lateral thinking on OC, or, to a lesser degree, the guessability of questions on UC - serves as a great leveller, allowing the uninformed to, occasionally, feel the satisfaction of accomplishing a great move just like the ones they see the teams pull-off in the studio.

The terrible graphics massively reduce this appeal, and so reduce the appeal of the whole show, but in particular the appeal to the casual viewer. I would argue that OC saw its audience grow, not by becoming more mainstream in its question matter, but by making the lateral thinking gradually a more important part of the programme than the general knowledge. Hive minds will struggle to pull in a less BBC4-ish viewer if it can't do something along the same lines.

Anyway, we arrive at round 1: the answering some questions round. The questions are usually combine two different (or quite different) fields in a way which allows for a lot of false-leads to be set in the hive. And lots of false-leads are set. Over time the grid diminishes, as do the points, and teams buzz in to stop their individual clock before answering, much like that other programme. Incorrect answers are handed over with all clues revealed for just 1 point, much like... you get the idea.

Throughout, except for a 1 second flash at the start, the grid is presented at the bottom of the screen, at about 1/3 the size it is when in 'full'. This is too small, and combines with the problems mentioned above about readability. 

A R1a question in progress.

Onto round 1b: after two normal questions, the teams get two double questions: this time there are two answers in the hive: you might be looking for an inventor and their invention, an artist and their work, etc. This is immediately harder because two answers need to be located in the hive, and also subtlety harder because the questions are now of the sort to not have a unique pair of answers, so scanning the hive *will* be necessary.

These questions are no less fun for the audience, but they are definitely going to result in fewer points in general, so it feels wrong for them to be coming second*.

A R1b question in progress.

Onto round 2: here hives will contain three answers, again from a larger set of possibles. Instead of decreasing points-over-time, this round offers 1 point per answer found in 45 seconds (although an incorrect submission will end the time immediately), and instead of letting them talk like normal participant, the team are separated to 3 podiums, where they all stare downwards and pass control around confusingly until the time is up. The studio is too small for both teams to do this at once, and the choosing of categories requires they alternate, so we see 3 awkward changeover cuts, not done nearly as well as they are on... yes.

This is apparently almost all of the Hive Minds studio.

This round irritates the reviewer a little, because we don't see any reason it is more entertaining than the first round. Sure, it's different, and one would likely criticise for a lack of variety if another round of straight questions were played... but the twist here of separating the teams isn't adding anything for the audience - it's just a quieter version of the questions we saw before, only with one more answer.

Round 3 is the Superhive, and teams are asked if they want the A-hive or the B-hive, a much better joke than water-wall ever... anyway. The aim here is to find answers to a category in a larger hive. This time the team work together to keep things thematically different from round 2, and there's an extra challenge: the answers have to completely fill the grid, using every letter exactly once. This seems about as difficult as sorting 16 clues into 4 connected... never mind - but it *is* made more difficult in a key way.

The Hive wall Superhive.

 

On the connecting programme, correct-looking incorrect wall guesses exists: often a set will have 5 potential members, often a faux-set of 4 will exist among the others. This is distracting, but the distraction is no more than a "ooohh yes... oh no!" back-and-forth: it can happen a few times and it doesn't set the team back very much at all if they set off on the wrong path.

Contrast the Superhive where again there are false leads: potentially correct answers that don't fit into the perfect solution but do fit into the chosen category. However, there is no intermediate feedback - a wrong answer entered into the grid will stay put, and cause problems with trying to find other answers later on. Teams can manually erase the answers, but the time taken to realise they've made a mistake is lost. Here the process of realising is more "hmmmm... maybe.... hmmmmm... no, this can't be it".

There are problems with doing things this way: it's frustrating for the audience and team, and it's somewhat unfair: luck can be a big factor in noticing the right answers first. There is some skill, for both viewer and player, in the knack of being able to figure out that a configuration is truly impossible, which is a bit of fun, and I think this could be an 'interesting difference' rather than a 'bad difference' as long as the difficulty of the Superhive topics doesn't increase so much that it becomes really difficult to recover from an error.

Round 4 is the quickfire round, and deserves real praise for a quickfire round that fits well into the programme - too many producers recognise the appeal of a speedy ending without thinking about this. In this round, single-answer questions from all topics are asked with the answers all being hidden in the same hive - that means, as Bruce points out, one may see the answer to a question before it's even been asked.

Here, more than ever in the show, the presence of the Hive feels natural and additive: the challenge of spotting words in the gird is affecting the q&a, rather than just complimenting it - sometimes you can notice an answer ages before the teams do, sometimes having spotted something will allow a player to make an incredibly early interruption.

So, Hive Minds. We have to present an overall opinion on Hive Minds with a few different perspectives: Is Hive Minds better than its sister Only Connect? No. Does it need to be, to be successful? Almost certainly not, and indeed, Only Connect has the massive advantage of many years of refinement. Can Hive Minds fit comfortably alongside Only Connect, perhaps, as comrade and not-quite-so-equal equal? Yes, and we think the scheduler's decision to have both shows start series simultaneously this year suggests that that is the intent: if you want to, watch both - if you don't, watch OC. That's fine.

Would Hive minds prefer to be assessed without falling into its older sibling's shadow, or, in other words, does Hive Minds stand soundly on its own? This author has a couple of concerns on that frontier: first is the overwhelmingly noticeable similarity to the connecting programme, which implies a lack of confidence in this area, and second is that really, really grating graphics package.

That's Hive Minds then. Like it (we do), or loathe it (you might), it's difficult to love it.