J! archive - questions about clarification notes on clues
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:08 pm
I was going through some old clues on the archive and came across this FJ clue from December 4, 1984:
"President elected to 2nd term with 523 electoral votes, the greatest number in any election"
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=355
The correct response was FDR, who amassed all those EVs in the 1936 election.
The issue is that exactly 4 weeks before the episode aired (but presumably after it was taped), Ronald Reagan received 525 EVs in his landslide victory by which he was elected to a 2nd term. Reagan's total remains the record today. So the fact that FDR was re-elected with 523 EVs in 1936 didn't change, but it was (and is) no longer true that his EV total was "the greatest number in any election."
Now of course, the archive is simply a historical record of what happened on the show, like baseball box scores. But some people do use the archive to study for the show or just to look up old episodes or clues out of curiosity. So I was concerned that someone who stumbled across that clue in the archive might get the misimpression that FDR, and not Reagan, is still the candidate who garnered the most EVs in a Presidential election. Thus, while the listed response in the archive shouldn't change (since it reflects what actually happened on the broadcast and was correct when written by J!'s writers), I felt that a clarification appended to it could be beneficial.
So I submitted a comment: "The listed correct response to the FJ clue would have been accurate when the episode taped, but by the airdate it no longer was. In November 1984, Ronald Reagan was elected to a 2nd term with 525 electoral votes, exceeding the 523 EVs that FDR won in 1936." This wasn't intended to be inserted into the archive verbatim, but rather as an explanation to the archivists of why I felt there should be a clarification added in the archive.
I received an email with the following response from the archivists' team:
"An archivist has reviewed and rejected your suggestion . . ."
The email went on to specifically address my comment: "Well, TECHNICALLY... [You were the third person to suggest this. The first person, back in 2013, had the best-worded clarification. The clarification suggestions just got worse from there.]" (ellipsis in original)
While I am extremely appreciative of the indispensable work done by the archivists and their generosity in contributing their time, the insulting tone of this response is unfortunate. Also, there's nothing "technical" about the fact that Reagan, not F. Roosevelt, holds the record for most electoral votes won in a re-election to a 2nd term as POTUS.
Anyway, my question is: why have the archivists declined 3 times now to post any clarification to this FJ response? I realize that in a quiz show that's in its 37th season there are probably many, many clues that have become obsolete over time; and maybe the archivists feel that it would be too gargantuan a task to be appending clarifications every time this occurs and that users of the archive should take a "caveat emptor" approach and understand that a clue can only be expected to have been accurate at the time it appeared on the show. OTOH, maybe it wouldn't be so overwhelming if they only clarified obsolete responses when specifically asked to by archive users.
What is the archivists' official policy on this type of situation? (And I apologize if this is already spelled out somewhere.)
"President elected to 2nd term with 523 electoral votes, the greatest number in any election"
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=355
The correct response was FDR, who amassed all those EVs in the 1936 election.
The issue is that exactly 4 weeks before the episode aired (but presumably after it was taped), Ronald Reagan received 525 EVs in his landslide victory by which he was elected to a 2nd term. Reagan's total remains the record today. So the fact that FDR was re-elected with 523 EVs in 1936 didn't change, but it was (and is) no longer true that his EV total was "the greatest number in any election."
Now of course, the archive is simply a historical record of what happened on the show, like baseball box scores. But some people do use the archive to study for the show or just to look up old episodes or clues out of curiosity. So I was concerned that someone who stumbled across that clue in the archive might get the misimpression that FDR, and not Reagan, is still the candidate who garnered the most EVs in a Presidential election. Thus, while the listed response in the archive shouldn't change (since it reflects what actually happened on the broadcast and was correct when written by J!'s writers), I felt that a clarification appended to it could be beneficial.
So I submitted a comment: "The listed correct response to the FJ clue would have been accurate when the episode taped, but by the airdate it no longer was. In November 1984, Ronald Reagan was elected to a 2nd term with 525 electoral votes, exceeding the 523 EVs that FDR won in 1936." This wasn't intended to be inserted into the archive verbatim, but rather as an explanation to the archivists of why I felt there should be a clarification added in the archive.
I received an email with the following response from the archivists' team:
"An archivist has reviewed and rejected your suggestion . . ."
The email went on to specifically address my comment: "Well, TECHNICALLY... [You were the third person to suggest this. The first person, back in 2013, had the best-worded clarification. The clarification suggestions just got worse from there.]" (ellipsis in original)
While I am extremely appreciative of the indispensable work done by the archivists and their generosity in contributing their time, the insulting tone of this response is unfortunate. Also, there's nothing "technical" about the fact that Reagan, not F. Roosevelt, holds the record for most electoral votes won in a re-election to a 2nd term as POTUS.
Anyway, my question is: why have the archivists declined 3 times now to post any clarification to this FJ response? I realize that in a quiz show that's in its 37th season there are probably many, many clues that have become obsolete over time; and maybe the archivists feel that it would be too gargantuan a task to be appending clarifications every time this occurs and that users of the archive should take a "caveat emptor" approach and understand that a clue can only be expected to have been accurate at the time it appeared on the show. OTOH, maybe it wouldn't be so overwhelming if they only clarified obsolete responses when specifically asked to by archive users.
What is the archivists' official policy on this type of situation? (And I apologize if this is already spelled out somewhere.)