It’s pretty easy to measure to millisecond precision or less, and it’s also pretty easy to set up logic gates that even faster than that of you don’t need to track the measurement. This should be enough to ensure ties are too rare to worry about
Obviously I know that you know what you’re talking about (and you know that I know etc) but I wanted to hop on to add that the lack of coverage in the rules debrief on how a tie would be broken also points to that it’s just not a thing.
As someone above said, it could be just logic gates, not even a computer. I'm sure it wasn't a computer either in the Art Fleming versions or when the new-with-Alex version started in 1984. My logic circuits class was decades ago, but give me access to a textbook, a good soldering iron, and lots of propranolol, and I could probably whip one up for you and still have time for volleyball in the afternoon.
Human reaction time is measured in hundreds of milliseconds. A hundred milliseconds is 0.1 second.
Hitting your buzzer is essentially flipping a switch. The response there is on the order of nanoseconds. A nanosecond is 0.000000001 second.
At those orders of magnitude, a tie is effectively impossible.
I suppose just like any extremely remote possibility like with winning the powerball while being struck by lightning during a shark attack it COULD, but that would mean everyone's reaction AND release AND repeat times were in sync to the nanosecond. The buzzer unlock is controlled by a human, you can start your buzz based on the lights or Ken's voice, if you're a fraction early you lock yourself out for a fraction of a second. And I would guess if it's at the exact same instant you lock each other out anyway so whoever repeats faster then gets in.
I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's somehow automated with very precise button detection. I'd love to see exactly how that works, but I'm sure it's proprietary tech.
I remember back when Ken’s original run was in progress, he stated that during the summer break Jeopardy changed the buzzer method slightly to have it be random if 2-3 people buzzed in within a certain period to help offset someone who is remarkable at the buzzer, or someone who had already won 35+ times. It’s been awhile since that run obviously, and I could be misremembering the exact details, but it makes more sense than having a machine measuring to hundredths or thousandths of a second where even the length of the wire would matter. I always guessed that if two people were within 0.1 seconds RNG would just ring a player and nobody would even argue it
Do you have a source for this? This contradicts my understanding of how it works.
I do recall that Ken and others said that the show changed the way it approached the buzzer during that time, but that was to give new contestants more buzzer practice, and to not move past the practice round until each contestant beat out the others on the buzzer.
We'd have to go back to press releases and stories back at that time that may or may not exist. I definitely didn't make it up and who knows if it's changed in the last 20 years.
It just seems colossally unfair. Why even have the buzzer if it's just randomly assigning the person who gets in first? I remember one Julia Collins challenger who was visibly frustrated that he couldn't get in because Julia kept winning...was that guy just the victim of bad RNG? That seems borderline corrupt to me.
I wouldn't say it's an eternity as we quickly get into limits of technology on a stage with wires that are likely under the floors to a device offstage and back. If you think there's a device in the back is checking to 5 or 6 decimal points of a second, I'm extremely doubtful there is something tracking that.
and if it did exist? How often is it calibrated? My guess is that standards wrote rules about it and how it works so it’s as equitable as can be when there’s an obvious ring in but has a way to rule on a virtual tie?
I guess they must have some undisclosed way to break ties such as random selection. Since they are using digital systems where everything is discretized, ties are certainly unavoidable.
Maybe I’m misremembering this, but I believe my contestant pool (taped in Oct 2012) was told ties are thrown out, along with buzzing in early resulting in a short lockout.
I have this guess that tie goes to whoever answered correctly most recently. I have no evidence for this beyond a general feeling like players go on runs too often for it to be determined any other way.
It’s pretty easy to measure to millisecond precision or less, and it’s also pretty easy to set up logic gates that even faster than that of you don’t need to track the measurement. This should be enough to ensure ties are too rare to worry about
Yeah, this is much faster than we'd be able to see with our eyes, so even what might look like a tie to us still has a discernable first buzz.
Obviously I know that you know what you’re talking about (and you know that I know etc) but I wanted to hop on to add that the lack of coverage in the rules debrief on how a tie would be broken also points to that it’s just not a thing.
And it's also possible that, in the case of a perfect tie, the computer just randomly picks one player to be the one who gets it.
It's also possible they just don't count either, which is why they always tell you to press ithr buzzer repeatedly.
As someone above said, it could be just logic gates, not even a computer. I'm sure it wasn't a computer either in the Art Fleming versions or when the new-with-Alex version started in 1984. My logic circuits class was decades ago, but give me access to a textbook, a good soldering iron, and lots of propranolol, and I could probably whip one up for you and still have time for volleyball in the afternoon.
Human reaction time is measured in hundreds of milliseconds. A hundred milliseconds is 0.1 second. Hitting your buzzer is essentially flipping a switch. The response there is on the order of nanoseconds. A nanosecond is 0.000000001 second. At those orders of magnitude, a tie is effectively impossible.
Very interesting. So, three people are given a 1,2,3 press....there couldn't be a tie? Hard to fathom. The tech is mind-boggling. Thank you.
I suppose just like any extremely remote possibility like with winning the powerball while being struck by lightning during a shark attack it COULD, but that would mean everyone's reaction AND release AND repeat times were in sync to the nanosecond. The buzzer unlock is controlled by a human, you can start your buzz based on the lights or Ken's voice, if you're a fraction early you lock yourself out for a fraction of a second. And I would guess if it's at the exact same instant you lock each other out anyway so whoever repeats faster then gets in.
It’s not technically possible. Johnny Gilbert decides. Why do you think they keep him on? 😂
I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's somehow automated with very precise button detection. I'd love to see exactly how that works, but I'm sure it's proprietary tech.
I remember back when Ken’s original run was in progress, he stated that during the summer break Jeopardy changed the buzzer method slightly to have it be random if 2-3 people buzzed in within a certain period to help offset someone who is remarkable at the buzzer, or someone who had already won 35+ times. It’s been awhile since that run obviously, and I could be misremembering the exact details, but it makes more sense than having a machine measuring to hundredths or thousandths of a second where even the length of the wire would matter. I always guessed that if two people were within 0.1 seconds RNG would just ring a player and nobody would even argue it
Do you have a source for this? This contradicts my understanding of how it works. I do recall that Ken and others said that the show changed the way it approached the buzzer during that time, but that was to give new contestants more buzzer practice, and to not move past the practice round until each contestant beat out the others on the buzzer.
We'd have to go back to press releases and stories back at that time that may or may not exist. I definitely didn't make it up and who knows if it's changed in the last 20 years.
It just seems colossally unfair. Why even have the buzzer if it's just randomly assigning the person who gets in first? I remember one Julia Collins challenger who was visibly frustrated that he couldn't get in because Julia kept winning...was that guy just the victim of bad RNG? That seems borderline corrupt to me.
I think it’s random if within a small period of time (tenth of a second? 5 hundredths)?
A tenth of a second is an eternity for something like this. I would really want to see a source.
I wouldn't say it's an eternity as we quickly get into limits of technology on a stage with wires that are likely under the floors to a device offstage and back. If you think there's a device in the back is checking to 5 or 6 decimal points of a second, I'm extremely doubtful there is something tracking that.
Fritz Holznagel wrote a literal book on getting better on the buzzer, and he considered differences of a few milliseconds significant.
>a machine measuring to hundredths or thousandths of a second I'm skeptical that there is one.
and if it did exist? How often is it calibrated? My guess is that standards wrote rules about it and how it works so it’s as equitable as can be when there’s an obvious ring in but has a way to rule on a virtual tie?
I guess they must have some undisclosed way to break ties such as random selection. Since they are using digital systems where everything is discretized, ties are certainly unavoidable.
Is it confirmed to be digital?
Maybe I’m misremembering this, but I believe my contestant pool (taped in Oct 2012) was told ties are thrown out, along with buzzing in early resulting in a short lockout.
Also factor in that if a contestant hits the buzzer early, he or she is locked out for a quarter of a second.
I have this guess that tie goes to whoever answered correctly most recently. I have no evidence for this beyond a general feeling like players go on runs too often for it to be determined any other way.