prompt
stringlengths 1.51k
2.31k
| intro_text
stringlengths 347
1.15k
| gold_answer
stringlengths 1.6k
3.3k
| source
stringlengths 90
144
| judge_prompt
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Sean's first guest is Marie De Santiago, the guitarist in Sunderland's Kenickie. They've been called the Cities answer to the Spice Girls, which is of course ridiculous. Their music is much better and their combined age is still younger than Ginger Spice. Sean's second guest is actor and comedian Mark Little. He played Joe Mangle in neighbors and then spent two years doing The Big Breakfast with extra sausages by the look of it.
Phil's first guest is Suggs. After his last appearance on the show the Madness frontman announced his total retirement from pop quizzes. He spent the last year hosting a pop quiz and here he is tonight on a pop quiz. Sean's other guest is Jamaican superstar Shaggy. He took his name from one of the characters in Scooby Doo. He chose Shaggy because "fat bird with the pleated skirt and glasses" didn't have the right ring to it. | Sean's first guest is Marie De Santiago, the guitarist in Sunderland's Kenickie. They've been called the Cities answer to the Spice Girls, which is of course ridiculous. Their music is much better and their combined age is still younger than Ginger Spice. Sean's second guest is actor and comedian Mark Little. He played Joe Mangle in neighbors and then spent two years doing The Big Breakfast with extra sausages by the look of it.
Phil's first guest is Suggs. After his last appearance on the show the Madness frontman announced his total retirement from pop quizzes. He spent the last year hosting a pop quiz and here he is tonight on a pop quiz. Sean's other guest is Jamaican superstar Shaggy. He took his name from one of the characters in Scooby Doo. He chose Shaggy because "fat bird with the pleated skirt and glasses" didn't have the right ring to it. | # Marie De Santiago's intro
Contains a series of jokes playing on the "Cities' answer to the Spice Girls" comparison, but the execution is lackluster. The "their music is much better" line is formulaic, while the age comparison feels tacked on. The humor primarily works through the Spice Girls being a reliable punching bag for the show, but even this familiar territory is handled half-heartedly.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 2 (A minor exhale)
- Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets)
# Mark Little's intro
Simple weight gain joke playing off "The Big Breakfast" show title, but elevated by the unexpected and delightful phrasing "with extra sausages." While not breaking new ground conceptually, the execution makes this basic premise work better than it should.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Suggs' intro
Built around the ironic contradiction of Suggs' "retirement" from pop quizzes followed by hosting one and appearing on another. The joke works through its triple-beat structure: retirement announcement, hosting a quiz show, now back on one. Beyond the surface irony, there's an existential undertone suggesting Suggs is trapped in a cycle he's desperately trying to escape, adding a layer of pathos to the basic hypocrisy joke.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 2 (A minor exhale)
- Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale)
# Shaggy's intro
The joke attempts to subvert expectations about Shaggy's name origin with "fat bird with the pleated skirt and glasses" as the punchline, but the construction feels forced and inelegant. However, the unnecessarily vicious swipe at Velma (a completely undeserving target) somewhat redeems it in the context of the show's style of humor.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale)
The intro set demonstrates typical Buzzcocks humor: pop culture references, gratuitous jabs, and self-referential comedy. The strongest moments come from unexpected phrasings ("extra sausages") or unearned meanness (the Velma dig), while the weaker ones rely too heavily on formulaic constructions or expected targets. The Suggs introduction stands out for adding a layer of existential comedy to what could have been a simple hypocrisy joke, showing how even standard formats can be elevated with additional depth. | Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e01 - Marie DuSantiago, Mark Little, Shaggy, Suggs | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Sean's first guest is Shelly Poole from platinum album sellers Alisha’s Attic. Shelly’s dad Brian was a rock star in the sixties, so he’d shout things like turn that bloody music up! What time do I call this! And: get upstairs and trash your bedroom! Sean’s second guest is Math Priest from top five stars and Britpop heroes Dodgy. Dodgy recently went on a tour of Sarajevo, where they argued so much that the Bosnian Serbs offered to mediate a band meeting. Shelly and Math, ladies and gentlemen, Sean’s team.
Phil’s first guest is legendary singer-songwriter Midge Ure. Midge has sung vocals on three number ones by different artists, and what an enjoyable evening’s karaoke that turned out to be. Phil’s second guest is comedian Graham Norton. Since Graham took over the nightly chat show on Channel Five, he’s become famous wherever he goes. Inside the Channel Five Building, ladies and gentlemen, Midge and Graham, Phil’s team. | Sean's first guest is Shelly Poole from platinum album sellers Alisha’s Attic. Shelly’s dad Brian was a rock star in the sixties, so he’d shout things like turn that bloody music up! What time do I call this! And: get upstairs and trash your bedroom! Sean’s second guest is Math Priest from top five stars and Britpop heroes Dodgy. Dodgy recently went on a tour of Sarajevo, where they argued so much that the Bosnian Serbs offered to mediate a band meeting. Shelly and Math, ladies and gentlemen, Sean’s team.
Phil’s first guest is legendary singer-songwriter Midge Ure. Midge has sung vocals on three number ones by different artists, and what an enjoyable evening’s karaoke that turned out to be. Phil’s second guest is comedian Graham Norton. Since Graham took over the nightly chat show on Channel Five, he’s become famous wherever he goes. Inside the Channel Five Building, ladies and gentlemen, Midge and Graham, Phil’s team. | # Shelly Poole's intro
A straightforward but effective role reversal gag. Takes typical parental scolding ("turn that bloody music up! What time do I call this!") and gives it a rock star twist, culminating in "get upstairs and trash your bedroom!" The humor comes purely from this role reversal - a rock star parent encouraging rather than discouraging stereotypical rock star behavior.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale)
# Math Priest's intro
The joke centers on Dodgy's band arguments being so severe that "the Bosnian Serbs offered to mediate." This works on multiple levels - it's a send-up of (likely fictional) arguments within an otherwise upbeat Britpop band, with added humor in suggesting that Bosnian Serbs of the mid-90s would be the voice of reason in mediation. The joke shows more craft than most, building multiple layers into a single punchline.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Midge Ure's intro
"Midge has sung vocals on three number ones by different artists, and what an enjoyable evening's karaoke that turned out to be." The effectiveness comes from the surprise punchline that reframes the previous statement. While it does take a jab at Midge by undercutting their achievements, it works because the audience knows these are genuine accomplishments - making the karaoke comparison more playful than cutting. The cleverness and unexpectedness of the joke overcomes what might otherwise be too gentle for the Buzzcocks' typical tone.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale)
# Graham Norton's intro
"Since Graham took over the nightly chat show on Channel Five, he's become famous wherever he goes. Inside the Channel Five Building." A serviceable but uninspired joke that plays on Channel Five's lower status in UK broadcasting. The structure is solid - setting up with apparent praise before the deflating punchline - but the execution is fairly routine. Takes the expected jab at Graham while using Channel Five as the vehicle for the punchline.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 2 (A minor exhale)
- Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets)
The introduction sequence showcases the range of Buzzcocks' humor, from simple role reversals to more layered jokes, with varying degrees of success. The best jokes (like Math Priest's intro) demonstrate careful construction with multiple levels of meaning, while others rely on more straightforward techniques. The sequence maintains the show's characteristic irreverence toward its guests and the music industry, though some jokes land more effectively than others. | Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e04 - Midge Ure, Shellie Poole, Math Priest, Graham Norton | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Sean's first guest is Scottish singer-songwriter, Edwin Collins. Edwin's first job was as an artist in Glasgow’s parks. His finest works included Still Life with Park Bench, Dead Tramp in Hedge, and the classic Dog Crapping on Bowling Green.
Sean's second guest is comedian Jeff Green. Embarrassingly, Jeff was once a fan of soprano choir boy Aled Jones, and then the penny dropped, among other things.
Phil's first guest is Tony Wright, singer with Brit rock gods, Terrorvision. The band are such hellraisers that on a tour of America, they once carried on partying during an earthquake. In fact, the first they knew about it was when Charlton Heston appeared and led them to safety.
Phil's second guest is Gary Barlow. He's now a successful solo artist, and we've been asked not to mention his boy band past. He can take almost anything but he can't take that. I'm sorry about that Gary. | Sean's first guest is Scottish singer-songwriter, Edwin Collins. Edwin's first job was as an artist in Glasgow’s parks. His finest works included Still Life with Park Bench, Dead Tramp in Hedge, and the classic Dog Crapping on Bowling Green.
Sean's second guest is comedian Jeff Green. Embarrassingly, Jeff was once a fan of soprano choir boy Aled Jones, and then the penny dropped, among other things.
Phil's first guest is Tony Wright, singer with Brit rock gods, Terrorvision. The band are such hellraisers that on a tour of America, they once carried on partying during an earthquake. In fact, the first they knew about it was when Charlton Heston appeared and led them to safety.
Phil's second guest is Gary Barlow. He's now a successful solo artist, and we've been asked not to mention his boy band past. He can take almost anything but he can't take that. I'm sorry about that Gary. | # Edwin Collins's intro
The humor operates through the contrast between high art pretensions ("Still Life") and crude/morbid subject matter, with three escalating park-based artworks: "Still Life with Park Bench", "Dead Tramp in Hedge", and "Dog Crapping on Bowling Green". The joke effectively plays with class distinctions while maintaining accessibility through universally recognizable scenarios. The progression from mundane to increasingly unsavory subjects creates a well-structured comedic build.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Jeff Green's intro
The intro plays with mild suggestions of darker themes around Aled Jones being a choir boy. The "embarrassingly" setup could be read innocently (being embarrassed about liking choir music) but sets up undertones about sexuality and pedophilia without fully committing to them. The punchline "the penny dropped, among other things" works primarily as crude physical humor about puberty (balls dropping), while leaving other interpretations open. The execution is somewhat muddled, though the audience would likely have enjoyed the suggestions at Jeff's expense despite this.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose)
# Tony Wright's intro
The joke works on multiple levels through its Charlton Heston reference. While on the surface it's about rock star excess (being too wasted to notice an earthquake), the payoff cleverly references both Heston's role in the 1974 film "Earthquake" and his iconic role as Moses in "The Ten Commandments" ("led them to safety"). This creates a sophisticated layer of film references while staying true to the wild party setup. The joke's effectiveness depends heavily on audiences catching these specific cultural references, meaning it will land brilliantly for some while potentially missing others entirely.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Gary Barlow's intro
The humor works through meta-commentary on celebrity image management and wordplay on "Take That", with the ironic structure of mentioning something while apologizing for mentioning it ("He can take almost anything but he can't take that. I'm sorry about that Gary"). While cleanly executed, the joke isn't particularly strong or memorable.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose)
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) | Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e02 - Gary Barlow, Edwyn Collins, Jeff Green, Tony Wright | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Sean’s first guest is the one and only Richard Fairbrass.
Too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt.
So sexy.
Formerly the singer with Right Said Fred it was only when he got the job on BBC Two's, Gay Time TV, that Richard had to sit his parents down and confess that he’d become a TV presenter.
Sean’s second guest is Essex-born singer-songwriter Billy Bragg.
In his youth, Billy joined the army but bought himself out after only 90 days. Later we'll be having a whip round to see if we can buy him back in.
Phil's first guest is Sarah Blackwood, singer with glamorous Northern electropopsters Dubstar.
Sarah was once scolded by her mum for saying the word “blimey” on Richard and Judy. Quite right too. The words “tosser” and “irritating old hag” would have been far more appropriate. Phil's second guest is Neil Morrissey. He's an actor who comes from Stoke where remarkably his hairstyle is still ahead of the times. | Sean’s first guest is the one and only Richard Fairbrass.
Too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt.
So sexy.
Formerly the singer with Right Said Fred it was only when he got the job on BBC Two's, Gay Time TV, that Richard had to sit his parents down and confess that he’d become a TV presenter.
Sean’s second guest is Essex-born singer-songwriter Billy Bragg.
In his youth, Billy joined the army but bought himself out after only 90 days. Later we'll be having a whip round to see if we can buy him back in.
Phil's first guest is Sarah Blackwood, singer with glamorous Northern electropopsters Dubstar.
Sarah was once scolded by her mum for saying the word “blimey” on Richard and Judy. Quite right too. The words “tosser” and “irritating old hag” would have been far more appropriate. Phil's second guest is Neil Morrissey. He's an actor who comes from Stoke where remarkably his hairstyle is still ahead of the times. | # Richard Fairbrass's intro
A cleverly constructed joke that inverts the traditional "coming out" narrative by having Fairbrass need to "confess" to becoming a TV presenter rather than his sexuality. The setup uses his Right Said Fred fame ("Too sexy for my shirt") to lead into the punchline about having to tell his parents about his TV presenting job on "Gay Time TV." It's an elegant piece of misdirection that also manages to slip in a subtle dig at his career pivot to presenting.
Ratings:
- Audience: 4 (LOL) - Works on multiple levels and lands perfectly
- Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Elegant construction with perfect misdirection
# Billy Bragg's intro
A straightforward but effective double-punch joke built around the concept of buying in and out of military service. The humor comes from two simple elements: the inherent comedy of "buying back in" to military service, combined with the implication that the audience would happily chip in to get rid of him. "Later we'll be having a whip round to see if we can buy him back in" delivers both elements efficiently.
Ratings:
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Easy to grasp and lands well
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Solid construction but not breaking new ground
# Sarah Blackwood's intro
A joke that plays with the contrast between daytime TV prudishness and edgier comedy. The humor builds from three elements:
1. The absurdity of being scolded for saying something as mild as "blimey" on Richard & Judy
2. The suggestion of much ruder alternatives ("tosser" and "irritating old hag")
3. A direct shot at daytime TV hosts that resonates with the Buzzcocks' audience
While the core concept is solid, the delivery is somewhat cumbersome and the joke itself isn't particularly sophisticated.
Ratings:
- Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Basic humor that works but doesn't soar
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Straightforward construction with clunky delivery
# Neil Morrissey's intro
A concise regional joke that manages to simultaneously mock both Stoke and Morrissey's dated hairstyle in a single line: "He's an actor who comes from Stoke where remarkably his hairstyle is still ahead of the times." While it's not breaking new ground in terms of originality, it's efficiently executed and hits both targets cleanly.
Ratings:
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Clean delivery of a classic format
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Well-constructed if conventional
The set shows a range of comedic approaches, from clever misdirection (Fairbrass) to straightforward double-punches (Bragg) to basic contrast humor (Blackwood) and classic regional comedy (Morrissey). The Fairbrass introduction stands out as the most sophisticated and well-executed, while the others vary in their effectiveness but all deliver recognizable comedy beats that work for the show's format and audience. | Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e03 - Billy Bragg, Sarah Blackwood, Richard Fairbrass, Neil Morrissey | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Phil’s first guest is Brian Molko, singer with top five fit goth blouses Placebo. The band are named after a type of medication, like many other groups: Brian Eno's adamant acid and Dexy's Midnight Rennies.
Phil's second guest is heavy metal warrior Bruce Dickinson, formerly singer with satanic cock rockers Iron Maiden. In The Maiden, Bruce knew all too well the number of the beast; in fact, the beast has since gone ex-directory to get rid of him.
Sean's first guest is Saffron, singer with top ten techno monkeys Republica. Republica's hit "Ready To Go" was played on Baywatch, the only show where both the soundtrack and the cast are available in vinyl.
Sean’s second guest is comedian, author, and chart topper David Baddiel. David’s got a new video out right now. It’s called Swedish Lesbian Sauna Schoolgirls and it’s due back on Wednesday. | Phil’s first guest is Brian Molko, singer with top five fit goth blouses Placebo. The band are named after a type of medication, like many other groups: Brian Eno's adamant acid and Dexy's Midnight Rennies.
Phil's second guest is heavy metal warrior Bruce Dickinson, formerly singer with satanic cock rockers Iron Maiden. In The Maiden, Bruce knew all too well the number of the beast; in fact, the beast has since gone ex-directory to get rid of him.
Sean's first guest is Saffron, singer with top ten techno monkeys Republica. Republica's hit "Ready To Go" was played on Baywatch, the only show where both the soundtrack and the cast are available in vinyl.
Sean’s second guest is comedian, author, and chart topper David Baddiel. David’s got a new video out right now. It’s called Swedish Lesbian Sauna Schoolgirls and it’s due back on Wednesday. | # Brian Molko's intro
A strained attempt at humor that doesn't quite work. The description "top five fit goth blouses" is an awkward mouthful rather than clever wordplay. While there's an attempt to build jokes around medication-themed band names, the connections feel forced and don't land effectively. The transformation of Dexy's Midnight Runners to "Dexy's Midnight Rennies" might be clever in theory but fails to deliver in practice.
Ratings:
- Audience: 1 (Crickets)
- Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets)
# Bruce Dickinson's intro
Strong opener with the deliberately over-the-top description "satanic cock rockers," which works as a standalone laugh line. The joke builds effectively from Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast" connection to imply a stalker-ex relationship dynamic, with the beast having to go ex-directory to avoid Bruce's calls. The humor works on multiple levels - playing with metal music tropes while creating an amusing domestic situation with supernatural elements.
Ratings:
- Audience: 5 (ROFL)
- Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL)
# Saffron's intro
Continues the running gag of alliterative band descriptions with "top ten techno monkeys," which becomes funnier as part of the pattern established through the intros. The Baywatch joke about the soundtrack and cast being "available in vinyl" works as a reference to the show's signature skintight costumes of the era. While not the strongest joke, it's serviceable.
Ratings:
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# David Baddiel's intro
Masterfully constructed joke that builds on the established pattern of alliterative descriptions, delivering perhaps the best one yet with "Swedish Lesbian Sauna Schoolgirls." What initially seems like a random non sequitur is brilliantly resolved with the revelation that it's actually a porn video rental "due back Wednesday." The punchline's timing and delivery through this mundane detail makes the joke land perfectly.
The humor works through both the absurd title and the way the punchline reveals the context, managing to be both shocking and cleverly constructed.
Ratings:
- Audience: 5 (ROFL)
- Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL)
Overall, the intros demonstrate a running pattern of alliterative band descriptions that becomes a joke in itself, with varying degrees of success in the individual punchlines. The strongest moments come when the jokes build naturally from established references (like Bruce Dickinson's metal background) or when they successfully subvert expectations (like the Baddiel punchline). | Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e06 - Saffron, Brian Molko, David Baddiel, Bruce Dickinson | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Sean's first guest is Norman Blake, singer with jangly top five album stars, Teenage Fanclub. Teenage Fanclub have been compared to The Beatles – three of them are delighted and the drummer's suing for slander. Sean's second guest is Math Priest from Dodgy. The band once played at a village fete where they supported The Jam. They've been asked back next year to support The Cakes and the Tombola. Phil's first guest is pop superstar and official world's sexiest woman, Louise. Louise's boyfriend is Liverpool footballer, Jamie Redknapp. He's a romantic soul and often takes her to the ground for intimate candlelit dinners of pies, Bovril, and Wagon Wheels. Phil's second guest is comedian Jeff Green. Jeff's one of the country's most popular stand-ups and famous for his razor-sharp observation. Only this morning he came up with, "Christ, this razor's sharp." | Sean's first guest is Norman Blake, singer with jangly top five album stars, Teenage Fanclub. Teenage Fanclub have been compared to The Beatles – three of them are delighted and the drummer's suing for slander. Sean's second guest is Math Priest from Dodgy. The band once played at a village fete where they supported The Jam. They've been asked back next year to support The Cakes and the Tombola. Phil's first guest is pop superstar and official world's sexiest woman, Louise. Louise's boyfriend is Liverpool footballer, Jamie Redknapp. He's a romantic soul and often takes her to the ground for intimate candlelit dinners of pies, Bovril, and Wagon Wheels. Phil's second guest is comedian Jeff Green. Jeff's one of the country's most popular stand-ups and famous for his razor-sharp observation. Only this morning he came up with, "Christ, this razor's sharp." | # Norman Blake's intro (Teenage Fanclub)
A well-constructed joke playing on multiple levels, centered around the line "Teenage Fanclub have been compared to The Beatles – three of them are delighted and the drummer's suing for slander." The humor works through subverting expectations about Beatles comparisons while playing on the "underappreciated drummer" trope. It effectively mocks both music journalism's endless Beatles comparisons and the cultural position of drummers in bands.
The joke lands well with the Buzzcocks audience, who would understand both the weight of Beatles comparisons and appreciate the irreverent take on band dynamics.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Math Priest's intro (Dodgy)
A surprisingly wholesome joke that works through both wordplay and status commentary: "They've been asked back next year to support The Cakes and the Tombola." The humor connects "The Jam" to typical village fete items while gently ribbing Dodgy's career trajectory. It's particularly effective for British audiences familiar with both village fete culture and The Jam's significance in British music.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Louise's intro
The joke relies on the contrast between celebrity glamour and football culture: "He's a romantic soul and often takes her to the ground for intimate candlelit dinners of pies, Bovril, and Wagon Wheels." While it lands well with the audience through its use of recognizable British cultural touchstones, it's relatively straightforward humor that plays to the crowd rather than attempting anything particularly clever.
The joke works primarily through its vivid imagery and relatable cultural references rather than any sophisticated comedy construction.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience: 4 (LOL)
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose)
# Jeff Green's intro
The attempt at meta-comedy around "razor-sharp observation" doesn't quite work as intended. While there's a decent concept in playing with the literal interpretation of the phrase and deconstructing comedy promotional language, the setup and delivery feel forced. The punchline "Christ, this razor's sharp" doesn't pay off the setup effectively enough.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose)
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort)
The overall sequence demonstrates Buzzcocks' characteristic mix of music industry commentary and cultural references, though with varying degrees of success. The strongest jokes (Norman Blake, Math Priest) work through multiple layers of meaning, while the weaker ones either pander (Louise) or fail to stick the landing (Jeff Green). The writing shows how British comedy of this era often relied heavily on cultural touchstones and industry in-jokes, with the most successful examples being those that managed to make these references work on multiple levels rather than just playing to obvious laughs. | Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e07 - Louise, Math Priest, Norman Blake, Jeff Green | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Phil's first guest is Richard Fairbrass from Right Said Fred. Richard is a singer and TV presenter who's brought his own weightlifting gym. He's now an expert at the clean and the jerk, but he curiously has no interest in the snatch.
Phil's second guest is Radio 1 star DJ and TV presenter Lisa I'Anson. Lisa's had a long association with pop music and recently worked with Wings. She does the voiceover on the Bodyform ads.
Shaun's first guest is Shovell, percussionist with M People.
Shaun's second guest is heartthrob and platinum-selling pop sensation Mark Owen. Mark used to work in a bank but now gets hundreds of fan letters a week. He replies diligently to every letter and charges a mere 15-pound administration fee for each one. | Phil's first guest is Richard Fairbrass from Right Said Fred. Richard is a singer and TV presenter who's brought his own weightlifting gym. He's now an expert at the clean and the jerk, but he curiously has no interest in the snatch.
Phil's second guest is Radio 1 star DJ and TV presenter Lisa I'Anson. Lisa's had a long association with pop music and recently worked with Wings. She does the voiceover on the Bodyform ads.
Shaun's first guest is Shovell, percussionist with M People.
Shaun's second guest is heartthrob and platinum-selling pop sensation Mark Owen. Mark used to work in a bank but now gets hundreds of fan letters a week. He replies diligently to every letter and charges a mere 15-pound administration fee for each one. | # Richard Fairbrass's intro
Contains a sophisticated multi-layered joke playing with weightlifting terminology. "Clean and jerk" and "snatch" work as both legitimate Olympic weightlifting moves and sexual innuendo, particularly pointed given Fairbrass is openly gay. The line about being "expert at the clean and the jerk" is also a clever way of implying he's a wanker, while his "no interest in the snatch" works on multiple levels.
The joke lands particularly well because:
- It works on multiple levels (weightlifting terms, sexual innuendo, implied insult)
- British audiences appreciate this style of layered innuendo
- The personal context makes it pointed rather than gratuitous
- It fits the show's irreverent tone perfectly
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience at home: 4 (LOL)
- Comedy writer: 4 (LOL)
# Lisa I'Anson's intro
Contains no jokes - purely informational content establishing her professional background through references to Radio 1, Wings, and Bodyform advertisements.
# Shovell's intro
Contains no jokes - straightforward introduction identifying his role as percussionist with M People.
# Mark Owen's intro
Contains a joke attempting to subvert the boyband heartthrob image by suggesting Owen charges fans for responses to letters. The specific "15-pound administration fee" detail aims to add bureaucratic banality to celebrity culture.
The joke attempts to work through:
- Contrast between heartthrob image and petty bureaucratic behavior
- Callback to his actual banking background
- Commentary on commercialization of fan interactions
- The precise amount adding bureaucratic absurdity
However, while technically constructed well, it doesn't quite hit the mark in terms of humor.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience at home: 2 (A minor exhale)
- Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) | Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e05 - Mark Owen, Lisa l'Anson, Shovell, Richard Fairbrass | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Phil's first guest is Slade's frontman, glam rock godfather, Noddy Holder. He's had no fewer than eight Christmas hits with the same song. Phil's second guest is feisty queen of Britpop and singer from Sleeper, Louise Wener. The band's new album features a photo of Louise as a weedy nine-year-old with gimpy clothes and glasses. Phil's team ends with television host Jonathan Ross, who made his first-ever TV appearance with a walk-on part in Dad's Army and is surprisingly still alive. | Phil's first guest is Slade's frontman, glam rock godfather, Noddy Holder. He's had no fewer than eight Christmas hits with the same song. Phil's second guest is feisty queen of Britpop and singer from Sleeper, Louise Wener. The band's new album features a photo of Louise as a weedy nine-year-old with gimpy clothes and glasses. Phil's team ends with television host Jonathan Ross, who made his first-ever TV appearance with a walk-on part in Dad's Army and is surprisingly still alive. | # Noddy Holder's intro
A simple reference joke playing on Slade's "Merry Xmas Everybody" being a perennial Christmas hit. The line "no fewer than eight Christmas hits with the same song" is a low-effort observation about the song's repeated success and cultural ubiquity.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale)
- Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale)
# Louise Wener's intro
The attempted humor relies entirely on describing an apparently unflattering childhood photo ("weedy nine-year-old with gimpy clothes and glasses"). Without seeing the actual photo, this barely qualifies as a joke and comes across as lazy writing. While it attempts to play on the contrast between her Britpop image and childhood awkwardness, it fails to land effectively.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Home audience: 1 (Crickets)
- Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets)
# Jonathan Ross's intro
The joke attempts to play on Dad's Army's age by suggesting Ross had a walk-on role, leading to the punchline "surprisingly still alive." However, the setup is problematic as it relies on audience knowledge of when Dad's Army aired (1960s/70s) to make sense of why Ross being alive would be surprising. The reference is too opaque for most viewers to make the connection, rendering the punchline ineffective.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Home audience: 1 (Crickets)
- Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets)
# Overall Assessment
The introduction sequence demonstrates three different approaches to humor, none particularly successful:
- A basic cultural reference (Noddy)
- A weak attempt at visual humor through description (Louise)
- A poorly constructed age joke with an unclear setup (Jonathan)
The Noddy Holder intro manages to be marginally more successful simply by virtue of its straightforward reference to a well-known cultural phenomenon, while the other two suffer from either laziness or unclear execution. The writing feels perfunctory rather than sharp, with jokes that either require too much explanation or fail to develop beyond surface-level observations.
The sequence as a whole suggests a somewhat phoned-in approach to the introduction writing, lacking the wit and incisiveness typically associated with Never Mind the Buzzcocks' better moments. While introductions don't need to be comedy masterpieces, these examples fall short of even modest humor targets. | Series 02/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s02e08 - Merry Mind the Buzzcocks Christmas Special - Boy George, Noddy Holder, Louise Wener, Jonathan Ross | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Phil's first guest is Andrew Roachford, main man in classic Brit soul combo, Roachford. Andrew Roachford, ladies and gentlemen, Phil's team!
Sean's first guest is Catatonia's own hard-drinking, hard-singing, and hard-pronouncing Cerys Matthews. Sean's other guest is top stand-up Donna McPhail. Donna and Cerys, ladies and gentlemen, Sean's team! | Phil's first guest is Andrew Roachford, main man in classic Brit soul combo, Roachford. Andrew Roachford, ladies and gentlemen, Phil's team!
Sean's first guest is Catatonia's own hard-drinking, hard-singing, and hard-pronouncing Cerys Matthews. Sean's other guest is top stand-up Donna McPhail. Donna and Cerys, ladies and gentlemen, Sean's team! | # Andrew Roachford's intro
The introduction contains a mild attempt at humor around the self-titled band "Roachford" - introducing "Andrew Roachford" as the "main man in classic Brit soul combo, Roachford." The potential joke lies in the repetitive naming convention of a frontman naming their band after themselves, but it's weakly delivered and feels more like a standard introduction than a committed comedic bit.
Ratings:
Audience: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose)
Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets)
# Cerys Matthews and Donna McPhail's intro
The introduction attempts humor through the triple "hard-" description of Matthews ("hard-drinking, hard-singing, and hard-pronouncing"), but it's a fairly basic construction that doesn't quite land as a proper joke. While it references Matthews' Welsh accent and Catatonia's rock reputation, it feels more like descriptive color than actual comedy.
McPhail's introduction is purely straightforward ("top stand-up Donna McPhail"), serving as a simple credential statement rather than attempting humor.
Ratings:
Audience: 1 (Crickets)
Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets)
The overall sequence reads more like standard introductory patter with light attempts at color rather than crafted comedy. While there's potential in both the self-titled band angle for Roachford and the Welsh accent/lifestyle references for Matthews, neither is developed enough to really work as proper jokes.
This kind of introduction often works better in live delivery, where the host's timing and personality can add layers of meaning that don't come across in the plain text. The writing itself, however, stays fairly close to standard variety show introduction territory with only mild comedic flourishes. | Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e01 - Donna McPhail, Roachford, Cerys Matthews, Tommy Scott | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Phil's first guest is Rick McMurray from chart-toppers Ash. The band wrote their number one album while still at school. They also wrote a brilliant follow-up but claimed the dog ate it.
Phil's second guest is Lemmy, the main man with heavy metal mothers Motorhead. Lemmy's very proud that his band has been going ten years longer than the Third Reich, and funnily enough, they've also done more damage to Coventry.
Sean's first guest is Mani, bassist with the mighty Primal Scream. Mani's previous band, the Stone Roses, went on a drunken rampage in their record company's offices, which cost tens of thousands of pounds. They rang accountants who commissioned another Chesney Hawkes album.
Sean's other guest, yes he's young, gifted and back, Richard Fairbrass. Richard says, "Although I'm predominantly gay, I reserve the right to wake up with a big pair of tits," which is no way to talk about the other members of Right Said Fred. | Phil's first guest is Rick McMurray from chart-toppers Ash. The band wrote their number one album while still at school. They also wrote a brilliant follow-up but claimed the dog ate it.
Phil's second guest is Lemmy, the main man with heavy metal mothers Motorhead. Lemmy's very proud that his band has been going ten years longer than the Third Reich, and funnily enough, they've also done more damage to Coventry.
Sean's first guest is Mani, bassist with the mighty Primal Scream. Mani's previous band, the Stone Roses, went on a drunken rampage in their record company's offices, which cost tens of thousands of pounds. They rang accountants who commissioned another Chesney Hawkes album.
Sean's other guest, yes he's young, gifted and back, Richard Fairbrass. Richard says, "Although I'm predominantly gay, I reserve the right to wake up with a big pair of tits," which is no way to talk about the other members of Right Said Fred. | # Rick McMurray's intro
A simple but effective joke that plays on the classic "dog ate my homework" excuse, transposed into a professional music context. The setup about writing their first album while still at school makes the punchline land naturally. It's a wholesome misdirect that works without needing any special knowledge or context.
**Ratings:**
- Audience at Home: 3 (An audible snort) - Lands well as a gentle opener
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Simple but effective construction
# Lemmy's intro
The joke attempts to work through hyperbole, comparing Motorhead's longevity to the Third Reich and suggesting they've done "more damage to Coventry" than the WWII bombing raids. However, the joke fails to land because there's no clear connection established between Lemmy/Motorhead and Coventry. Without this crucial context, the audience is left wondering why Coventry specifically was chosen, making the comparison feel arbitrary and confusing rather than funny.
**Ratings:**
- Audience at Home: 1 (Crickets) - Lacks necessary context to work
- Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) - Poorly constructed, missing vital connection
# Mani's intro
The joke hinges on the contrast between the Stone Roses' rebellious behavior and the commercial solution proposed. After describing their "drunken rampage" causing expensive damage, the punchline reveals that accountants commissioned a Chesney Hawkes album - implying this was to recoup the losses. It's a subtle dig at both the Stone Roses' commercial prospects and anti-commercial attitude, while also poking fun at Hawkes' mainstream pop appeal. However, the joke's construction is too subtle and requires too much context about British pop culture to land effectively for most viewers.
**Ratings:**
- Audience at Home: 1 (Crickets) - Too subtle and requires too much context
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - Clever concept but poor execution
# Richard Fairbrass's intro
The joke builds from Fairbrass's quote "Although I'm predominantly gay, I reserve the right to wake up with a big pair of tits" into a punchline about his Right Said Fred bandmates. It relies on the double meaning of "tits" as both a sexual reference and British slang for fools/idiots. While the risqué nature of the joke likely plays well with the audience, the actual payoff is relatively uninspired despite the setup suggesting a bigger punchline.
**Ratings:**
- Audience at Home: 3 (An audible snort) - Works well enough due to risqué element
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - Basic double entendre with underwhelming payoff | Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e02 - Mani, Rick McMurray, Lemmy, Richard Fairbrass | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Bill's first guest is former Misteeq star, now a solo artist and FHM's 98th sexiest woman of 2002, it's Alesha. Alesha's mum is a hairdresser and used to run the Misteeq fan club, giving her just 22 hours a day for hairdressing and two hours for lunch. His second guest is surely not Blue Peter, GMTV, Lottery and Wish You Were Here legend, Anthea Turner. Yes it is, it's Anthea Turner. Anthea has made a TV comeback with her BBC3 series, The Perfect Housewife. So now we can say Anthea Turner's washed up. In the nicer, slightly less accurate way. Bill's first guest is the front man of stadium filling Scottish rockers, Deacon Blue, it's Ricky Ross. Lorraine from Deacon Blue has a recurring nightmare where the band are playing to a baying crowd without the correct instruments. I have a recurring nightmare that I'm stuck in the middle of a baying crowd watching Deacon Blue. Only joking, I've never heard of you. Bill's second guest is the winner of this year's Edinburgh Festival Comedy Award, it's funny man, Phil Nichol. Phil plays the producer on a fictional TV panel show whose main joke is they can't get any decent guests. Oh the irony. | Bill's first guest is former Misteeq star, now a solo artist and FHM's 98th sexiest woman of 2002, it's Alesha. Alesha's mum is a hairdresser and used to run the Misteeq fan club, giving her just 22 hours a day for hairdressing and two hours for lunch. His second guest is surely not Blue Peter, GMTV, Lottery and Wish You Were Here legend, Anthea Turner. Yes it is, it's Anthea Turner. Anthea has made a TV comeback with her BBC3 series, The Perfect Housewife. So now we can say Anthea Turner's washed up. In the nicer, slightly less accurate way. Bill's first guest is the front man of stadium filling Scottish rockers, Deacon Blue, it's Ricky Ross. Lorraine from Deacon Blue has a recurring nightmare where the band are playing to a baying crowd without the correct instruments. I have a recurring nightmare that I'm stuck in the middle of a baying crowd watching Deacon Blue. Only joking, I've never heard of you. Bill's second guest is the winner of this year's Edinburgh Festival Comedy Award, it's funny man, Phil Nichol. Phil plays the producer on a fictional TV panel show whose main joke is they can't get any decent guests. Oh the irony. | # Alesha Dixon's intro
The key joke is subtle and implied: By stating Alesha's mum spent "22 hours a day for hairdressing and two hours for lunch," the introduction cleverly suggests she spent exactly zero hours running the Misteeq fan club - implying they had no fans to speak of. The humor works through mathematical misdirection, leading listeners to focus on the impossible 24-hour schedule before the penny drops about the fan club implication.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Takes a moment to land but satisfying when it does
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Elegant construction of an implied punchline
# Anthea Turner's intro
A masterfully constructed burn centered on the line "So now we can say Anthea Turner's washed up. In the nicer, slightly less accurate way." The joke works because it suggests that the literal interpretation of "washed up" (doing housework for her Perfect Housewife show) is the nicer but less accurate reading, while the more accurate interpretation is that her career is washed up. The structure appears to pull back from the insult while actually reinforcing it.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Clever wordplay with a sharp edge
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Well-crafted double meaning
# Ricky Ross/Deacon Blue's intro
A straightforward setup that descends into entertaining viciousness. It starts with Lorraine's nightmare about missing instruments, builds to the host's nightmare about watching the band, then delivers the final blow with "Only joking, I've never heard of you." The humor comes from the unnecessary escalation of hostility, which perfectly matches Buzzcocks' irreverent style.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Direct hit that matches show's tone
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Effective use of escalating hostility
# Phil Nichol's intro
The introduction sets up a simple but effective jab: "Phil plays the producer on a fictional TV panel show whose main joke is they can't get any decent guests. Oh the irony." The punchline works by implying that Phil himself doesn't qualify as a decent guest. It's a clean, well-executed self-deprecating joke that fits the show's style perfectly.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 4 (LOL) - Direct and effective
- Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Sharp, economical writing
The set demonstrates different approaches to comedy writing, from subtle implied punchlines (Alesha) to sharp wordplay (Anthea) to straight-up mockery (Deacon Blue) to self-deprecation (Phil). Each joke is well-tailored to the show's irreverent style while maintaining enough playfulness to avoid genuine cruelty. The writing shows particular skill in using implication and misdirection to deliver its punches, often letting the audience do some of the work to arrive at the punchline. | Series 19/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s19e01 - Anthea Turner, Alesha Dixon, Phil Nicol, Ricky Ross | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
On Noel's team tonight, the leader of Mercury-nominated New Young Pony Club. She's so cool. None of you squares probably know who she is, but I do, because a researcher told me. It's Tahita Bulmer.
Also on Noel's team is one of Britain's most loved early morning impromptu doorstep cash prize givers. It's recovering TV presenter, Keith Chegwin.
Phil's first guest is from urban collective N-Dubz. This year he won a MOBO, which you may say is worthless. However, it does entitle him to a mammoth 20 nectar points and free entry to the Keswick Pencil Museum. It's Dappy, ladies and gentlemen.
And his second guest is the mighty Bruce Star and friend of Noel Fielding, but that's not why he's here. It's quiz show asset and valid booking, Rich Fulcher. | On Noel's team tonight, the leader of Mercury-nominated New Young Pony Club. She's so cool. None of you squares probably know who she is, but I do, because a researcher told me. It's Tahita Bulmer.
Also on Noel's team is one of Britain's most loved early morning impromptu doorstep cash prize givers. It's recovering TV presenter, Keith Chegwin.
Phil's first guest is from urban collective N-Dubz. This year he won a MOBO, which you may say is worthless. However, it does entitle him to a mammoth 20 nectar points and free entry to the Keswick Pencil Museum. It's Dappy, ladies and gentlemen.
And his second guest is the mighty Bruce Star and friend of Noel Fielding, but that's not why he's here. It's quiz show asset and valid booking, Rich Fulcher. | # Tahita Bulmer's intro
The humor operates on multiple levels through a self-referential joke that punctures the host's attempt to appear knowledgeable. The setup establishes faux coolness ("She's so cool"), uses dated slang ("squares"), then deliberately deflates it with "but I do, because a researcher told me." This works as both self-deprecation and commentary on music show conventions where hosts pretend expertise.
The joke lands effectively because it's relatable (most viewers won't know her either) while maintaining Buzzcocks' tradition of deflating music industry pretension. The self-awareness prevents any mean-spiritedness.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Home audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Keith Chegwin's intro
The humor comes from the absurdly formal description of a morning TV role ("one of Britain's most loved early morning impromptu doorstep cash prize givers") combined with the perfectly pitched "recovering TV presenter" tag. This plays both on addiction recovery language and Chegwin's career trajectory.
The joke treats a modest TV career with mock gravitas while acknowledging Chegwin's public history without cruelty.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Home audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Dappy's intro
A masterclass in extended mockery that builds through multiple stages. It starts by acknowledging his MOBO award, immediately undermines it ("which you may say is worthless"), then escalates through deliberately pathetic rewards: "a mammoth 20 nectar points and free entry to the Keswick Pencil Museum."
The specificity is perfect - using a small, precise number of supermarket points and the real but inherently amusing Pencil Museum. This extended dunking on Dappy perfectly fits the show's style and what the audience expects and loves.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Home audience: 5 (ROFL)
- Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL)
# Rich Fulcher's intro
This is a well-constructed burn that works through multiple layers of undermining. First comes "friend of Noel Fielding, but that's not why he's here" - already undercutting his booking. Then it doubles down with the comically overcompensating "quiz show asset and valid booking." The fact that Rich is actually a comedy legend in these circles makes the repeated undermining even funnier.
The deliberately corporate language ("valid booking") and defensive justification create humor through the contrast with Fulcher's actual status and talent.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Home audience: 4 (LOL)
- Comedy writer: 4 (LOL)
The Dappy introduction stands as the strongest piece of writing, delivering a perfectly constructed takedown that builds through multiple beats to a satisfying conclusion. The Fulcher introduction demonstrates how to construct a burn that gains extra power from the audience's knowledge of the target, while the Bulmer and Chegwin intros show how to handle different types of guests with appropriate levels of gentle mockery. | Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e03 - Dappy, Keith Chegwin, Tahita Bulmer, Rich Rulche | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
On Phil's team, one of the biggest impression-based comedians of the 80s, now starring in Eastenders and doing a pretty good Shane Richie, it's Bobby Davro. Also on Phil's team, he's so lovely, he's so lovely, he's so lovely. He's released his second single, whatever it's called. From Scouting for Girls, it's Roy Stride. On Noel's team tonight, the former star of Coronation Street, star of soap star superstar, now starring as a pop star, even his album's got one star, it's Richard Fleeshman. And finally from cult comedy hit Flight of the Conchords, it's another one of those cutting edge American comedians. What's going on? Bring back Bobby Davro. Oh he's still here. It's Kristen Schaal. | On Phil's team, one of the biggest impression-based comedians of the 80s, now starring in Eastenders and doing a pretty good Shane Richie, it's Bobby Davro. Also on Phil's team, he's so lovely, he's so lovely, he's so lovely. He's released his second single, whatever it's called. From Scouting for Girls, it's Roy Stride. On Noel's team tonight, the former star of Coronation Street, star of soap star superstar, now starring as a pop star, even his album's got one star, it's Richard Fleeshman. And finally from cult comedy hit Flight of the Conchords, it's another one of those cutting edge American comedians. What's going on? Bring back Bobby Davro. Oh he's still here. It's Kristen Schaal. | # Bobby Davro's intro
The joke plays on Davro appearing in Eastenders, suggesting his performance is derivative by "doing a pretty good Shane Richie." It's a relatively mild jab, delivered without much commitment - more of a throwaway line than a fully developed joke.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 2 (A minor exhale)
- Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale)
# Roy Stride's intro
The humor works on two levels. First, the repetition of "he's so lovely" directly references Scouting for Girls' hit song "She's So Lovely." The main payoff comes when the presenter immediately "forgets" the title of Stride's new single despite having just repeated a similar phrase three times in apparent praise. It's a classic comedy formula but lands well through the timing and delivery.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Especially for those familiar with the band
- Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Well-executed but standard format
# Richard Fleeshman's intro
The introduction builds through a series of apparent accolades ("star of Coronation Street, star of soap star superstar, now starring as a pop star") before delivering an unexpected punchline that completely deflates the buildup: "even his album's got one star." The humor comes from the misdirection - what seems like a list of achievements becomes the setup for a cutting review. It's good-natured ribbing that works particularly well due to the surprise factor.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 4 (LOL) - Strong setup and payoff that lands well
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Solid construction but familiar territory
# Kristen Schaal's intro
The joke plays on mock British-American rivalry in comedy. The humor comes from the absurd suggestion to "Bring back Bobby Davro" instead of this "cutting edge American comedian," made funnier because Davro is clearly not in Schaal's league fame-wise. The deadpan follow-up "Oh he's still here" perfectly punctuates the mock disappointment. While it's fairly standard material, the delivery and timing make it work effectively.
The structure cleverly plays both sides - seemingly dismissing American alternative comedy while actually poking fun at British entertainment's old guard. It's a well-constructed piece of humor that works on multiple levels without being too clever for its own good.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 4 (LOL) - Multiple layers that land well
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Good execution of familiar territory
The introduction sequence shows increasing sophistication in its humor construction, building from simple throwaway lines to more complex setups and payoffs. Each joke is tailored to both the specific guest and the show's irreverent tone while remaining accessible to the general audience. The writing demonstrates a good understanding of how to build and release tension for comedic effect, particularly in the Fleeshman and Schaal introductions. | Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e04 - Roy Stride, Bobby Davro, Kristen Schaal, Richard Fleeshman | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
On Phil's team tonight:
Christ, by highest heaven adored, Christ, the everlasting lord, he put the Wine into Winehouse, it's irresponsible cool dude producer, Mark Ronson.
And you can be the hottest, you can be the finest, it don't matter to me, it's one half of my favourite double act in the history of I'm a Celebrity, it's Vic from Vic and Nancy.
On Bill's team:
Oh holy child of Bethlehem, descend on us we pray, it's the singer from the band The Pigeon Detectives who's interestingly called Matt Bowman, it's Matt Bowman.
And you could be the baddest, be the most stylish, you could be rolling in money, it's classically trained celebrity and reality TV mother, Myleene Klass. | On Phil's team tonight:
Christ, by highest heaven adored, Christ, the everlasting lord, he put the Wine into Winehouse, it's irresponsible cool dude producer, Mark Ronson.
And you can be the hottest, you can be the finest, it don't matter to me, it's one half of my favourite double act in the history of I'm a Celebrity, it's Vic from Vic and Nancy.
On Bill's team:
Oh holy child of Bethlehem, descend on us we pray, it's the singer from the band The Pigeon Detectives who's interestingly called Matt Bowman, it's Matt Bowman.
And you could be the baddest, be the most stylish, you could be rolling in money, it's classically trained celebrity and reality TV mother, Myleene Klass. | # Mark Ronson's intro
The introduction plays with religious imagery from "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" before delivering its main punchline: "he put the Wine into Winehouse." This works on multiple levels - it's a play on Jesus turning water into wine, but more pointedly, it's a dark joke implying Ronson's responsibility for Amy Winehouse's substance issues. The slightly sacrilegious tone and edgy implication perfectly match the show's irreverent style.
The "irresponsible cool dude producer" tag serves as a perfect punctuation to the implied criticism while maintaining plausible deniability about the darker meaning.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 4 (LOL) - The combination of sacrilege and dark humor hits the show's sweet spot
- Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Well-constructed with multiple layers and clever misdirection
# Vic's intro
The core joke here is deliberately undermining Vic's legitimate comedy career by pretending his reality TV appearance with his wife Nancy is more significant than his actual famous double act with Bob Mortimer. The line "one half of my favourite double act in the history of I'm a Celebrity" delivers this perfectly.
The joke is reinforced by mimicking double act naming conventions with "Vic and Nancy," making it even more absurd by treating this temporary reality TV pairing as if it were a genuine comedy partnership like "Vic and Bob."
The opening lyrics seem to be attempting some light absurdist humor but don't add much to the main joke.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Relies on fairly obscure references
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Clever concept but too niche to land broadly
# Matt Bowman's intro
This introduction is notably weak on actual jokes. It plays with religious lyrics again but without much purpose. The main attempt at humor comes from:
1. The obviously false suggestion that being "interestingly called Matt Bowman" is actually interesting
2. The redundant repetition of his name: "who's interestingly called Matt Bowman, it's Matt Bowman"
It's a half-hearted attempt at making humor from the very lack of anything interesting to say about the guest.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - The weak attempt at self-aware humor might get a sympathy laugh
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Basic structure but lacking real wit
# Myleene Klass's intro
The introduction opens with more seemingly random song lyrics before moving to its main joke: the contrast between "classically trained celebrity" and "reality TV mother." It's a gentle dig at the modern celebrity career trajectory, moving from high culture to reality TV.
The humor is relatively straightforward, deriving mainly from the absurdity of the phrase "classically trained celebrity" and what it suggests about modern fame.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - The cultural commentary is clear but not particularly sharp
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - A standard format without much innovation | Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e06 - Christmas Special - Vic Reeves, Myleene Klass, Matt Bowman, Mark Ronson | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Phil's first guest is the lead singer with The Foals... Well if their recent invasion of January is anything to go by, I wouldn't want to be February right now. It’s Yannis Philippakis.
And an award-winning stand-up who fuses comedy with music, he could be a bit like Bill Bailey if it wasn't for his grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance. It's the very different to Bill Bailey, Tim Minchin everybody! | Phil's first guest is the lead singer with The Foals... Well if their recent invasion of January is anything to go by, I wouldn't want to be February right now. It’s Yannis Philippakis.
And an award-winning stand-up who fuses comedy with music, he could be a bit like Bill Bailey if it wasn't for his grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance. It's the very different to Bill Bailey, Tim Minchin everybody! | # Yannis Philippakis's intro
This introduction attempts a joke about The Foals' "invasion of January" and February being worried, but the intended humor is unclear and lacks clear referential context. Without understanding what specific January success or "invasion" is being referenced, the joke falls flat and comes across as confusing rather than clever.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience at home: 1 (Crickets)
- Comedy writer: 1 (Crickets)
# Tim Minchin's intro
This is a well-constructed piece of comedic misdirection that plays with ambiguity. The introduction sets up a comparison between Tim Minchin and Bill Bailey as musical comedians: "he could be a bit like Bill Bailey if it wasn't for his grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance."
The key to the humor lies in the intentional ambiguity of who "his" refers to in "his grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance." While the setup appears to be building toward insulting Tim Minchin, the fact that Bill Bailey himself isn't known for his looks creates a layer of amusing uncertainty. The final line "It's the very different to Bill Bailey, Tim Minchin everybody!" deliberately maintains this ambiguity rather than resolving it, which is what makes the joke work so well.
The humor succeeds through:
- Initial legitimate comparison between two similar performers
- Strategic use of ambiguity about who is being described
- Over-the-top descriptive language ("grotesquely freakish, almost non-human appearance")
- Deliberate non-resolution of the ambiguity in the punchline
This is sophisticated comedy writing that rewards both immediate appreciation and closer analysis.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience at home: 4 (LOL)
- Comedy writer: 4 (LOL)
The stark difference in quality between these two introductions demonstrates how crucial clear intent and well-structured misdirection are to successful comedy writing. While the Philippakis intro fails due to unclear reference points, the Minchin intro succeeds by carefully managing audience expectations and playing with ambiguity in a way that enhances rather than obscures the humor. | Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e10 - Sophie Ellis Bextor, Yannis, Tim Minchin, James Lance | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Tonight, with just three outrageous lies in his intro, it's Matt Shultz!
And she's a fiercely intelligent Oxford-educated comedian and actor. Stephen Fry'd better watch out, because she's also a murderer! It's Josie Long!
On Phil's team tonight, former S Club Junior and now in new girl band The Saturdays. There's nothing wrong with dressing her all sexy now, and we can't change the past. It's Frankie Sandford!
And also on Phil's team is the up-and-coming star of Mamma Mia, The History Boys, and The Duchess. Oh, him? I love him! Such a recognizable face. Go on, give us a clue. I'm sorry, your time's up. It's Dominic Cooper! | It’s the award winning, platinum selling singer of Cage the Elephant, and we’re delighted to have him here. Tonight, with just three outrageous lies in his intro, it's Matt Shultz!
And she's a fiercely intelligent Oxford-educated comedian and actor. Stephen Fry'd better watch out, because she's also a murderer! It's Josie Long!
On Phil's team tonight, former S Club Junior and now in new girl band The Saturdays. There's nothing wrong with dressing her all sexy now, and we can't change the past. It's Frankie Sandford!
And also on Phil's team is the up-and-coming star of Mamma Mia, The History Boys, and The Duchess. Oh, him? I love him! Such a recognizable face. Go on, give us a clue. I'm sorry, your time's up. It's Dominic Cooper! | # Matt Shultz's intro
A simple meta-joke playing with the show's format by explicitly stating "three outrageous lies in his intro." The humor comes from the fact that while this suggests fabricated accolades, his achievements with Cage the Elephant are actually legitimate. The joke is somewhat unfocused and doesn't fully commit to its premise.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale)
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale)
# Josie Long's intro
A straightforward setup-punchline structure that builds her up as an intellectual figure ("fiercely intelligent Oxford-educated comedian") only to undercut it with the absurd "she's also a murderer!" The Stephen Fry reference serves mainly to position her as someone who would interest him intellectually, making the murderer revelation more jarring.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 1 (Crickets)
- Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets)
# Frankie Sandford's intro
The strongest and darkest joke of the set. The line "There's nothing wrong with dressing her all sexy now, and we can't change the past" delivers a powerful punch by directly addressing the entertainment industry's sexualization of young performers. The joke works through careful construction - starting with her S Club Junior background before delivering the loaded commentary about her current image. The follow-up "we can't change the past" adds another layer of uncomfortable self-awareness about collective culpability.
The humor is particularly effective (and uncomfortable) because Sandford is present for this commentary. It's dark, self-aware humor that forces the audience to confront their own participation in this dynamic.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 5 (ROFL)
- Comedy Writer: 5 (ROFL)
# Dominic Cooper's intro
Cleverly parodies the viewer's internal monologue when seeing a familiar actor whose name they can't quite place. The structure "Oh, him? I love him! Such a recognizable face" perfectly captures this common experience. The game show quiz format ("Go on, give us a clue. I'm sorry, your time's up") adds entertaining window dressing to what is essentially a gentle ribbing about Cooper's status as a well-liked but not quite A-list celebrity.
The joke manages to both compliment and slightly insult Cooper simultaneously, suggesting he's both beloved and somewhat forgettable - a neat trick that makes the humor land effectively.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) | Series 22/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s22e02 - Dominic Cooper, Matt Shultz, Josie Long, Frankie Sandford | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Lee's first guest might be known for her role on a certain popular soap opera, but tonight she's stepping out of the cobbled streets and onto our panel. She's the girl-next-door with a quick wit and sharper tongue, it's Coronation Street's very own Sally Lindsay!
And joining Sally is a music legend who's seen it all and performed with the biggest names in the industry. He's written hits that have stood the test of time, and he's still going strong. Please welcome, from the legendary band Squeeze, it's singer-songwriter Chris Difford! | Lee's first guest might be known for her role on a certain popular soap opera, but tonight she's stepping out of the cobbled streets and onto our panel. She's the girl-next-door with a quick wit and sharper tongue, it's Coronation Street's very own Sally Lindsay!
And joining Sally is a music legend who's seen it all and performed with the biggest names in the industry. He's written hits that have stood the test of time, and he's still going strong. Please welcome, from the legendary band Squeeze, it's singer-songwriter Chris Difford! | # Sally Lindsay's intro
This is a straightforward, non-comedic introduction that serves to present Sally Lindsay to the audience. While it references her Coronation Street background and personality traits ("girl-next-door with a quick wit and sharper tongue"), these are informational rather than attempts at humor. The mention of "stepping out of the cobbled streets" is simply a transitional reference to her soap opera role rather than wordplay.
The introduction achieves its primary purpose of establishing who she is and why she's qualified to be on the panel, without trying to force humor where it isn't needed.
No funniness rating required as this is not a comedic introduction.
# Chris Difford's intro
This is another straight introduction that focuses on establishing Difford's musical credentials and legacy. The language used ("music legend," "performed with the biggest names," "written hits that have stood the test of time") serves to properly contextualize his importance in British music for the audience.
The introduction appropriately maintains a respectful, non-comedic tone that befits a guest of his stature in the music industry. This demonstrates how Never Mind the Buzzcocks balances its entertainment format with proper recognition of significant musical figures.
No funniness rating required as this is not a comedic introduction.
Both introductions demonstrate that panel show guest introductions don't need to contain jokes to be effective - sometimes a clear, straightforward presentation of the guest's background and credentials is the most appropriate approach. | Series 22/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s22e10 - 198th Episode Special - Arlene Phillips, Keith Murray, Dappy, Robert Webb | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
On Phil's team tonight, if you like top electro-pop band Hot Chip, you'll love this next guest. He's from top electro-pop band Hot Chip, it's Joe Goddard. You know, from Hot Chip. And Stephen Fry did pull out at the last minute, but I'm sure whoever we replaced him with will be a brilliant established or up-and-coming man or woman. Oh, it's the IT crowd's Chris O'Dowd, good.
Phil's first guest is the star of Cold Feet and Murphy's Law, it's the thinking woman's drunken, slutty sister's crumpet, James Nesbitt. And taking the temporarily cool dude indie star seat tonight, it's Adam from Flipchart Hiatus. Sorry, hang on, I've just been told, Flipchart Hiatus have slipped a couple of places in the cool list and we're gonna have to replace him with the very talented cool dude indie star, Lightspeed Champion, everybody! | On Phil's team tonight, if you like top electro-pop band Hot Chip, you'll love this next guest. He's from top electro-pop band Hot Chip, it's Joe Goddard. You know, from Hot Chip. And Stephen Fry did pull out at the last minute, but I'm sure whoever we replaced him with will be a brilliant established or up-and-coming man or woman. Oh, it's the IT crowd's Chris O'Dowd, good.
Phil's first guest is the star of Cold Feet and Murphy's Law, it's the thinking woman's drunken, slutty sister's crumpet, James Nesbitt. And taking the temporarily cool dude indie star seat tonight, it's Adam from Flipchart Hiatus. Sorry, hang on, I've just been told, Flipchart Hiatus have slipped a couple of places in the cool list and we're gonna have to replace him with the very talented cool dude indie star, Lightspeed Champion, everybody! | # Joe Goddard's Introduction
This is anti-humor that works through conspicuous absence of an actual joke, combined with the redundant mentions of Hot Chip ("He's from top electro-pop band Hot Chip... You know, from Hot Chip"). The humor is deliberately thin and self-aware, but doesn't quite land.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 1 (Crickets)
- Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets)
# Chris O'Dowd's Introduction
Sets up what could have been a good status joke comparing O'Dowd to Stephen Fry, but pulls its punch with the overly nice "I'm sure whoever we replaced him with will be brilliant." The Buzzcocks audience typically expects and appreciates sharper humor, making this a missed opportunity.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 1 (Crickets)
- Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets)
# James Nesbitt's Introduction
A expertly crafted character assassination that subverts the established phrase "thinking woman's crumpet." By describing him instead as "the thinking woman's drunken, slutty sister's crumpet," it implies Nesbitt lacks the intelligence to attract thinking women, instead appealing to their less discerning siblings. The joke works on multiple levels:
- Clever wordplay with an established phrase
- Sharp but not cruel character commentary
- Captures Nesbitt's roguish appeal while undermining his sophistication
- Blends highbrow and lowbrow elements effectively
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 4 (LOL)
- Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL)
# Flipchart Hiatus/Lightspeed Champion Introduction
A somewhat muddled execution of some good comedic ideas. The fake band name "Flipchart Hiatus" parodies pretentious indie names by combining corporate mundanity with artistic pretension. The immediate demotion ("Flipchart Hiatus have slipped a couple of places in the cool list") satirizes the fickle nature of indie credibility and media's obsession with "cool."
However, the execution is problematic because:
- It's not immediately clear that Flipchart Hiatus is fictional
- The satire of indie band coolness is too understated
- The misdirect might confuse more than amuse
- The intro fakeout is a somewhat tired trope
It gets some points for being an in-joke that regular viewers might appreciate, but feels a bit lazy in its execution.
Ratings:
- Home Audience: 2.5 (Between minor exhale and audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 2.5 (Between minor exhale and audible snort) | Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e11 - James Nesbitt, Joe Goddard, Chris O'Dowd, Lightspeed Champion | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
On Phil's team tonight, he's on every other TV show to celebrate his "King of the Jungle" triumph; one more won't hurt, surely? It's Christopher Biggins! And taking advantage of nothing else being released at the moment, it's indie sensation and big fish in an empty pond, Get Cape Wear Cape Fly!
Phil's first guest is a chart-topping pop phenomenon whose album is still nearly full price in many shops; it's Robin! And he also has a brilliant comedian and a talented author, yet strangely available during such a busy time for comedy and books, it's Mark Watson! | On Phil's team tonight, he's on every other TV show to celebrate his "King of the Jungle" triumph; one more won't hurt, surely? It's Christopher Biggins! And taking advantage of nothing else being released at the moment, it's indie sensation and big fish in an empty pond, Get Cape Wear Cape Fly!
Phil's first guest is a chart-topping pop phenomenon whose album is still nearly full price in many shops; it's Robin! And he also has a brilliant comedian and a talented author, yet strangely available during such a busy time for comedy and books, it's Mark Watson! | # Christopher Biggins's intro
A straightforward joke mocking Biggins's ubiquitous media presence after winning "I'm A Celebrity." The line "one more won't hurt, surely?" delivers light sarcasm about celebrity overexposure. It's a simple, recognizable reference that works because British audiences would be familiar with Biggins's frequent TV appearances during this period.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Mildly amusing but throwaway
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Basic execution of an obvious joke
# Get Cape Wear Cape Fly's intro
The introduction mocks the guest through the "big fish in an empty pond" metaphor and the direct statement about "taking advantage of nothing else being released." The joke suggests they can only achieve success when there's no competition. While the audience typically enjoys this kind of mockery on the show, the execution here isn't quite sharp enough to make it truly memorable.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Decent mockery that lands okay
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Serviceable but not particularly clever
# Robin's intro
A half-hearted attempt at humor using the phrase "still nearly full price in many shops" to undercut the "chart-topping pop phenomenon" setup. The joke seems to be suggesting the album isn't selling well enough to warrant discounting, but the execution is lazy and the punch doesn't really land.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Barely registers
- Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) - Poor execution of a weak premise
# Mark Watson's intro
The most skillfully constructed introduction of the set. It builds beautifully through praise ("brilliant comedian and talented author") before the devastating pivot with "yet strangely available during such a busy time for comedy and books." The humor works through perfect comic timing and the ironic contrast between stated success and implied lack of demand. It's particularly effective because it plays into British appreciation of self-deprecation while maintaining a sharp edge.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 4 (LOL) - Lands perfectly with great timing
- Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Expertly constructed burn
The Watson introduction stands out as the clear winner, demonstrating how a well-constructed setup-pivot-punchline structure can deliver a memorable joke that works on multiple levels while maintaining the show's characteristic tone. The others range from serviceable (Get Cape Wear Cape Fly) to forgettable (Robin), with the Biggins intro falling somewhere in between as a basic but functional piece of light mockery. | Series 21/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s21e09 - Mark Watson, Christopher Biggins, Robyn, Sam Duckworth | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
On Mark's team tonight, she's usually chasing pavements, but tonight, pavements, you can take the evening off because she's not chasing you, she's chasing points! It's song sensation and points meshuggener, Adele. Also on Mark's team, not that we're panicking about the loss of anyone in particular, but it's comedian with a piano, Tim, just in case, Minchin. And on Phil's team tonight, "Honk! Honk!" That's the sound of a klaxon. But what does this one sound like? Like a bloody cool human, we hope, it's one of The Klaxons, Jamie Reynolds from The Klaxons! And Phil's second guest is an actor with the charisma and talent to make anything he's in, however bad the script, seem like it certainly should be good enough for BBC3. It's Ralf Little, everybody! | On Mark's team tonight, she's usually chasing pavements, but tonight, pavements, you can take the evening off because she's not chasing you, she's chasing points! It's song sensation and points meshuggener, Adele. Also on Mark's team, not that we're panicking about the loss of anyone in particular, but it's comedian with a piano, Tim, just in case, Minchin. And on Phil's team tonight, "Honk! Honk!" That's the sound of a klaxon. But what does this one sound like? Like a bloody cool human, we hope, it's one of The Klaxons, Jamie Reynolds from The Klaxons! And Phil's second guest is an actor with the charisma and talent to make anything he's in, however bad the script, seem like it certainly should be good enough for BBC3. It's Ralf Little, everybody! | # Adele's intro
The joke deliberately leans into its own cringe-worthy, dad-joke nature, building up the tortured "Chasing Pavements" reference with increasing commitment: "she's usually chasing pavements, but tonight, pavements, you can take the evening off because she's not chasing you, she's chasing points!" The humor comes from how far it stretches this forced wordplay, making the audience both wince and smile at its self-aware corniness. The addition of "points meshuggener" (an obscure Yiddish term) adds an intentionally weird, unparseable element that compounds the intentionally awkward introduction.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - The self-aware corniness lands well
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Skillfully constructed anti-humor
# Tim Minchin's intro
The humor works on two clear levels: first, the mock-panicked suggestion that Minchin is a hasty replacement for some more valued guest ("not that we're panicking about the loss of anyone in particular"), and second, the deliberately reductive description "comedian with a piano" that perfectly pigeonholes Minchin's public persona. The "just in case" adds a perfect deadpan touch to the emergency replacement narrative.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Well-constructed insider humor
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Clean execution of multiple complementary jokes
# Jamie Reynolds' intro
The humor here likely relies heavily on delivery, appearing to riff on/bastardize "Whoop whoop! It's the sound of da police" but with silly klaxon sounds substituted. The setup "Honk! Honk! That's the sound of a klaxon. But what does this one sound like?" creates an intentionally ridiculous lead-in to introducing a member of The Klaxons, with the "Like a bloody cool human, we hope" serving as an amusing pivot.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 4 (LOL) - The silly setup and delivery make this land
- Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL) - Clever construction playing with expectations
# Ralf Little's intro
This introduction is masterfully constructed with multiple layers of misdirection about whether it's praising or insulting Little. It begins with apparent high praise ("charisma and talent to make anything he's in"), immediately undercut by "however bad the script," before landing on the deliciously ambiguous compliment/insult of making things "seem like it certainly should be good enough for BBC3." The humor comes from the constant subversion of expectations and the lingering ambiguity of whether any of it was actually complimentary, similar to Bilbo's famous "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like" line.
**Ratings:**
- Audience: 5 (ROFL) - Perfect execution of layered humor
- Comedy Writer: 5 (ROFL) - Technically brilliant construction with multiple payoffs | Series 22/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s22e01 - Adele, Jamie Reynolds, Ralf Little, Tim Minchin | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
And on his team tonight:
Get off the Dog and Bone and rush down the Apples and Stairs, you'll never guess who's on the Bella Vision jet… It's cheeky Cockney and movie star, Danny Dyer!
And from ratings-winning band The Long Blondes, it's the lead singer we've all very much heard of… Please don't turn off… It's Kate Jackson!
And on Phil's team tonight:
Look, it's the drummer from McFly! They totally appeal to me and my demographic. I'm going to watch this. It's Harry from McFly!
He's a comedian and actor from the Flight of the Conchords. You can talk all the way through if you like, as long as you keep the TV on. It's Rhys Darby! | And on his team tonight:
Get off the Dog and Bone and rush down the Apples and Stairs, you'll never guess who's on the Bella Vision jet… It's cheeky Cockney and movie star, Danny Dyer!
And from ratings-winning band The Long Blondes, it's the lead singer we've all very much heard of… Please don't turn off… It's Kate Jackson!
And on Phil's team tonight:
Look, it's the drummer from McFly! They totally appeal to me and my demographic. I'm going to watch this. It's Harry from McFly!
He's a comedian and actor from the Flight of the Conchords. You can talk all the way through if you like, as long as you keep the TV on. It's Rhys Darby! | # Danny Dyer's intro
**Contains jokes?** Yes, multiple layers of humor.
**Humor Analysis:**
The guest is an actor who is typecast as a cockney.
the joke progresses through levels of increasingly mangled Cockney:
1. 'Dog and Bone' (correct traditional usage)
2. 'Apples and Stairs' (mixing up a well-known one)
3. 'Bella Vision....jet' (completely falling apart trying to invent one on the spot for 'television set' -- or that's the conceit, anyway)
It’s playfully making fun of cockney rhyming, and also Danny Dyer, who's known for being authentically Cockney and likely cringes at these terrible attempts at it.
Well executed & funny.
International audiences might miss some cultural references but can still appreciate the theatrical delivery.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 5 (ROFL) - The catastrophic attempts and cockney rhyming are charmingly awful
- Comedy Writer: 5 (ROFL) - Comedy writers will appreciate the progression of the joke and the tight execution.
# Kate Jackson's intro
A deliberately mean-spirited introduction that works by being comedically over-the-top: "ratings-winning band The Long Blondes, it's the lead singer we've all very much heard of..." The sting comes from the fact it's absolutely true - most viewers won't have heard of her. The meta-humor stems from the host knowingly pushing past the expected boundaries of guest introductions while maintaining a light-hearted tone that lets him get away with it.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 3 (Audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL)
# Harry from McFly's intro
Extends the previous bit through sarcastic commentary about audience demographics: "They totally appeal to me and my demographic. I'm going to watch this." The humor works on multiple levels - it mocks the audience while simultaneously taking aim at TV executives who make cynical booking decisions to appeal to younger viewers. The host is walking a fine line of what might be considered appropriate criticism of their bosses, which adds to both the comedic effect and likely their personal amusement. It's a good developing bit.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 4 (LOL)
- Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL)
# Rhys Darby's intro
A subtle and layered joke that plays with TV ratings mechanics: "You can talk all the way through if you like, as long as you keep the TV on." This could be interpreted as mocking how ratings systems only measure if TVs are on, not viewer engagement. More broadly, it continues the host's character bit of expressing cynical disaffection with the whole enterprise - they don't care if viewers like the show, just that they contribute to ratings. While less obvious than traditional setup-punchline jokes, this fits with the host's established persona of pushing boundaries through seemingly inappropriate honesty about television's commercial realities.
**Ratings:**
- Home Audience: 3 (Audible snort)
- Comedy Writer: 4 (LOL)
The sequence as a whole builds a running commentary on TV ratings and audience manipulation, with each introduction adding new layers to the host's carefully constructed character as someone who seems determined to bite the hand that feeds them while remaining just charming enough to get away with it. | Series 22/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s22e04 - Kate Jackson, Danny Dyer, Rhys Darby, Harry Judd | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
On Phil's team, Yorkshire's own Tony Wright of the top ten metal band, Terrorvision. Terrorvision's gigs have been described as a laugh, joke, and a crate of ale, just like a night out with Chris Evans, only with a laugh and the joke.
Phil's second guest is Toyah Willcox, pop star, Good Sex Guide presenter, and the voice of the Teletubbies. She spends the day saying things like, let's play with Tinky Winky, eh-oh, and again, and again, and again. And after The Good Sex Guide, she does Teletubbies.
On Sean's team, the first guest is Tim Booth from international student favorites, James. When the band played their biggest hit, Sit Down, the audience would respond by sitting down on the floor, which was fine until the Glastonbury Festival when 500 people drowned in three feet of mud.
Sean's other guest is laconic stand-up, John Moloney. John is a favorite with the critics and was recently described in Time Out as "Man, 30, non-smoker, seeks woman any age for physical relationship." | On Phil's team, Yorkshire's own Tony Wright of the top ten metal band, Terrorvision. Terrorvision's gigs have been described as a laugh, joke, and a crate of ale, just like a night out with Chris Evans, only with a laugh and the joke.
Phil's second guest is Toyah Willcox, pop star, Good Sex Guide presenter, and the voice of the Teletubbies. She spends the day saying things like, let's play with Tinky Winky, eh-oh, and again, and again, and again. And after The Good Sex Guide, she does Teletubbies.
On Sean's team, the first guest is Tim Booth from international student favorites, James. When the band played their biggest hit, Sit Down, the audience would respond by sitting down on the floor, which was fine until the Glastonbury Festival when 500 people drowned in three feet of mud.
Sean's other guest is laconic stand-up, John Moloney. John is a favorite with the critics and was recently described in Time Out as "Man, 30, non-smoker, seeks woman any age for physical relationship." | # Tony Wright (Terrorvision)'s intro
The joke employs a setup-subversion structure comparing Terrorvision's gigs to a night out with Chris Evans. It establishes three elements ("a laugh, joke, and a crate of ale") then deliberately removes two for Evans, implying his nights out have only the drinking without the fun. The humor relies on audience familiarity with Evans' reputation as a party-loving media personality of the era.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 2.5 (Between a minor exhale and an audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale)
# Toyah Willcox's intro
A cleverly constructed joke that sets up the expectation that Toyah is recording phrases like "let's play with Tinky Winky, eh-oh, and again, and again, and again" for the Teletubbies. The punchline then brilliantly subverts this by revealing these phrases were actually being recorded for The Good Sex Guide. The humor works through the unexpected conflation of an innocent children's show with adult sex education content.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 4 (LOL)
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Tim Booth (James)'s intro
The joke builds on James' hit "Sit Down" and takes it to an absurd extreme with the Glastonbury Festival scenario. The humor comes from the extreme exaggeration (500 people drowning) and the specific detail of "three feet of mud" which makes the situation even more ridiculous. The specificity of the details and the matter-of-fact delivery enhance the comic effect, while playing on the cultural understanding of Glastonbury's notorious mud.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# John Moloney's intro
The joke hinges on a classic misdirection. It sets up the expectation that John was featured in Time Out magazine, presumably for his comedy, but then reveals he was actually in the personals section with a dating ad. The specific phrasing "Man, 30, non-smoker, seeks woman any age for physical relationship" lands particularly well, with the clinical "physical relationship" and desperate-sounding "any age" adding extra comedic punch. The construction creates a perfect surprise payoff.
**Funniness ratings:**
- Audience: 5 (ROFL)
- Comedy writer: 5 (ROFL) | Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e03 - John Moloney, Toyah Wilcox, Saul Davie, Tom Wright | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Sean's first guest is Justin Currie, frontman for Del Amitri. Del Amitri have a reputation for being one of rock's most miserable bands. In fact, when they supported The Smiths in 1985, Morrissey used to have to cheer them up with his tickling stick. And it's a warm welcome back for Sean's other guest, the boy balladeer from Barking, Billy Bragg. Billy Bragg was once in the army but lasted for just 90 days, making his the least convincing military career since Colonel Sanders.
Phil's first guest is Mary Anne Hobbs, rising DJ at Radio 1. Mary Anne's a woman who needs no introduction because, being a Radio 1 DJ, she'd only talk over it anyway. Phil's second guest - oh no, he's back again, it's Jonathan Ross. Jonathan's well known for his love of obscure low-budget trash and incidentally, this is his fourth appearance on the show. | Sean's first guest is Justin Currie, frontman for Del Amitri. Del Amitri have a reputation for being one of rock's most miserable bands. In fact, when they supported The Smiths in 1985, Morrissey used to have to cheer them up with his tickling stick. And it's a warm welcome back for Sean's other guest, the boy balladeer from Barking, Billy Bragg. Billy Bragg was once in the army but lasted for just 90 days, making his the least convincing military career since Colonel Sanders.
Phil's first guest is Mary Anne Hobbs, rising DJ at Radio 1. Mary Anne's a woman who needs no introduction because, being a Radio 1 DJ, she'd only talk over it anyway. Phil's second guest - oh no, he's back again, it's Jonathan Ross. Jonathan's well known for his love of obscure low-budget trash and incidentally, this is his fourth appearance on the show. | # Justin Currie's intro
A well-constructed joke that works as a gentle burn on Justin Currie while playing with multiple elements:
- Uses Del Amitri's reputation for melancholic music as the setup
- Creates delicious irony by having Morrissey (famously gloomy himself) be the one cheering them up
- The "tickling stick" reference adds distinctly British humor through the Ken Dodd callback
- Creates an absurdly funny mental image of Morrissey with a tickling stick
The joke lands particularly well by combining music insider knowledge with broader British comedy references, managing to be both clever and silly.
Funniness ratings:
- Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Multiple layers and strong cultural resonance
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Well-constructed but not revolutionary
# Billy Bragg's intro
A solidly constructed introduction that gets mileage from both wordplay and comparison:
- Fun alliteration in "boy balladeer from Barking, Billy Bragg"
- Uses Bragg's brief military career (90 days) as setup
- Lands with the Colonel Sanders comparison ("least convincing military career since Colonel Sanders")
- Works purely on face value without needing deeper knowledge
The joke is particularly effective because it's universally accessible while maintaining the show's characteristic wit.
Funniness ratings:
- Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Clean, accessible humor
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Solid construction with good wordplay
# Mary Anne Hobbs' intro
A fairly standard but effective DJ joke that subverts the "needs no introduction" format:
- Plays on the stereotype of Radio 1 DJs talking over music
- Setup ("needs no introduction") efficiently enables the punchline
- Industry-specific humor that connects with UK music fans
- Somewhat lazy but gets the job done
Funniness ratings:
- Home audience: 2.5 (Between minor exhale and snort) - Relatable but obvious
- Comedy writer: 2.5 (Between minor exhale and snort) - Clean but unambitious
# Jonathan Ross's intro
A straightforward bit of self-deprecating humor that works on two levels:
- References Ross's well-known love of cult/low-budget entertainment
- Turns that into a burn about his repeated appearances on the show
- "Oh no, he's back again" sets up the tone perfectly
- Works as both a dig at Ross's taste and his frequent returns to the show
The effectiveness comes from its casual delivery and the way it pokes fun at both Ross and the show itself.
Funniness ratings:
- Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Works well for regular viewers
- Comedy writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Solid self-referential humor
Overall, these introductions exemplify the show's signature style of mixing music industry knowledge with British cultural references and irreverent humor. The quality varies from somewhat lazy (Hobbs) to quite clever (Currie), but all maintain the show's characteristic tone of playful mockery. | Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e07 - Mary Ann Hobbs, Justin Currie, Billy Bragg, Jonathan Ross | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
On Phil’s team, it’s Louie Eliot, singer with top 20 hipsters and media darlings Rialto. According to Rialto, whenever they want to say something dim they break into a Liam Gallagher impression. Whenever Liam Gallagher wants to say something dim, he just opens his mouth.
Phil’s second guest is Zoe Ball. Zoe joined the Big Breakfast after Chris Evans left. On her first day, she broke an expensive prop intended for a stupid stunt, but he'd left the week before.
Sean’s first guest is Boyzone’s Keith Duffy. While on tour in Japan, the boy's had voodoo dolls left in their hotel rooms with broken glass in them and the message "You Will Die", P.S. can I have an autograph for my sister?
Sean’s other guest is comedian and television presenter Graham Norton. Amazingly Graham won an award for being the best presenter on the Jack Docherty Show - narrowly beating Jack Docherty. He's already tipped to win the award for best captain of Sean's team. | On Phil’s team, it’s Louie Eliot, singer with top 20 hipsters and media darlings Rialto. According to Rialto, whenever they want to say something dim they break into a Liam Gallagher impression. Whenever Liam Gallagher wants to say something dim, he just opens his mouth.
Phil’s second guest is Zoe Ball. Zoe joined the Big Breakfast after Chris Evans left. On her first day, she broke an expensive prop intended for a stupid stunt, but he'd left the week before.
Sean’s first guest is Boyzone’s Keith Duffy. While on tour in Japan, the boy's had voodoo dolls left in their hotel rooms with broken glass in them and the message "You Will Die", P.S. can I have an autograph for my sister?
Sean’s other guest is comedian and television presenter Graham Norton. Amazingly Graham won an award for being the best presenter on the Jack Docherty Show - narrowly beating Jack Docherty. He's already tipped to win the award for best captain of Sean's team. | # Louie Eliot (Rialto)'s intro
A straightforward joke mocking Liam Gallagher. The setup establishes that Rialto does Gallagher impressions "whenever they want to say something dim," leading to the punchline that Gallagher achieves the same effect by simply opening his mouth. The joke works by playing into the common perception of Gallagher as dim-witted, landing well with the show's audience who would be familiar with his public persona.
Ratings:
- Home audience: 3 (Audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 2 (Minor exhale)
# Zoe Ball's intro
The humor here works through clever wordplay, using "stupid stunt" in a double meaning. While it appears to be about Ball breaking a prop for a TV stunt, the punchline reveals "stunt" is actually being used as a TV-friendly substitute word to essentially call Chris Evans a rather ruder name (rhyming with "stunt"). The joke's effectiveness relies heavily on delivery and might work better spoken than written, as the wordplay is somewhat oblique.
Ratings:
- Home audience: 3 (Audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 3 (Audible snort)
# Keith Duffy's intro
The joke plays with contrast between threatening and mundane fan behavior. It starts with genuine menace ("voodoo dolls left in their hotel rooms with broken glass in them and the message 'You Will Die'") before undercutting it with the mundane fan request ("P.S. can I have an autograph for my sister?"). The structure creates a good comic effect through this juxtaposition, though it's not quite as exceptional as it might first appear.
Ratings:
- Home audience: 3 (Audible snort)
- Comedy writer: 2 (Minor exhale)
# Graham Norton's intro
A simple but clean joke built around the absurdity of Graham Norton "narrowly beating Jack Docherty" as best presenter on Docherty's own show. The humor comes from the implicit suggestion that Docherty was somehow in competition for this award on his own show. The second line about being "tipped to win the award for best captain of Sean's team" feels unnecessary and doesn't add much to the initial joke.
Ratings:
- Home audience: 2 (Minor exhale)
- Comedy writer: 2 (Minor exhale)
Overall, these introductions demonstrate the show's typical approach to humor: celebrity mockery, wordplay, and absurdist situations. The Zoe Ball introduction is perhaps the most clever in its construction, though its effectiveness depends heavily on delivery. The Keith Duffy intro provides the most universal appeal with its stark contrast, while the Louie Eliot intro delivers a solid if straightforward celebrity jab. The Graham Norton intro, while competently constructed, is the most conventional of the set. | Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e04 - Zoë Ball, Louis Eliot, Graham Norton, Keith Duffy | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
On Phil's team tonight is Rick Witter, lead singer from Yorkshire's top indie combo, Shed Seven. Shed Seven were recently told they are absolutely huge in Thailand, but then I bet the bar girls say that to all the customers.
Phil's second guest is Shovell, top thumper with megastars M-People. Shovell used to be a builder, which caused problems at the band's early gigs; he kept sitting on the lighting rig above Heather Small shouting, "Hello darling, wanna go on me bongos?"
Sean's first guest is Mark Owen, ex of Take That and pop's cuddliest boy next door. Take That once agreed to do a national tour on behalf of the Family Planning Association, to promote safe sex, but they pulled out at the last minute.
Sean's other guest is Richard Morton, stand-up comedy's only guitar-toting Geordie. He's been described as the most effeminate man in Newcastle; in the recent freezing weather, he was spotted on a street corner wearing a long-sleeved t-shirt. | On Phil's team tonight is Rick Witter, lead singer from Yorkshire's top indie combo, Shed Seven. Shed Seven were recently told they are absolutely huge in Thailand, but then I bet the bar girls say that to all the customers.
Phil's second guest is Shovell, top thumper with megastars M-People. Shovell used to be a builder, which caused problems at the band's early gigs; he kept sitting on the lighting rig above Heather Small shouting, "Hello darling, wanna go on me bongos?"
Sean's first guest is Mark Owen, ex of Take That and pop's cuddliest boy next door. Take That once agreed to do a national tour on behalf of the Family Planning Association, to promote safe sex, but they pulled out at the last minute.
Sean's other guest is Richard Morton, stand-up comedy's only guitar-toting Geordie. He's been described as the most effeminate man in Newcastle; in the recent freezing weather, he was spotted on a street corner wearing a long-sleeved t-shirt. | # Rick Witter's intro
The joke operates through clever misdirection around Shed Seven being "absolutely huge in Thailand." The punchline reveals this came from "bar girls" (Thai sex workers), with the key phrase "I bet the bar girls say that to all the customers" creating a double meaning about physical endowment rather than musical success. The construction is particularly clever, using the familiar format "I bet [x] says that to all the [y]" to deliver a risqué punchline while maintaining plausible deniability. While some audience members might miss the specific reference to "bar girls," the general thrust of the joke and its deflating nature would land well with the show's demographic.
**Ratings:**
- Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Multiple layers that work whether you catch all the references or not
- Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) - Technically accomplished with excellent construction
# Shovell's intro
The joke successfully combines multiple elements: Shovell's builder background, visual comedy of him on the lighting rig, and the builder stereotype of wolf-whistling. The line "Hello darling, wanna go on me bongos?" attempts to merge his past and present careers, though the innuendo doesn't quite work coming from a male perspective, which somewhat muddles the joke. Still, the visual imagery and character-based humor make it entertaining.
**Ratings:**
- Home audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Strong visual comedy despite slightly confused innuendo
- Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Good elements but doesn't quite stick the landing
# Mark Owen's intro
A technically excellent joke built around the double entendre of "pulled out." The setup about Take That promoting safe sex for the Family Planning Association creates perfect context for the punchline. The joke works particularly well given Take That's wholesome image, and manages to be suggestive without being crude. Classic construction executed perfectly.
**Ratings:**
- Home audience: 4 (LOL) - Immediately funny with perfect delivery
- Comedy writer: 4 (LOL) - Exemplary use of double entendre and setup/payoff
# Richard Morton's intro
The joke attempts to play with expectations by establishing Morton as "the most effeminate man in Newcastle," then defining this through the specifically Geordie lens of wearing a long-sleeved t-shirt in freezing weather. It's meant to subvert expectations by using Newcastle's unique cultural standard of masculinity (where wearing weather-appropriate clothing is seen as effeminate). However, the construction makes this clever concept too opaque - the punchline doesn't clearly enough pay off the setup, leaving many audience members likely confused.
**Ratings:**
- Home audience: 2 (A minor exhale) - Clever concept but too obscure in execution
- Comedy writer: 2 (A minor exhale) - Good idea but needs clearer construction | Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e05 - Rick Witter, Mark Owen, Richard Morton, Shovell | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
Bill's first guest is the star of sci-fi hit drama Torchwood and practicing homosexual, John Barrowman. His second guest is Liberty X songstress, Kelli Young. Kelli's last single stormed into the top 48.
Phill's first guest is pop star and tormented genius, Daniel Bedingfield. Phill's second guest is music loving comedian, writer and broadcaster, Robin Ince. | Bill's first guest is the star of sci-fi hit drama Torchwood and practicing homosexual, John Barrowman. His second guest is Liberty X songstress, Kelli Young. Kelli's last single stormed into the top 48.
Phill's first guest is pop star and tormented genius, Daniel Bedingfield. Phill's second guest is music loving comedian, writer and broadcaster, Robin Ince. | # John Barrowman's intro
"Bill's first guest is the star of sci-fi hit drama Torchwood and practicing homosexual, John Barrowman."
Contains a joke: Yes
The humor comes primarily from the deliberately absurd and somewhat rude way to introduce someone, using the dated, judgmental-sounding phrase "practicing homosexual." The stilted phrasing deliberately apes an old-fashioned, pearl-clutching perspective for comedic effect.
The joke works because:
- It plays with outdated terminology that was once used seriously but now reads as absurd
- Barrowman is openly gay and known for his flamboyant personality, making it playful rather than offensive
- The contrast between the formal TV credit and the cheeky descriptor adds to the humor
Ratings:
Audience: 4 (LOL)
Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Kelli Young's intro
"His second guest is Liberty X songstress, Kelli Young. Kelli's last single stormed into the top 48."
Contains a joke: Yes
The humor relies on the specificity of "top 48" - a nonsensical chart position that implies they managed to get exactly 48th place. The timing works by setting up what sounds like a compliment ("stormed into the top...") before undercutting it with "48." It's essentially a condescending pat on the head.
The joke's effectiveness is somewhat limited by the fact that not everyone might catch the reference to how music charts actually work.
Ratings:
Audience: 2 (A minor exhale)
Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort)
# Daniel Bedingfield's intro
"Phill's first guest is pop star and tormented genius, Daniel Bedingfield."
Contains a joke: Not really
While there's a hint of caricature in the "tormented genius" description, it's too half-hearted to qualify as a proper joke. It's more of a slightly playful description than actual humor.
Ratings:
Audience: 1 (Crickets)
Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets)
# Robin Ince's intro
"Phill's second guest is music loving comedian, writer and broadcaster, Robin Ince."
Contains a joke: No
This is purely informational, listing Ince's credentials and establishing his relevance to a music quiz show. There's no attempt at humor or wordplay. | Series 19/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s19e05 - John Barrowman, Kelli Young, Daniel Bedingfield, Robin Ince | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
Task: Analyzing Humor in Contestant Introductions for Never Mind the Buzzcocks
For each introduction, you need to:
1. Identify if it contains one or more jokes
2. If it contains a joke:
- Explain the intended humor: how the joke works & what makes it funny. Break the joke down **in detail**. Aim to capture all the **intended** comedic elements that are present, while including nothing extraneous.
- Analyze how well the joke 'lands' considering:
* The show's typical audience
* How funny it is (be specific in your analysis!)
- Give it two funniness ratings, firstly from the perspective of the audience watching at home, then from the perspective of a comedy writer, using this scale:
1: Crickets
2: A minor exhale out the nose
3. An audible snort
4. LOL
5. ROFL
3. Or, if it doesn't contain a joke:
- Explain why it's not a joke (e.g., purely informational, etc)
Respond in 1000 words with your thorough, in-depth analysis in this format:
# [Character 1 name]'s intro
** Intended Humour **
...
** How it Lands **
...
** Funniness Ratings **
...
# [Character 2 name]'s intro
etc.
Now, examine this intro:
- Phil's first guest, it's Matt Priest of Dodgy. Matt's such a legendary ligger that he was once unable to appear on this show, because he'd already accepted an invitation to the launch of the PG Tips triangular bag.
- Phil's other guest is Tom Robinson, one of the finest pop writers to come out of punk. One of Tom's early hits was "Glad to Be Gay."
- Sean's first guest, Lauren Laverne, singer with Sunderland's indie All Saints, Kenickie.
- Sean's other guest is Jeff Green, of TV and stand-up comedy fame. Jeff's been described in the press as a cheeky cherub, at least that's what he told the police when he was arrested on Hampstead Heath stark naked and holding a bow and arrow. | - Phil's first guest, it's Matt Priest of Dodgy. Matt's such a legendary ligger that he was once unable to appear on this show, because he'd already accepted an invitation to the launch of the PG Tips triangular bag.
- Phil's other guest is Tom Robinson, one of the finest pop writers to come out of punk. One of Tom's early hits was "Glad to Be Gay."
- Sean's first guest, Lauren Laverne, singer with Sunderland's indie All Saints, Kenickie.
- Sean's other guest is Jeff Green, of TV and stand-up comedy fame. Jeff's been described in the press as a cheeky cherub, at least that's what he told the police when he was arrested on Hampstead Heath stark naked and holding a bow and arrow. | # Matt Priest's intro
The humor centers on Matt being a "legendary ligger" (someone who attends events for free food/drinks/perks) and is enhanced by being presented as a true anecdote. The comedy comes from him choosing to attend the launch of a PG Tips triangular tea bag over appearing on television. The specificity of the "triangular" detail and the mundane nature of the event versus a TV appearance creates the absurdity that drives the joke. It works particularly well for a British audience familiar with both PG Tips and the concept of ligging.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience: 4 (LOL) - The true anecdote aspect combined with the cultural specificity makes this genuinely amusing
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - While effective, relying on a simple anecdote is somewhat lazy writing
# Tom Robinson's intro
While appearing purely informational on paper, this intro attempts to generate humor simply by mentioning the song title "Glad to Be Gay." It's a rather basic attempt at getting a laugh that would have likely earned a mild reaction from certain audience members at the time of airing, particularly through delivery.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - Might have gotten a titter from the period audience
- Comedy Writer: 1 (Crickets) - Lazy writing relying on the mere mention of the song title
# Lauren Laverne's intro
The joke works by describing Kenickie as "Sunderland's indie All Saints" - a comparison that's funny precisely because the bands are so different. All Saints were a massively successful, polished R&B pop group, while Kenickie was a raw pop punk band from Sunderland. The humor comes from this deliberate mismatching.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - Works well for those who know both bands
- Comedy Writer: 2 (A minor exhale out the nose) - A quick, effective comparison but not particularly sophisticated
# Jeff Green's intro
The joke works through simple subversion - setting up Jeff as a "cheeky cherub" before revealing he was "arrested on Hampstead Heath stark naked and holding a bow and arrow." The humor comes primarily from the mental image this creates, casting the guest as an exhibitionist pervert. While not particularly clever or layered, the visual absurdity of the scenario makes it entertaining.
The setup ("described in the press as a cheeky cherub") leads perfectly into the punchline, with the bow and arrow detail providing a literal connection to the cherub description while amplifying the ridiculousness of being caught naked.
**Funniness Ratings:**
- Audience: 3 (An audible snort) - The visual imagery and straightforward nature of the joke works well
- Comedy Writer: 3 (An audible snort) - Solid construction but not breaking any new ground | Series 03/Never Mind The Buzzcocks - s03e06 - Lauren Laverne, Tom Robinson, Math Priest, Jeff Green | You are evaluating a model's response to a humor analysis task.
[Original Task Given to Model:]
{original_prompt}
[Gold Standard Answer:]
{gold_answer}
[Test Model's Response to Evaluate:]
{test_response}
[/Test Model Response]
Now, your task as judge is to critically and fairly evaluate each of the test model's responses (per contestant intro) against the authoritative gold response using these criteria (score {LOWER}-{UPPER}):
1. How well it understood the jokes
2. Theory of mind: Insight into audience & comedy writer perspectives & perceptions
3. Depth of analysis (don't confuse this with verbosity; this criteria is about *insightful* depth of analysis of the humour)
4. Funniness ratings accuracy vs gold response
Note that some models will over-explain aspects unrelated to the actual funniness of the joke, or over-reach in their analysis. Note: It's ok for a response to be verbose and comprehensive; use your best judgement (and the human expert response) to distinguish between a good on-target insightful response, vs off-base waffling.
Don't be afraid to use the lower range of scores; if the respondent didn't understand the jokes, give it a 0. Likewise, if it nails it, give a {UPPER}. The full {LOWER}-{UPPER} range is available at your discretion.
For each contestant introduction analyzed, provide scores and brief justification.
Respond in parseable JSON in this format:
[
{{
"contestant": "contestant name",
"judge_analysis": "free text analysis of the test model response for this contestant",
"scores": {{
"understood_jokes": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"tom_insight": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"depth": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>,
"funniness_rating_acc": <{LOWER}-{UPPER}>
}}
}},
...
] |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
BuzzBench
This dataset contains the questions & prompts for the BuzzBench humour analysis benchmark.
https://eqbench.com/buzzbench.html
Never Mind The Buzzcocks is a TV series developed by the BBC. Our usage of the work in BuzzBench is non-commercial educational & research, using only a small excerpt of the show's transcript which falls under fair use or "fair dealing" in UK copyright law.
- Downloads last month
- 3