After some application of MS Excel pivot chart magic (thus recouping their MBA investments), they have the following graphs to show. The base data is available with me in case anyone's interested. Each image has been preceded by a small note from A & V on how they arrived at those classifications.
[Anand]: Simple [classes], we used a school subject kinda classification consciously trying to nail everything: less on Misc. etc, Social Sc includes History, Geo, Politics, Eco etc and hence appears to have more weightage.
(No entry for Yoga, SUPW (Ramanand's note: SUPW stands for "Socially Useful Productive Work" (and has other variations too)))
[Vibhendu]:Mythology, etymology are clubbed under Lit for most cases.
[Anand]: Sadly, this is divided into India & Western only--we have left out further subdivisions as that domain belongs to Llosa, Jospin, Chomsky etc--so a Home or Away format.
[Anand]: The criterion used is if we feel it has appeared before in the same form (i.e. worded the same circa John Sutter), or is a basic regurgitation of a standalone fact that has appeared in the same form ( as in the q), or is derived from a fact/incident well chronicled.( This is for Banality)( Like also Lara Croft's stats.) Originality - anything that we felt required the QM to drill down on facts, contort incidents, derives from a reworking of known or even unknown events, and we felt was essentially framed by QM solely for the purposes of asking.( i e the SRT Clapham q, chimes )
[Vibhendu]: The classification was done in less than ideal conditions, some of it on our way back from Pune. Hence most of it was done on-the-fly and has not been revisited even once. The exercise is mostly exploratory in nature and was never intended to be a critique of the quizzes, hence no classification on the lines of good, not so good and bad etc. Provenance & category classification was again done to detect any mojor trends in the present day quizzes, can be improved with certain sub-topics institutionalised as independent categories by themselves;-) As for the contentious issue of originality-banality classification, the criterion is here the thought process followed by the question solver rather than the qn-setter. Chestnuts are classified as banal straightaway. Awell known fact making a quizzing debut may still run the risk of being dubbed as banal. e.g, north eastern capitals, new jalpaiguri & Geeta Dutt. Noble intentions behind incorporating quiz-virgin topics, notwithstanding ;-) Again, if the question solver is aided by an existing thread/chestnut, the qn could have been branded banal. e.g. A connect qn on last Male Singles Grand slam winners from the host nations finding an echo in a Ladies singles winners connect.
Regular disclaimers of errors in judgement, subjectivity and lack of consistency follow. Surely, there is enough scope for refining.The reason behind bringing it up was that it can be used as a template/suplement when you do a classification exercise of your own.
:: Anand and Vibhendu