New Ranking System (Feedback)

[euler]

A number of changes have taken place to the way in which scoring/ranking is done. Members will now advance through ranks as they continue to solve problems, starting as Recruit, working through non-commissioned ranks: Private, Corporal, Sergeant, and advancing on to commissioned officers: Lieutenant, Captain, and so on. Members will also earn awards as they pass particular landmarks.

This means that the scoring table will now be split up listing the members that have reached a particular rank. In addition another score table: Elite Ranks, will contain the top 100 members and will be based entirely on the last 25 problems. This means that new members will have an opportunity to earn a place, but the fact that it is based on the last 25 problems means that only those with significant talent will receive such recognition within a relatively short period of time.

The team hope that you both enjoy and appreciate the new system as it offers fresh interest and incentives to solve more problems.

[ed_r]

Nice - I like it.

How about a "most improved" list as well? That would be a good incentive for newbies.

Also: we need a FAQ tab (not just an "about" tab) for things like:

• Datatypes that solvers will need (int64s but no bigints; doubles but not bigger)
• The problem release schedule
• The existence of this forum!
• Non-disclosure etiquette on this and other forums
• The surprisingly-higher ranking of a 178-solved user over a 202-solved user (elite ranks 13,14 this week)
• Guidelines for submitting problems

[BjornEdstrom]

Nice, I like this!

I have a suggestion. Now, keep in mind I'm slightly immature, so this suggestion is perhaps not a very good idea. It really doesn't have anything to do with rankings either, but it's somewhat related with the game-inspired theme of the new ranking page.

I think it'd be very amusing if all members on Project Euler could choose a "faction" in their profile, such as Mathematician or Computer Scientist. Not only would this settle the age old debate (we all know who's the smartest), it'd be fun information when a new problem is posted.

[JohnMorris]

I bet you had fun thinking up all those ranks

The "Elite Ranks" table has a position (1 to 100) column. Can that be added to the other tables, such as the Rank: Lieutenant? Like some others I like to see how far up the table I can get, but without the index I have to count manually.

Have the next higher ranks and requirements been decided?

[Tirian]

I agree with Thumbo. But, to be clear, I would want the Chief Warrant Officer list to be labeled from 43-72, not from 1-30. I still want to see where I rate in the entire "army" and not just in my arbitrarily-partitioned "rank". (On the flip side, a fond farewell to all of the debates about how to fairly format the percentage of problems solved.)

I don't quite see the point of the "awards", since what you have so far is completely dependent on rank. Perhaps a fun idea would be to make "campaigns" of a series of related problems and then award a decoration for solving all of those problems. For instance, problems 18-67-81-82-83 might be "the Dijkstra campaign". So another way for someone to distinguish themselves quickly would be to solve all of the game theory problems or demonstrate a complete mastery of continued fractions.

Of course, one obvious distraction is that our "rank" in the forum is different from the PE rank. It is probably a completely different project to associate our identities between the two databases, but it would also have some great utility beyond clearing up this specific confusion.

[miodrag.milenkovic]

I really strongly dislike this. I hate the army, swore 20 years ago that I'll rather die than wear any kind of uniform again or have anything to do with any army. I also don't like being conscripted into an army all of a sudden without my consent.

[Tommy137]

I don't quite see the point of the "awards", since what you have so far is completely dependent on rank. Perhaps a fun idea would be to make "campaigns" of a series of related problems and then award a decoration for solving all of those problems. For instance, problems 18-67-81-82-83 might be "the Dijkstra campaign". So another way for someone to distinguish themselves quickly would be to solve all of the game theory problems or demonstrate a complete mastery of continued fractions.

I think, this would give too much away. For example, the problems that are solvable using continued fraction: Normally the term "continued fractions" isn't even mentioned in the problem description and after doing some research I was often surprised that a particular problem can be solved in that way. So grouping them all together in group of "cf"-problems would be too much of a hint.

[euler]

I really strongly dislike this. I hate the army, swore 20 years ago that I'll rather die than wear any kind of uniform again or have anything to do with any army. I also don't like being conscripted into an army all of a sudden without my consent.

I am very sorry you feel this way as the "military" theme has nothing to do with attacking people. It is based entirely on the idea that the enemy are the problems which we attack. As you develop skills you become better equipped to deal with different problems and your rank reflects your experience. I know from my own experience as I continued developing a passion for mathematics from childhood I used to see "puzzles" as something to defeat. I recall many problems that I had no skills to take on at one age and battling with them would be futile, but then a number of years later I periodically revisited the same problem and I was able to defeat it this time. I would be awestruck by more experienced (higher ranked) problem solvers around me who had already gained those skills. However, once a problem was beaten the satisfaction was immense and I gained a confidence that enabled me to take on similar problems. Our campaign is not one against flesh and blood but against problems that will reveal mysteries and wonders, and we can be certain they will not give up their secrets without a fight.

[euler]

(1) I bet you had fun thinking up all those ranks

(2) The "Elite Ranks" table has a position (1 to 100) column. Can that be added to the other tables, such as the Rank: Lieutenant? Like some others I like to see how far up the table I can get, but without the index I have to count manually.

(3) Have the next higher ranks and requirements been decided?

(1) I certainly did.
(2) Good idea... and because of the new way the data is processed it was relatively easy to implement... done.
(3) Absolutely. You'll just have to wait and see.

[euler]

I have a suggestion. Now, keep in mind I'm slightly immature, so this suggestion is perhaps not a very good idea. It really doesn't have anything to do with rankings either, but it's somewhat related with the game-inspired theme of the new ranking page.

I think it'd be very amusing if all members on Project Euler could choose a "faction" in their profile, such as Mathematician or Computer Scientist. Not only would this settle the age old debate (we all know who's the smartest), it'd be fun information when a new problem is posted.

That's an interesting, idea. So members chose between "a mathematicians who uses programming" or "a programmer that uses mathematics". Let's see what others think.

[Robert_Gerbicz]

How do you compute the Elite Ranks?

[harryh]

The 'home' ranks page states:
"Elite ranks
Top 100 based on the most recent 25 problems"
So, in theory, someone may have solved only 25 problems (the most recent ones) and still be at the top of Elite ranks (if (s)he was the first to solve them).

But... I'm not sure what would happen if, say, someone is the first to solve the most recent 25 problems, thus rising to the top of the Elite ranks, then, sometime later, goes on to solve another (older) problem (which (s)he had not solved previously).
Would that change his 'timestamp-of-last-solution' and send him/her tumbling down?

[hk]

I have a suggestion. Now, keep in mind I'm slightly immature, so this suggestion is perhaps not a very good idea. It really doesn't have anything to do with rankings either, but it's somewhat related with the game-inspired theme of the new ranking page.

I think it'd be very amusing if all members on Project Euler could choose a "faction" in their profile, such as Mathematician or Computer Scientist. Not only would this settle the age old debate (we all know who's the smartest), it'd be fun information when a new problem is posted.

That's an interesting, idea. So members chose between "a mathematicians who uses programming" or "a programmer that uses mathematics". Let's see what others think.

We could also add the factions: under 20 of age, over 60 of age....

[miodrag.milenkovic]

I really strongly dislike this. I hate the army, swore 20 years ago that I'll rather die than wear any kind of uniform again or have anything to do with any army. I also don't like being conscripted into an army all of a sudden without my consent.

I am very sorry you feel this way as the "military" theme has nothing to do with attacking people. It is based entirely on the idea that the enemy are the problems which we attack. As you develop skills you become better equipped to deal with different problems and your rank reflects your experience. I know from my own experience as I continued developing a passion for mathematics from childhood I used to see "puzzles" as something to defeat. I recall many problems that I had no skills to take on at one age and battling with them would be futile, but then a number of years later I periodically revisited the same problem and I was able to defeat it this time. I would be awestruck by more experienced (higher ranked) problem solvers around me who had already gained those skills. However, once a problem was beaten the satisfaction was immense and I gained a confidence that enabled me to take on similar problems. Our campaign is not one against flesh and blood but against problems that will reveal mysteries and wonders, and we can be certain they will not give up their secrets without a fight.

I just feel like I went to my favorite hangout one day to discover that somebody has painted the walls in camouflage. Not to get too personal, but I would venture a guess that whoever likes this doesn't have a lot of first-hand experience with the actual military. It's so incongruous to me for the cool math to have any association with one of the most rigidly stupid and illogical institutions known to man.

[Georg]

I also do not like the names and signs of these military ranks.

"Wenn einer mit Vergnügen in Reih und Glied zu einer Musik marschieren kann, dann verachte ich ihn schon. Er hat sein großes Gehirn nur aus Irrtum bekommen, da für ihn das Rückenmark schon völlig genügen würde."
("If one with joy in form and order march to a music, I’ll already condemn them. He got his big brain out of error, for him the spinal cord would be enough.")
Albert Einstein

[LarryC]

I like the factions idea - they sound quite... divisible (pun intended)!

[harryh]

I'm not keen on military ranks either, but I certainly donot take literaly the ones used in PE. Like euler said, our efforts to conquer some unknown mathematical principle or programming technique may be a fight, but only in the most figurative sense.

To be honest, I raked my mind trying to find and propose some alternative hierarchy, providing a wide range (at least 30 to 40 different levels are needed) as well as nice, easily recognised symbols or 'badges':
I had a good laugh trying to build a hierarchy out of fish (ranging from sardines to whales), matter configurations (ranging from atoms to galactic nebulae) and a number of other such ideas, but they didnot come to anything useful.

If someone can come up with a nice suggestion, then euler might be persuaded to add one more item in each user's profile: preferred_rank_hierarchy (controling the presentation of ranks). The implementation will certainly require a lot of work (if it is at all possible), but it will keep everyone happy, especially if there are strong feelings for / against any particular hierarchy.
Then, depending on my mood, I can be a salmon or a sergeant or an asteroid...

Basically, however, I donot consider the current presentation as being pro-military or pro-anything; it's just a ranking hierarchy with a set of names & symbols. Thus, IMHO, it is not associating PE with any institution (and I donot envisage myself as a sergeant any more than I would see myself as an asteroid).

[elendiastarman]

what about the periodic table?
You would have to think of something creative beyond 118 though...

[sfabriz]

I personally don't feel offended by the new look and feel of the site, hate military things too and refused to do my military service, but this is not the same thing as really being a military IMHO.
But, if so many people don't like this military thing you could use mathematicians and computer scientists.
Just get the most influent and important 25 scientists of all time and let's make a poll somewhere about who was more important than whom.
After we have the rank between these 25 mathematicians you could replace the military grades with those.
Just my two cents...

Cheers

[euler]

I must say that I did not anticipate the effect the new ranking system was going to cause. Even if it is only to a few, I am deeply sorry and view it serious enough to permanently withdraw the ranking system as it is currently. As Harry said, I am quite open to other suggestions. So far here are a few to get started...

(1) We revert to the previous system.
Pros: solves problem of those offended by association with military titles.
Cons: we lose an element that I believe adds something special to PE.

(2) I create an option in the profile to "opt out" of the ranking system, which means that you will not appear in any of the rank tables, but a separate non-"military" table would be created; for example, "researchers" or "scientists".
Pros: it gives members a choice.
Cons: it forces people to choose and creates a division.

(3) We use entirely different ranks; for example, fish, periodic table, to mention as few suggestions already made.
Pros: like (1) it solves the problem.
Cons: difficult to create a vast and natural order along with associated "badges".

(4) A completely different system is created.
Pros: like (1) it solves the problem.
Cons: potentially masses more work for me!


I am certainly not adverse to doing work, as I will do pretty much whatever it takes to make as many people as happy as possible. I know that you cannot keep all the people happy all the time.

One idea I was toying with related to option (4) was creating a gallery of famous mathematicians/scientists and every time a member solves, say, ten problems they can add one to their profile, a little like collecting stamps. Then other members could see from a profile which mathematicians/scientists that people admire most. I kept this idea to myself at the time because I knew it would require a lot more work. However, if I was offered help in creating images/profiles of the candidates then I would consider replacing the current system with this. Of course, other members may not like this idea as much.

Thoughts?