New Level System (Feedback)

[euler]

Tuesday 05 August 2008: Introduction of Levels

After many suggestions and much discussion we are happy to introduce a new scoring system which places members at different levels, represented by the Platonic solids, according to the number of problems solved. This serves two purposes: (i) it provides short term goals for members as they advance through the levels, and, (ii) more members will be found in the score tables.

Once a member has reached level 3 (solved 100+ problems) they will be immortalised in the tables. However, until that happens they will only appear in the level 1 and level 2 tables as long as they remain active (solved a problem within 60 days).

In addition, members entering the new "Top Scorers" table are now referred to as "Eulerians", and they are ranked entirely on their performance in the most recent 25 problems.

This allows newer members with considerable talent to rise through the table in a reasonable amount of time. A measure of progress in the most recent problems features in the profiles as "current performance" and is represented by a progress bar.

[stijn263]

Looks neat!

One very minor nit-pick though, the mouse-over on the Eulerians score page says Elite instead of (I think) Eulerians..

[neverforget]

Nice. There's a cache update timer? I didn't notice that before.....

[euler]

Thanks. Fixed.

[neverforget]

This one's really minor: I think the edges could be a bit more antialiased.
I like the color and shading though.

[euler]

You're right. I would have used PNGs which provide better quality images, but too many people (using IE) grumbled about the PNG icons I used due to IE's (verson 6 or less) inability to handle transparency, so I went for GIFs.

[neverforget]

Hm another small thing: the text under the image says "platonic solid name" on the problem page and "level x" on the scores and profile pages. Maybe change the problem page to display "level: solid_name" under the image?

[euler]

For consistency I've changed the Problems page to "Level X". It is also less cluttered having a numeric value (especially in the Score tables).

[Tommy137]

I like it... although I'm missing the Great truncated icosidodecahedron or Great dirhombicosidodecahedron

[neverforget]

I like it... although I'm missing the Great truncated icosidodecahedron or Great dirhombicosidodecahedron

Technically, we haven't used any polychorons either.

[Tirian]

I suppose this is good for the server load, because I will no longer have to bother looking at the high score table. Knowing my ranking in my arbitrarily-partitioned level is as informative to me as finishing a marathon in 3:04 and being told only that I came in ninth place among everyone who took longer than three hours. In fact, I can stop solving problems altogether and my "rank" will go up as long as more people solve their 200th problem than their 166th problem.

I know that you put a lot of effort into updating the site and in getting input from all of us beforehand, and so I am sanguine to the reality that a new system is incapable of pleasing everyone. And it doesn't much matter, since the "Problems" section is far more of a draw than the "Scores" section could ever be.

[JohnMorris]

Looks like a solid scheme.

The all-red piccies are a bit dull for my taste - but according to my wife I have no taste, so don't take that too seriously. I googled for alternatives - strange how many of the sites that came up were about crystal healing, crop circles, and the like! And I didn't find any better pictures...

[Joao_Miguel]

I suppose this is good for the server load, because I will no longer have to bother looking at the high score table. Knowing my ranking in my arbitrarily-partitioned level is as informative to me as finishing a marathon in 3:04 and being told only that I came in ninth place among everyone who took longer than three hours. In fact, I can stop solving problems altogether and my "rank" will go up as long as more people solve their 200th problem than their 166th problem.

I know that you put a lot of effort into updating the site and in getting input from all of us beforehand, and so I am sanguine to the reality that a new system is incapable of pleasing everyone. And it doesn't much matter, since the "Problems" section is far more of a draw than the "Scores" section could ever be.

Seconded.

Though I'd still like to add that the word 'childish' comes to my mind. Eulerians?

[euler]

Though I'd still like to add that the word 'childish' comes to my mind. Eulerians?

The day the child within us dies we lose something special.
You might notice that it is called Project Euler, in respect of (in my view) the greatest all-round mathematician to have ever lived. Anyone able to solve newly released problems quickly and efficiently and compete with the best of the best has demonstrated an incredible talent, placing them in a special category of excellence. To be associated with the name of Euler is a fitting honour.

You're right, Tirian, you can't please all the folk all the time. However, I don't agree with your analogy...

If a pupil wins a race do we say to them, "I would like to congratulate you, but in the grand scheme of things you didn't really do that well"?
As you continue developing your athletic talents, does winning a race at county/national level not count for something?
What about football leagues; are we saying that achieving well in a lower league doesn't count?
Is there not some something to celebrate as a team is promoted to the next league?

You might recall that almost 80% of members don't make it to 25 problems, so for many new members, solving 25 problems represents a landmark achievement and it is only fitting that they receive some reward. For those that battle on there are now short term goals and I imagine a great sense of achievement will be experienced as they break through into the next level. It was certainly felt that "centenarians" (solving 100+) should receive some extra special credit, hence they will be immortalised in the score tables.

[hk]

Fist of all: it looks really nice Colin.

IMHO a good comprimise was reached.
As this compromise was already present in the other (now closed) thread for several days I don't think it useful/nice to make sour remarks here now: you should have made objections during the days this compromise was still open to scrutiny.
You know: at some moment a decision has to be made.
Let's concentrate on implementation details.

[harryh]

E x c e l l e n t

[neverforget]

Good work Colin! I like it

[zeycus]

Very nice, Colin! Thank you for the effort you made to try to satisfy as many of us as possible, and for the work you've done in the implementation. There was no need for improvement, but it is really welcome anyway!

[LarryC]

I'll echo others by saying I think the system rocks.

This one's really minor: I think the edges could be a bit more antialiased.
I like the color and shading though.

I agree with this entirely. Would it be possible to choose which browser was being used and then selecting the right image for the browser. It seems a bit of a long-winded solution to a trivial problem, but it's worth considering.

[euler]

I think part of the problem is that "graphics" are not my thing; you may have picked this up.

So if any members have talents in that area and would like to produce some better Platonic solids I would be delighted to use them. However, for the risk of someone spending many hours to produce some lovely graphics only to discover that someone else simultaneously was doing the same thing, then it might be better to mention in this thread that you are undertaking the task. Of course, if a few of you want to produce a set of images and post them here then maybe members can offer their opinions on which to use. However, one important consideration... the images must be free for non-commercial use. If you found them elsewhere then please let me know so that attribution can be given (if required).