New awards.

[ehoyle]

Thanks to the Project Euler development team for their generosity and hard work! The problems are challenging and fun.

I have only done a handful of problems above #100, so take my comments for what they're worth.

I like the new Decimator awards, to direct attention to the mid-range problems and to fill in the award difficulty gap that others have mentioned.

For some time now we've been collecting data for number of correct/incorrect submissions so if that information ever goes live I've got a few ideas relating to that. Similarly I've also been recording the average level of the member when they solved the problem. This too will lend itself to one or two nice awards.

Perhaps this and other info could be used to generate a difficulty rating for each problem, separate from the Solved By count. Difficulty could be based on:

Time to reach x (50? 100?) solutions
Subjective rating by people who have solved it
Correct/incorrect submissions ratio
more...

The difficulty rating would be a new way to sort the problems and to define awards. It would make a clear distinction between the newest problems and the hardest problems.

… which leads me to ask –- if the problems are supposed to get progressively harder, and the latest problems are now quite difficult, will there never be another easy or intermediate problem added (on purpose) to Project Euler? If so, I think that's unfortunate.

With a difficulty rating in place, new problems could be of any difficulty level, and the awards for solving the newest problems would be separate from the awards for solving the hardest problems.

If the new problems were of mixed difficulty, it might keep people involved who are working problems more or less consecutively until they hit the wall and drop out. On the statistics page, just eyeballing it, it looks like many people who get a decent start hit the wall around 38, 67, and 109 problems solved.

Then again, there are plenty of easy and intermediate problems already, and people who are willing to work 300+ problems may be very pleased with the overall mix of difficulty.

Thanks again to the development team!

[hk]

Thanks to the Project Euler development team for their generosity and hard work! The problems are challenging and fun.

I have only done a handful of problems above #100, so take my comments for what they're worth.

I like the new Decimator awards, to direct attention to the mid-range problems and to fill in the award difficulty gap that others have mentioned.

For some time now we've been collecting data for number of correct/incorrect submissions so if that information ever goes live I've got a few ideas relating to that. Similarly I've also been recording the average level of the member when they solved the problem. This too will lend itself to one or two nice awards.

Perhaps this and other info could be used to generate a difficulty rating for each problem, separate from the Solved By count. Difficulty could be based on:

Time to reach x (50? 100?) solutions
Subjective rating by people who have solved it
Correct/incorrect submissions ratio
more...

The difficulty rating would be a new way to sort the problems and to define awards. It would make a clear distinction between the newest problems and the hardest problems.

The data you're talking about have been gathered since a few weeks ago, so they can't be used to establish a difficulty rating in the way you're suggesting.

… which leads me to ask –- if the problems are supposed to get progressively harder, and the latest problems are now quite difficult, will there never be another easy or intermediate problem added (on purpose) to Project Euler? If so, I think that's unfortunate.

With a difficulty rating in place, new problems could be of any difficulty level, and the awards for solving the newest problems would be separate from the awards for solving the hardest problems.

If the new problems were of mixed difficulty, it might keep people involved who are working problems more or less consecutively until they hit the wall and drop out. On the statistics page, just eyeballing it, it looks like many people who get a decent start hit the wall around 38, 67, and 109 problems solved.

Then again, there are plenty of easy and intermediate problems already, and people who are willing to work 300+ problems may be very pleased with the overall mix of difficulty.

Thanks again to the development team!

Problems aren't supposed to get progressively harder.
We're actually publishing problems with a varying degree of difficulty, according to a scheme H(ard),M(edium),E(asy),M,E,M,E,M
So they already of a mixed difficulty.

[ehoyle]

Problems aren't supposed to get progressively harder.
We're actually publishing problems with a varying degree of difficulty, according to a scheme H(ard),M(edium),E(asy),M,E,M,E,M
So they already of a mixed difficulty.

Thanks -- it sounds like my ideas of easy and medium need some adjusting

[sfjac]

Hi all,

Today (or very recently) all of my Post / Kudos status disappeared. I now only show the post I made after (finally ) solving 420 this afternoon. The posts are still on the boards, as are the kudos - they're just no longer on my progress, nore are the corresponding rewards. Not urgent but I find them handy.

Also - what is the difference between a permanent post and one that is not permanent? I know that only a limited number of posts are kept. Are the early ones permanent? I received this award after my 420 post, which is why I'm guessing that this is the case.

A suggestion I'd like to see is to be able to see who gave you your kudos.

Thanks for all the great work!

Cheers - Jim

[MHealy]

Firstly, I like the new "Decimation" awards; it's something I'd considered before when looking at my progress, and will probably impact which problems I attempt once I start solving again after a break, given how close I am to the harder two.

People mentioned that "Gold Medal" is extremely hard to obtain for most members, and less difficult awards would be nice; how about (I think I've seen it mentioned here before, but not in this thread - unless I missed it) awards for simply being in the top 20/50/etc, and later ones for doing this multiple times, as in intermediate between Gold and "One In A Hundred"? Granted, it's possible to find this from just looking at the tables, but you could say the same about Gold Medal too. [Edit: To be honest, I originally forgot about one in a hundred when writing this, which makes this a little less worthwhile].

The rest of this post is about kudos and the other new awards. I (very briefly!) had the "Wise Words" award, and was just wondering how exactly it is decided which posts are made permanent? I think kudos is used as an indicator at least, but a post of mine (for problem 15) gained 4 kudos in the month or so it existed, but was recently deleted. I hasten to add that there was nothing particularly special about my post (it was a rather lengthy one which basically advised new users to read the forums to look for alternate approaches (as I wished I had done for this particular problem) and mentioned how useful it could be for solving later problems, and then gave a more detailed than usual explanation of the DP solution aimed at people - like myself - who had never heard of it before coming here), but - given four people apparently found it useful in the time it was there - perhaps it didn't deserve to be pushed out by pages of posts with code and no explanation? When I first starting trying problems outside the first 50, I recall being very intimidated by multiple posts reading simply "easy DP", "simple DFS", etc., and regret not originally looking into this kind of thing more on the easier problems.

I also noticed some other non-permanent post of mine no longer show up on my progress page - I assume this intentional, and these can no longer earn the award, even temporarily? In this case, I'd like to echo the difficulty for most (newer) members to get kudos-related awards, as to get the required audience for a permanent post you essentially have to solve the latest problems and impress the others doing so - no easy feat!

I hope this post didn't come too negatively, as that certainly wasn't the intention; I love this site, and the award additions - and extra data like solve time, and that mentioned in this thread which is not yet public - continue to improve it.

[sfjac]

FYI - Post list is back, Kudos are not.

[euler]

@sfjac and M.Healy: I made a tiny change yesterday which meant that the threads you have posted in no longer showed up. This was an error and has been fixed. You should now be able to see every thread you have posted in now.

As you are aware these Awards are new and there is currently a bit of fluidity regarding how they are being handled. The backdrop is the hard decision we took some time ago regarding the number of posts which appeared in many threads. The number became so great that it was impossible to read every post. New solvers were so overwhelmed that they rarely read the previous posts and just went ahead and made a new post. The reality is that it had already been said. In addition they just added to the post count which increased the likelihood that the next new solver will take the same action. The current system we have in place limits the thread to 100 permanent (archived) posts. The next 100 posts after this are initially marked as unarchived which means that when the post count hits 200 the oldest unarchived post is automatically deleted. The purpose of Kudos was to highlight posts which were considered to be of value by the members and in a perfect world these would be spotted by admins who would then change the post's status to archived. However, the world is not perfect and there are simply too many threads to keep track of - particularly when the priority of the team is developing new problems.

Currently the admins can see in a table the activity of each thread; for example, as of posting thread 1 is averaging 28.8 posts per day. Whereas this was supposed to help admins identify which threads should be checked it hasn't helped at all. I'll look at changing this to indicate the number of Kudos awarded to unarchived posts. This might help address the issue.

Overall though I believe that allowing unarchived posts to be counted among the Awards opens a can of worms in two respects: (i) if a post contributing to the Award is never archived and is eventually pruned then it will be difficult to objectively validate the Award, and, (ii) it will encourage idiots to make a series of inane posts to increase their totals; even if their posts are removed due to offering nothing constructive the Award may already be given and policing this type of behaviour adds more work to the already overburdened admins. The best and safest solution seems to current, but I am open to suggestions.


By the way, M.Healy, you did not come across as being too negative. You were simply sharing much valued thoughts in a constructive manner. I always appreciate those type of comments.

[sfjac]

I see the unarchived ones are now in parens - a good compromise - Thanks!

Jim

[Marcus_Andrews]

How about an option to sort by most recent post (the unsolved problems would just be put to the end, of course)? It would make it easier to allocate Kudos to good posts regardless of problem ID.

[gkovacs90]

Hi!

I'm a newcomer and maybe I don't ask this in the right place, but:
How can a post in a problem thread become permanent? I've already made som posts, and one of them recieved 2 kudos. I'd like to know when it will be deleted or will be archieved after a time.

Sorry for my bad English, thanks for the answers!

[euler]

Posts which have received Kudos are more likely to be made permanent. As you may have realised beyond the first 100 posts the next 100 posts are only temporary. When 100 temporary posts already exist and the next post is made then the oldest temporary post is automatically deleted. However, if posts have received Kudos they are not automatically deleted but are flagged to admins who will eventually get around to checking them out. If they are deemed to add something which hasn't already been said or are of a good quality then they will be made permanent.

[Dantezz]

2 ideas I strongly support are:

A. Arrange awards by the amount of members who have gained them.
B. I am not exactly sure of the ways your come up with your wonderful new problems, but it would encourage many people to think of new problems if you made award for people who suggested a problem that was published (or reached a near-publish level, if you find the award too difiicult). This will improve even more the quality of the problems, because you'll have a bigger variety to choose from. If you take me for example, if there was an award for suggesting a good problem, I would spend hours trying to come up with good problems and maybe even speak to my teachers or friends.

[jpaulson]

Award Idea:

"Two Nines": Solve more problems than 99% of Project Euler members (currently 130 problems, but would vary over time)

"Three Nines" (currently 307 problems) would work well too. Maybe even "One Nine" (currently 38 problems) or "Four Nines" (currently 448 problems).

[Svartskägg]

"Two Nines": Solve more problems than 99% of Project Euler members (currently 130 problems, but would vary over time).

That could be called a "one percenter".

[nicolas.patrois]

And "One nine" of course, the beginners may be encouraged too. In fact, I’m not sure that I agree with these distinctions because every eulerian can not get them.
I suggest that we can follow what remains to do with the unaccomplished distinction like Triangle trophy, Prime obsession and so on (ie how many are solved and how many remains).

[euler]

"Two Nines": Solve more problems than 99% of Project Euler members (currently 130 problems, but would vary over time).

That could be called a "one percenter".

Good suggestion, jpaulson, which inspired, Svartskägg. And I like it! I've just added, "One Percenter: Badass problem solver". I wonder how many will get the reference?

[echip]

How about adding "Solving a problem in first hour" Award?
There are too many awards related to the number of problems solved
But only two awards related to the speed of solving a problem:
one is "One In A Hundred"(too easy), Another is "Gold Medal"(too hard)
It seems there are no medium options?

I suggest you should add "Solving a problem in first hour" Award.
It is remarkable if a person solves a problem within the first hour when a problem become visible to everybody.
Reviewing the history, there are not too many people can solve a problem within the first hour even on an easy problem.
But it won't be harder than Gold Medal.

[nicolas.patrois]

It depends if the easy problem is 4** or 0** numbered.
Moreover, eulerian might sleep.

[Slaunger]

I am wondering weather the chatterbox award does anything good? It does not give an incentive to make a quality post, rather to find problems, where there are still permanent posts available (basically any of the higher numbered problems).

At least for my own part it gives me a tendency to make permanent posts (because I can), where I really have nothing new to say. And that is kind of a pity as I will then fill the permanent post space with spam, where solvers, who later come by, and who actually may have some new insights, can only make a transient post, which can then only be made permanent if an admin spots it and arhives it.

I therefore propose retiring it, and replace it with a no of kudos/posts ratio award. Say if this ratio is larger than one, this means that you have only used the post space when you actually had something valuable to state. That will make it easier for new users, who have a steep climb until reaching problems, where there are permanent posts available, as there will be more vacant slots, because users who can post in permanent space, but who have nothing new to add, do not want their no of kudos/posts ratio to go down.

This new ratio award should only be active, when the criterion is fulfilled. Otherwise users who have once achieved the award (by having, say, one permanent post with one kudos) will just start spamming permanent post space again. On the other hand, if you decide not to make any new permanent posts after achieving it you are guaranteed to keep the reward as the ratio can only increase. Later if you have earned two kudos for one post, you can make another permanent post without loosing the award, and perhaps get new kudos, if you had valuable new things to say.

I realize retiring Chatterbox and introducing a ratio award instead would be a game changer wrt making posts. Say, if you had the Chatterbox award but only a few kudos, you will loose it. But, this gives an incentive to clean up in useless permanent posts. You can just delete the useless ones and thereby increase your ratio. And if you have at least one kudos, you can keep deleting until you just have that post left and then gain the award. This increases the usefulness of the problem threads by removing spam and opens slots for other to post something of value. For instance a smart implementation, with a shorter run time than any previous in a given programming language. I have had such a few times and been frustrated that there were no permanent post slots available for persisting that smarter solution.

We have another award: Hello World for making one permanent post. I think it is OK to retain that, as a single (possibly low quality) permanent post award - I does not lead to so much spamming.

BTW: I like the new badass award. I was initially puzzled why I got it, until I read Eulers post above.

[nicolas.patrois]

Or maybe only one post by thread is counted.