Project Euler Forum

Posted: **Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:39 am**

"also members in the Veterans class are displayed sorted by member ID, that is "oldest" members first."

Initially I didn't pay too much attention to this as I wasn't there yet. This week I moved to this class and then I realized what's going on. To me, this is a bit confusing. Why should the order depend on the ID and not the date when someone got into that class? I understand that one of the reasons for not displaying the number of problems solved in this class is to discourage cheating to get there. But sorting based on the date when someone got into this class wouldn't give away any info on the latest problems and so is probably better than sorting by ID. The names in the table remain at fixed position with this rather than randomly changing based on IDs right now.

Posted: **Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:26 pm**

The Veterans class was introduced with the goal to minimise competition based on the sheer number of problems solved.
Had we done what you are suggesting then there would have started a severe competition to be ranked highest in that rank, knowing it would be forever.
So we thought about a neutral ordening.
First we played with the thought of an alphabetical ordening.
However, that would probably have meant that some childish people would create usernames that come alphabetically highest like ___@@lookIamhighest or would have started asking us to change their username into something that comes alphabetically high. (yes, some people seem to be very childish as they even seem not to be interested in solving the problems themselves).
So we have chosen for the one thing members cannot influence: their userID, which reflects their date of registration.

Posted: **Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:16 am**

What about showing the profile pages with problems till the previous season? For example, right now show only up to 299 and next year, show the newer ones. Would that be a good compromise between discouraging cheating and restoring the previous feature to some extent?

Posted: **Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:23 pm**

hk wrote: However, before starting to collect solutions in different languages a overview should be made first, so that the implementations use the same algoritm.
But to be honest: that would not in the least cover the wish of newcomers to publish their own experiences.

The same algorithm? I fiercely oppose that. Part of the learning experience is how well particular algorithms are suited to what languages. So as long as a solver explains his solution well, he is welcome to stun me with the ease his language can solve a particular problem. I particularly would resent a situation where a functional language would be impeded by the requirement to emulate a procedural language.

If you impose that solutions are grouped by algorithm, such that only one explanation per algorithm is needed, that would be fine by me. These overviews could be more restricted, and maybe then it is easier to get someone to write them.

Groetjes Albert

Posted: **Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:19 am**

hk wrote:
riemann wrote: As an alternative suggestion, perhaps a list containing the number of veterans having solved n problems (300 <= n <= max problem) would be acceptable for you to provide. It's anonymous like the "solved by" numbers in the problem list, while it doesn't leave the veterans floating in a complete vacuum (zero-info) Euler space.
For me, I would appreciate such a list very much.
I did a quick survey:
*snip*

Do you think that rather than doing those updates manually (which is still great, thanks), you could add this to one of the scores pages, updating with the cache? I always quite enjoyed looking at the old scoreboard after getting back to 100% and thinking 'oh cool, I'm the xth person to get 100%' - solely for personal interest.

Those old pages were removed for valid reasons, but if you provide the number of people having solved x problems, then I could take a look at that page just after solving the problem and still get the same information (albeit, up to when the cache clears). Since usernames aren't displayed, this wouldn't really add any encouragement for cheaters.

Posted: **Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:10 am**

TripleM wrote:
hk wrote:
riemann wrote: As an alternative suggestion, perhaps a list containing the number of veterans having solved n problems (300 <= n <= max problem) would be acceptable for you to provide. It's anonymous like the "solved by" numbers in the problem list, while it doesn't leave the veterans floating in a complete vacuum (zero-info) Euler space.
For me, I would appreciate such a list very much.
I did a quick survey:
*snip*
Do you think that rather than doing those updates manually (which is still great, thanks), you could add this to one of the scores pages, updating with the cache? I always quite enjoyed looking at the old scoreboard after getting back to 100% and thinking 'oh cool, I'm the xth person to get 100%' - solely for personal interest.

Personally I'm not in the position of changing anything to the workings of the site.
Colin is the person that handles the maintenance of the site.
If the admins think it a good idea I think Colin would be happy to make such a page.
For me personally these regular updates have another function: keeping track how things develop over time.
An active page must be saved somewhere to get such an overview over time.

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:00 pm**

Just out of curiousity, what happens when there are 350+ problems? Will veterans be moved to 350+ and a new level created for 300-349, or will it remain at 300+? I know this will happen around the end of this year, but have you thought about it yet?

Posted: **Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:26 pm**

Not yet.

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:40 am**

Hi, the report in the previous page is not updated after "Update 22 jan 2011". Can we get an update?

Posted: **Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:12 pm**

At your service.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:30 am**

Thanks HK. A small suggestion when this is being made as an automated report on the website. It would be good to see from 330 down along with counts and cumulative counts. As in

330 5 5
329 3 8
328 9 17

and so on

thanks
Siva

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:53 am**

Should "Update 8 April" have been "Update 7 April"?

Posted: **Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:31 pm**

Worse, 6 April.
I never know the date exactly. I hardly ever need to know what date it is.
(Only in the supermarket, to see if the things I'm buying are fresh enough).

Posted: **Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:06 pm**

Based on hk's data for Apr 20

Code: Select all

Based on May 7th data

Code: Select all

336  7   7 ( 5.0)
335  4  11 ( 7.8)
334  1  12 ( 8.5)
333  2  14 ( 9.9)
332 17  31 (22.0)
331  0  31 (22.0)
330  4  35 (24.8)
329  3  38 (27.0)
328  3  41 (29.1)
327  2  43 (30.5)
326  6  49 (34.8)
325  2  51 (36.2)
324  9  60 (42.6)
323  3  63 (44.7)
322  5  68 (48.2)
321  4  72 (51.1)
320  4  76 (53.9)
319  2  78 (55.3)
318  2  80 (56.7)
317  4  84 (59.6)
316  5  89 (63.1)
315  1  90 (63.8)
314  4  94 (66.7)
313  1  95 (67.4)
312  6 101 (71.6)
311  1 102 (72.3)
310  5 107 (75.9)
309  2 109 (77.3)
308  3 112 (79.4)
307  4 116 (82.3)
306  4 120 (85.1)
305  3 123 (87.2)
304  1 124 (87.9)
303  1 125 (88.7)
302  5 130 (92.2)
301  6 136 (96.5)
300  5 141 (100.0)

Based on May 14th data

Code: Select all

337   6   6 (4.2)
336   3   9 (6.3)
335   2  11 (7.7)
334   2  13 (9.2)
333   2  15 (10.6)
332  18  33 (23.2)
331   2  35 (24.6)
330   2  37 (26.1)
329   2  39 (27.5)
328   3  42 (29.6)
327   4  46 (32.4)
326   5  51 (35.9)
325   1  52 (36.6)
324   9  61 (43.0)
323   3  64 (45.1)
322   8  72 (50.7)
321   3  75 (52.8)
320   3  78 (54.9)
319   4  82 (57.7)
318   2  84 (59.2)
317   3  87 (61.3)
316   3  90 (63.4)
315   5  95 (66.9)
314   2  97 (68.3)
313   1  98 (69.0)
312   5 103 (72.5)
311   0 103 (72.5)
310   7 110 (77.5)
310   6 116 (81.7)
309   3 119 (83.8)
308   2 121 (85.2)
307   3 124 (87.3)
306   5 129 (90.8)
305   3 132 (93.0)
304   0 132 (93.0)
303   2 134 (94.4)
302   4 138 (97.2)
300   4 142 (100.0)

Based on May 21st data

Code: Select all

338   4   4 ( 2.84)
337   5   9 ( 6.38)
336   1  10 ( 7.09)
335   2  12 ( 8.51)
334   2  14 ( 9.93)
333   3  17 (12.06)
332  17  34 (24.11)
331   3  37 (26.24)
330   2  39 (27.66)
329   0  39 (27.66)
328   3  42 (29.79)
327   4  46 (32.62)
326   4  50 (35.46)
325   1  51 (36.17)
324  10  61 (43.26)
323   6  67 (47.52)
322   5  72 (51.06)
321   5  77 (54.61)
320   5  82 (58.16)
319   2  84 (59.57)
318   2  86 (60.99)
317   2  88 (62.41)
316   3  91 (64.54)
315   4  95 (67.38)
314   1  96 (68.09)
313   1  97 (68.79)
312   5 102 (72.34)
311   1 103 (73.05)
310   5 108 (76.60)
309   3 111 (78.72)
308   3 114 (80.85)
307   2 116 (82.27)
306   5 121 (85.82)
305   3 124 (87.94)
304   2 126 (89.36)
303   0 126 (89.36)
302   4 130 (92.20)
301   7 137 (97.16)
300   4 141 (100.00)

Based on May 28th data

Code: Select all

339   4   4 ( 2.82)
338   5   9 ( 6.34)
337   2  11 ( 7.75)
336   0  11 ( 7.75)
335   2  13 ( 9.15)
334   3  16 (11.27)
333   4  20 (14.08)
332  16  36 (25.35)
331   3  39 (27.46)
330   1  40 (28.17)
329   0  40 (28.17)
328   5  45 (31.69)
327   4  49 (34.51)
326   2  51 (35.92)
325   1  52 (36.62)
324  11  63 (44.37)
323   6  69 (48.59)
322   5  74 (52.11)
321   5  79 (55.63)
320   3  82 (57.75)
319   2  84 (59.15)
318   3  87 (61.27)
317   2  89 (62.68)
316   4  93 (65.49)
315   3  96 (67.61)
314   1  97 (68.31)
313   2  99 (69.72)
312   6 105 (73.94)
311   0 105 (73.94)
310   4 109 (76.76)
309   4 113 (79.58)
308   3 116 (81.69)
307   3 119 (83.80)
306   3 122 (85.92)
305   3 125 (88.03)
304   2 127 (89.44)
303   0 127 (89.44)
302   4 131 (92.25)
301   7 138 (97.18)
300   4 142 (100.00)

Posted: **Wed May 11, 2011 1:14 am**

Can the

Code: Select all

 tag in this forum be formatted as well? With no option, it would work like it does now but if I do something like [code="Java"], it formats it like in the problem forums.

Posted: **Mon May 16, 2011 6:48 am**

Hi, I just realized that the number of veterans is shown as 141 but the data provided for May 14th indicates there should be 142 members. Which is correct?

Posted: **Mon May 16, 2011 9:18 am**

I think the 141 is correct. Please remember that I do this manually to give a general idea, and are not inclined to spend more effort /time on it checking that I don't accidentally make an error.

Posted: **Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:29 am**

Hi hk, the latest update (for June 10th) gives a total of 139 while there are 145 veterans. I am not sure how the data is stored, but I can volunteer to automate it if I have the necessary info.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:12 am**

Colin has automated it now (thanks for that).
Here are the current values

Code: Select all

Update 24 June 2011

Code: Select all

Update 3 July 2011

Code: Select all

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:31 am**

hk and Colin, thank you.

Project Euler Forum

New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality

Re: New Season 2010/2011 - Recent changes in functionality