We actually discussed a lot about this, and it is the reason why we ensured that if you change color, it'll change throughout, meaning color changes are only for player preference rather than guesswork. With undo, we're not sure what is a great way of doing things. My point is someone solving could honestly make a mistake and it'd help to undo to retrace. So the only use isn't guesswork, and I'm always in favor of keeping things that help normal solving even if they could be used towards shortcuts, so we decided to keep it. Maybe restricting to one or two levels is a good idea, but I personally am still non-committal to the same. Would love to hear more views on it.

I'll read back now to other points and queries. I only addressed the more pressing ones while I was away conducting a puzzle event here simultaneously over the weekend.

As mentioned in my post above, we deliberately decided to keep it this way, and keep the undo button as the sole method of backtracking.

It is probably the same reason why normal tests have a time limit instead of just saying, solve and submit whenever you like. Here the expected difficulty per grid is really low compared to normal tests, so a per grid time limit adds to the competitive aspect of things. In other words, I'd just say its easier and so we can experiment with a different quick-fire setting for it so we do. It is the general idea of a screen test (the same was used in WPC 2011 too) that we've tried to extend to Sudoku. The bigger challenge is in ensuring that at least most of these are easy enough for everyone to submit some in spite of time limits. Looking at the general feedback I feel at least that has been achieved this time.

We were actually worried about this. Ideally the solution is to have a system where a solver can get back to skipped puzzles only IF all of the order is finished before time. Unfortunately we did not have the time this time to get that system in place, so made do with the note in the instructions. A more accurate gauge of difficulty is interesting though, just in case the system itself proves difficult to implement. Is there any suggestion on how this can be done? It'd probably become too formulaic if we say that a player with X ratings is expected to be on the border of finishing, but I see that as the most realistic way of providing an idea about difficulty.

Is there a way to make the scoring more transparent? I have no idea why the ranking is the way it is, for example places 19 and 20 look especially strange.

A few things -

B2+E5 have been canceled and points have been added considering the amount of time wasted on those two puzzles. Timothy wasted more time on them.

E4 is not considered for bonus criteria, because some had a bad experience on it with rules being misplaced. JOCs are considered separately and only their own points are removed. So, Timothy has only 6 cells wrong across the other grids (E2 and E6) and is eligible for the bonus.

We'll add a few notes explaining the scoring add-ons on the test page soon. As of now this is the gist. There is the drop down list with the choice of Points instead of Seconds where you can check about the points being given for each grid.

These are now added to the test page here.

Score page is now final. The bonuses were activated manually based on eligibility mentioned in the Guide and on the submission page.

http://logicmastersindia.com/ST/ST4/score.asp

Bit late to posting a summary because of traveling and then falling ill. Anyway, just a few quick notes.

Firstly, congratulations to jaku111 (2982.4 points), TiiT (2882.6 points) and deu (2865.1 points), the podium finishers.
This screen test definitely had some things that were bad, pretty obviously my own doing. But the biggest positive I'll take from it is that the general format/timing/etc. seems to have been a success. I wanted many solvers to be able to attempt most of the grids, and this is what happened.

Also, about Just One Cell idea, I think its probably fine to do but it takes more checking, and probably not using variants with too many constraints.

The interface is superb as always, but as usual had some feedback directed towards it. Firstly, the color button implementation, I think, was fine. It'll stay. I'm still not sure about undo button being limited to 2/3 clicks. One change we must work to implement, especially with this easier format, is to enable a solver to visit back to a grid if the solver goes through all 30 grids with time remaining.

Thank you all for participating, and also for the feedback