![]() | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Country : India | debmohanty posted @ 2011-06-06 8:50 PM mathgrant : The real question is how many players get time and chance to change the answer once submitted. It would be only those players who finish all puzzles ahead of time. May be few players double check what they have typed, and they can still do that before they submit. Unfortunately, I don't have any real data to share how many times submissions have changed for a particular puzzle for a particular player. motris: Yes, the "I'm done button" is pending. I don't think it can be done before next Sudoku test. But certainly before July puzzle test #1, which will be yet another Nikoli test, and I'm sure we'll see from frantic submissions from some. |
![]() | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Country : India | debmohanty posted @ 2011-06-07 10:03 AM Given that their is lot of support for 80% for obvious typos, we'll implement that right from the next test. One question I've : Should we also allow this for Sudoku tests? So far in Sudoku tests, we don't allow any manual override, as I posted here. Regarding motris's radial suggestion, personally, I think we have to try this at least once before we exactly know what to expect. It is not as much a technical challenge, but the bigger challenge is for authors/organizers to come up complete list of valid alternate solution codes for each puzzle before the test starts. With a Sudoku test, it is much easier. But not necessarily so in a puzzle test. Although the answer keys are strictly defined in all tests and LMI submission system flags when the answer is not in expected format, in every test there are many submissions which are otherwise valid except the entered format. I would certainly be interested to try this in motris's forthcoming test, whenever that will be planned. |
![]() | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Country : India | Administrator posted @ 2011-06-07 1:41 PM There were more number of votes to display submission time for each puzzle. Score page now displays that - http://logicmastersindia.com/M201106P/score.asp |
![]() | |
Posts: 315 ![]() ![]() ![]() Country : The Netherlands | Para posted @ 2011-06-07 9:59 PM debmohanty - 2011-06-07 10:03 AM The bigger challenge is for authors/organizers to come up complete list of valid alternate solution codes for each puzzle before the test starts. This will be a hassle for genres like say battleships where coordinates will be asked. Because someone might put MA instead of AM, or enter them out of the intended order. I don't really like the idea of giving people the chance to correct mistakes though during the test time after they have submitted. I think people should get the chance to have their typos corrected, which is normal in a puzzle championship, but you never get the chance to completely resolve a puzzle after submitting, unless it's in the playoff format where it's just about trying to finish all puzzles as fast as possible. I think it should just remain like any main puzzle round. Where you submit your answers, they get checked and if you think your mistake should still get points, you can submit it to the judges for evaluation to see if they feel you deserve the points. |
![]() | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Country : India | debmohanty posted @ 2011-06-07 10:45 PM Para - 2011-06-07 9:59 PM The current score page handles this already. AM or MA will be handled fine debmohanty - 2011-06-07 10:03 AM The bigger challenge is for authors/organizers to come up complete list of valid alternate solution codes for each puzzle before the test starts. This will be a hassle for genres like say battleships where coordinates will be asked. Because someone might put MA instead of AM, or enter them out of the intended order. The problem is when someone enters A1 OR M1. |
![]() | |
![]() Posts: 15 Country : United States | mathgrant posted @ 2011-06-07 10:53 PM debmohanty - 2011-06-07 11:45 AM Para - 2011-06-07 9:59 PM The current score page handles this already. AM or MA will be handled fineThe problem is when someone enters A1 OR M1.debmohanty - 2011-06-07 10:03 AMThe bigger challenge is for authors/organizers to come up complete list of valid alternate solution codes for each puzzle before the test starts. This will be a hassle for genres like say battleships where coordinates will be asked. Because someone might put MA instead of AM, or enter them out of the intended order. I'm tempted to use the same answer format motris used in 20/10 (contents of rows/columns). |
![]() | |
Posts: 199 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Country : United States | motris posted @ 2011-06-07 10:54 PM There are certainly other battleship entry modes that work. I used rows/columns with 0 = water, N = ship size for my test. That would be a unique gradable string. The only common entry error was not getting the sense of N in there, so something like 1000101111 instead of 1000104444 appeared which I accepted at the time as the information of ship connectedness was in that row. My discussions with Deb on improving the "finish" experience of a test is specifically so I can run a test that more than 2-3 people can finish. Right now I think there is a bit of a hole in the solver experience when the test ends very early but you cannot receive results until the clock runs out. There is neither a "turn in" functionality, as there exists in live tournaments to start your bonus clock, nor a partial check functionality, as exists on all the online sites I play at, but either would improve the experience. If I'm running a test where I expect 15 solvers to finish, I wouldn't mind it feeling more like a WPC playoff where time to finish is the only relevant measure, and losing 30 seconds to a minute if you turn in something wrong is an appropriate penalty. For those solvers that would finish, it is very rare to be turning in a completely wrong paper, so I expect the sense of "giving another chance" is less relevant for the podium. |
![]() | |
Posts: 315 ![]() ![]() ![]() Country : The Netherlands | Para posted @ 2011-06-08 4:38 AM motris - 2011-06-07 10:54 PM Right now I think there is a bit of a hole in the solver experience when the test ends very early but you cannot receive results until the clock runs out. There is neither a "turn in" functionality, as there exists in live tournaments to start your bonus clock, nor a partial check functionality, as exists on all the online sites I play at, but either would improve the experience. The difference in that is that if you have online applets, the solution will definitely be wrong. I think it is okay in an online applets to do so, because you'll definitely have made a mistake there in solving the puzzle(even if it is like your WPC in Brazil mistake). My point is more that I think it's unfair to give the same point spread to someone who makes a typo in filling in the answer key but solved the puzzle correctly as to someone who makes a mistake in a puzzle and then gets to resolve it. The solution there might be, to evaluate if the initial mistake was an answer key or a solution problem manually and either award for example 80% or 50% of the points to the solver. I agree though that it would be handy to have a finish button to check your scores quicker. |
![]() | |
Posts: 199 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Country : United States | motris posted @ 2011-06-08 5:08 AM Para - 2011-06-08 4:38 AM My point is more that I think it's unfair to give the same point spread to someone who makes a typo in filling in the answer key but solved the puzzle correctly as to someone who makes a mistake in a puzzle and then gets to resolve it. The solution there might be, to evaluate if the initial mistake was an answer key or a solution problem manually and either award for example 80% or 50% of the points to the solver. There is probably also information in how long it takes to submit the correct answer after the initial mistake. If someone has simply typoed, they'd likely input the correct solution in less than 30 seconds. If someone has a large mistake in the puzzle, they'd certainly need more time to fix it before re-entry. Edited by motris 2011-06-08 5:10 AM |
![]() | |
Posts: 17 Country : United Kingdom | Gareth posted @ 2011-06-08 6:40 AM Para - 2011-06-08 12:38 AM My point is more that I think it's unfair to give the same point spread to someone who makes a typo in filling in the answer key but solved the puzzle correctly as to someone who makes a mistake in a puzzle and then gets to resolve it. It seems to me that so long as the points awarded decreases with each error that this is true only if the chance to correct it provides information that helps you solve the puzzle - if for example you can narrow a puzzle down to two or three likely options and it's more points-per-time effective to run through those option and see which are correct than to actually solve. For most puzzles and answer keys this probably isn't much of an issue, assuming you are given no feedback as to what part of your key is wrong. Other than that, what's wrong in principle with losing points and taking time to re-solve the puzzle? Losing points on resubmitting discourages you from guessing, and if there are a sufficiently large number of options then you can't use it to do something that might be called cheating. If you need to resolve the puzzle as opposed to fix a typo you lose both time and points, which seems a suitable penalty in any case - so you'd naturally be penalised an amount proportional to "how wrong" you are as you spend time checking and correcting or even re-solving from scratch. On the other hand for those who've made either a typing/key calculation error or a small mistake when solving the puzzle it offers the chance to reward you for what you actually have succeeded in doing. Compared with someone who doesn't solve the puzzle at all, isn't that actually eminently reasonable? It also means tests can contain bigger point puzzles which take longer without them being quite so risky if you fail to get the points due to a small mistake. So I don't really see a downside with the concept, but technical issues with live validation might be more of a problem. For example, what if you submit a correct solution that is mis-formatted and then waste time re-solving, not realising the problem is with the key? You'd lose out compared to the current system where it would presumably be manually fixed for no penalty. Edited by Gareth 2011-06-08 6:44 AM |
![]() | |
![]() Posts: 15 Country : United States | mathgrant posted @ 2011-06-08 6:54 AM Gareth: I might be an idiot, but isn't the information on whether your answers are right or wrong withheld from you until the test is over? That means you can't just submit one answer, see whether it's right or not, and then try another answer, because the only way to determine that your answer is wrong before the opportunity to change your answer disappears, is to solve the puzzle. |
![]() | |
Posts: 17 Country : United Kingdom | Gareth posted @ 2011-06-08 4:37 PM Gareth: I might be an idiot, but isn't the information on whether your answers are right or wrong withheld from you until the test is over? Yes, currently. I was talking about the possible change discussed above (motris's post 4744) whereby you are told immediately if your answer is wrong and are given a chance to resubmit for less points. |