All about flooble | fun stuff | Get a free chatterbox | Free JavaScript | Avatars    
perplexus dot info
Discussion Forums
Login: Password:Remember me: Sign up! | Forgot password

Forums > General Discussion
This is a forum for discussing anything and everything.
SilverKnight
2003-10-31 10:46:45
WOOHOO!!!

I'm no longer a flooble virgin!

I've had my first problem posted!

Bartender, a round for everyone... on me!

Sam
2003-11-11 11:55:36
Re: WOOHOO!!!

I'm still a little confused as to when problems get posted.
I have a puzzle that has gone from queue position 29 to 27 in two weeks. Does this mean that in those two weeks only two puzzles from the front of the queue were used? Does this mean that all the others have been pushed from further back?
And what does it mean that my puzzle that's in the 90s seems to be going backwards? Are more and more puzzles beeing inserted between it and the front of the queue?

SilverKnight
2003-11-11 13:03:20
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Sam,

Here's why a problem will go backwards.... Some NEW person just submitted their first one or two problems... and therefore, those problems become queue 1 (and get sorted ahead of your, and my, queue 2 problems). But don't worry, it's pretty meaningless.

I know what you mean about the queue position. I've had a problem at number 16 for about two weeks as well.

There are some other threads regarding this, and I think a little info in the FAQ, but the system is IMHO inherently confusing.
_________________

In general, if someone submits a BUNCH of problems ahead of you... they ALL will get placed in front of your problems... even though they have a higher "queue position". The reason is... the queue number means very little.

Each person can have only two problems at each queue weight. And ALL problems with queue weight 1 are reported before all problems with queue weight 2... and all with 2 are reported before 3, etc....

The catch is... that if someone's Queue 1 problem gets posted (or rejected), then a queue 2 problem will JUMP in front of all the other queue 2 problems (and most/many queue 1 problems) to take the missing problems place.

In short, the queue number is almost meaningless.... The best indication of when a problem will be posted/rejected is the DATE when it was first SUBMITTED.
________________________

As you've probably noticed (as of 2003-11-11, at the time of this posting), let's look at the last two weeks of posting (this incudes 23 problems):

6 - Gamer
5 - PopstarDave
5 - Ravi Raja
4 - DJ
1 - Lewis
1 - FatBoy
1 - SilverKnight

It is not a coincidence that this is heavily weighted to only 4-5 different submitters.

Since TWO problems can be at queue weight one at any given time... this generally means that the FIVE earliest, most prolific posters will each have two problems in the "top ten" to be review/posted.

A SIXTH person can "sneak" in there slowly because when one or two problems gets posted in a day, the next queue weight 1 problem will slide up (and it can't be one of the 5 people's problems).

But when midnight comes around... the automatic RESORTING occurs... and any queue weight one problems posted/removed get replaced by queue weight two problems (if they exist, and they usually do). So, all the other queue weight one problems... remain ahead of ALL of your problems, and queue weight two problems jumped ahead.
________________________

I hope this has been helpful to you (and to others).

--- SK

P.S. Perhaps Levik can link to this posting for the FAQ. :-)

Sam
2003-11-11 17:12:57
Re: WOOHOO!!!

It seems that the point of the queue weighting is so that the same person's/people's problems to not show up too close to each other, and that we see a selection of puzzles from as wide a selection of people as possible on any given week. If this is really the intent, it seems that the weighting system is inherently flawed, as, as you noticed, the same people's puzzles show up day after day.
Why doesn't the system instead prioritize things in order of submission, as it does, but arrange it's week such that as many people as possible are reviewed (with the same number of problems being reviewed, of course), while selecting from a set of puzzles below a certian rank.

For instance, an easier example with just a three day turn over instead of seven day

Order submitted (by person): ABAACD BEFABG ABHIJC JKLIJK
Eight people have submitted 18 puzzles

Order posted:
The program selects 6 puzzles for the first three days, selecting from the first twelve submitted:
1: A, B
2: C, D
3: E, F

Remaining: AABABG ABHIJC JKLIJK

The program again selects six from twelve:
4: A, B
5: G, H
6: I, J

Remaining: AABABC JKLIJK

Ditto again:
7: A, B
8: C, J
9: K, L



Ok, so that was a little more complicated than I meant it to be. But the system still works. The people that have submitted a huge number of problems still get their's shown more frequently. However, the this system works in such a way that the time between their puzzles is increased, which means that a wider selection of puzzles are shown each week.

Even if you find to be this system confusing, the point is still that the queue weighting doesn't seem to be doing what it is supposed to be doing, I assume, which is to try and get a wider selection shown over a given time period. In the example above, noone was posted twice in a three day cycle, where as the weighting system would have had A's puzzles be posted much more frequently towards the beginning.

SilverKnight
2003-11-11 17:59:13
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Sam,

If you're not already aware... the automated process just kicks the problems up to the "top ten".... Once the problems are there, HUMANS (Scholars and Journeymen) vote plus or minus... to determine whether each is ELIGIBLE for posting or if it should be rejected. Then, I believe, only a scholar can "push" it live.

I think you described an automatic way for posting problems, but I'm sure we don't want to see every problem ever submitted (there's gotta be a lot of junk amid the pearls).

So, I think the issue is:
Under the current algorithm, as long as there are "many" submitters of problems, then if we sample any, say, month-long period, we will find that it is heavily skewed to about 5 people's submissions.

Sam, I will direct you and others to this previous thread for much more discussion about this subject.

--- SK

Gamer
2003-11-11 18:09:32
Re: WOOHOO!!!

I didn't read through these last two comments, as I figured they were mostly directed to each other...

The problem with the queue now is that we have 5 submitters that are already submitting puzzles. This has filled up the queue, such that any problems submitted after 8-18 (as of today) likely won't get posted. (pid of less than 1500)

The point of queue weighing is so that in the queue we don't see all of Ravi's puzzles; as he somehow submits 40 puzzles at one time. Or for example, we don't see all of my of anyone else's in a big clump. This can be seem because there are 340 problems submitted by the top 8 submitters.

Tristan
2003-11-11 18:53:51
Re: WOOHOO!!!

SK's probably right. This discussion should continue in that other thread. When I found out how QW worked, I thought it might somehow be flawed, and I still have my doubts.

Back to the original reason for this thread, I really liked your puzzle, SK. I only wish the ones I submitted were as good... Yeah, my first puzzle has been QW 42 for like a month now, not that the number truly means anything. Then again, 42 is the answer to everything (according to a certain author).

SilverKnight
2003-11-11 19:05:20
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Thanks Tristan, I'm flattered.

Well... hopefully, you'll like some of my other ones (if they ever get posted :-). I look forward to seeing yours.

--- SK

P.S. Douglas Adams rocked!

Victor Zapana
2003-11-11 19:31:59
Re: WOOHOO!!!

sigh... i feel slightly saddened. i give 23 problems and like only 3 of them are queue 100-. mebe they suck too much. -sigh-

Gamer
2003-11-11 20:50:39
Re: WOOHOO!!!

I think you just submitted them too late.

I think pid is an important factor too. A recently submitted problem had a pid of 1788. Since all problems in the queue have a pid of less than 1500, it takes a while for your problems to get into the queue without queue weight, and because of so many "many problem submitters" have many problems inside that range, (I have 25 that haven't been in the queue yet that have a pid of less than 1500), it's hard for many submitters to get them in.

If you submit problems then wait for a while they will be there! :)

Sam
2003-11-12 21:49:04
Re: WOOHOO!!!

SK, of course I realize that humans check them - it would be terrible if they didn't. I guess instead of looking at my system above as posting the problems, look at it as offering six puzzles to the voters.

I guess the system can be explained much more simply:

Take a bound of, say, 50 puzzles.
Arrange set by order of posting.
Rearrange so that no submitter in that set has two problems without every other submitter having a problem in between, if possible.
Show top ten to humans.

So shown, with a bound of 8 and top 4 shown:

ABCADEFBAGHI submitted in order

Bound (left side):

ABCADEFB | AGHI

Rearanged:

ABCDEFAB | AGHI

Offered for judging:

ABCDEF | ABAGHI

A, B get posted (if their good enough).

Restart. New set in original order:

CADEFBAGHI

Bound, then rearrange:

CADEFBGA | HI

and so on...
Does that make sense? No queue weights, and if the set is large enough, you will have much more space between the same submitters puzzles.

SilverKnight
2003-11-13 00:27:15
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Sam, I think you've got to retry your scenario with the following possibility (more like what Flooble has really seen.....)

submitted order:
AAAAAABBBABBBBBAAAAAAACCCCBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDEFGAAAAABBBBHIJKAAAAA

Now, try your algorithm again.... what happens?

And to quote Levik:
"The queue mechanism currently offers a "benefit" for early submission.... statistically, people's first problems are not the best submissions we get on the site."
____________________________

Sam, please understand, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.... I'm not a big fan of the current system, and if you check the link I've given you, you'll see I've already presented similar arguments.... :-)

That being said, I *AM* a big fan of this site, and all in all, I think it is run extremely well.

Sam
2003-11-13 02:08:06
Re: WOOHOO!!!

I see your point, though with a large enough initial set the problem would be slightly alleviated. Your posting above, for instance would be rearanged as:

ABCDEFGHIJKABCDABCD.....

and since the set is recalculated once the two or three are taken off the end each day, you won't ever reach the point where it sarts going ABCABCABC...

Here is it in the very simplest terms:
If someone's puzzle in in the set, say the top 50, then this system would guarantee that that puzzle is seen by the judges before anyone elses puzzle is seen twice.
Does that make sense?

Anyways, obviously I am saying this because I'm a great fan of the site, not inspite of it. If I didn't think that it was brilliant and very well run, I wouldn't spend my time trying to improve it :D

SilverKnight
2003-11-13 02:42:42
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Sam,

I really think you should read through the thread/link I referenced above... not that this isn't a valuable discussion, but it's really rehashing points already made. (Your suggestion that the set be enlarged is virtually identical to a point I, and perhaps others, made before.) :-)

--- SK

Sam
2003-11-13 15:55:13
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Well, I had indeed read that other thread, and really didn't think that the system I was proposing was the same as the two queues idea you had, but since I've explained my system fully now I guess I don't need to rehash it. My one line synopsis in my last post said it best, I think.

SilverKnight
2003-11-27 12:36:42
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Woohoo² !!!

I've had my 3rd (and 4th) problem posted.... I'm an Apprentice!

Gamer
2003-11-27 20:46:37
Re: WOOHOO!!!

I really don't think you need to say either of those things; we can see that your problems have been posted; especially to the people who posted them.

SilverKnight
2003-11-28 00:37:16
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Wow! Imagine the tongue-lashing I'd get from Gamer had I gone with my initial impulse and started a NEW thread to announce that I'm a newly made Apprentice... jeez....

Eric
2003-11-29 04:02:31
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Congratulations SK, what is your secret?

Yeah Gamer, why ya gotta rain on his parade?

Eric
2003-11-29 04:06:34
Ethics

I haven't seen this referenced directly, but I was wondering if different posters felt obliged to cite where they got their problems from, if they simply varied them or just wrote them from scratch. Do some people care if the poster actually makes a problem up?

SilverKnight
2003-11-29 04:14:06
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Well, besides my rapier-like wit, my incredible good looks, my mind-boggling intellect, and my unbelievable humility...

...as the FAQ and levels pages will tell you, it's mostly just a matter of submitting enough approved problems for the site.

TomM
2003-11-29 10:44:35
Re: Ethics

I haven't seen this referenced directly, but I was wondering...<\i><\b>

There is a whole thread devoted to this very question, and I was going to link to it, but when I found it, it turned out to be in the Library (with the lead pipe), which means that it is only visible to higher-ranking members. Sorry.

The consensus we arrived at is that we would prefer that you submit original puzzles. If you submit recycled puzzles, we would prefer "classics" to new ones. Give credit whenever you can, and never steal copyrighted material.

SilverKnight
2003-11-29 14:54:58
Re: WOOHOO!!!

shhh... don't tell Gamer... but there is another status change!

levik
2003-11-29 19:37:22
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Tom - Sorry, but the backslashes will have to stay - at least until I make a post-editing tool.

Changing backslashes to forward slashes in pure SQL is not fun :) Besides, your post is perfectly readable.

levik
2003-11-29 19:38:24
Re: WOOHOO!!!

P.S. If you wish, re-post your comment, and I will delete the original one - I *DO* have a deletion tool *GRIN*

Victor Zapana
2003-11-30 11:58:16
Re: WOOHOO!!!

so u could delete this post if u wanted to?

Gamer
2003-11-30 16:46:28
Re: WOOHOO!!!

I don't care, we have enough problems in the queue already! :) You should see the amount of unapproved solutions out there!

As for the submitting old puzzles, I think Penny gave you enough of a thrashing there! :) I think old puzzles (like the rope and the lovelorn snail) are good because they stood the test of time.

Am I the only one hearing levik cackling with power? :D

Victor Zapana
2003-11-30 19:01:33
Re: WOOHOO!!!

I hear him to, but I stand to defy it (please dont hurt me levik lol).

fwaff
2003-12-01 03:20:26
Re: WOOHOO!!!

PAH! I laugh in the face of Levik's almighty power. His deletion tool cannot harm me, my posts are like a shield of steel.

FatBoy
2003-12-01 09:35:45
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Where I go you go Hugo Agogo!!!!!!

FatBoy
2003-12-01 11:24:47
Hey, SK

SK,

Kudos on being the bigger man and stopping that bloodbath over in the comments on "flawless." Sometimes it's harder just to walk away, you deserve credit for doing it.

BTW, congrats on making Journeyman. Does that mean I can complain to you if I think my puzzles are taking too long to get posted?

SilverKnight
2003-12-01 11:35:24
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Thanks (and frankly, I'm ashamed I didn't do it earlier...)

And you can complain to me all you want! (I probably deserve it! :-)... not that I'll be able to do anything about it.)

Gamer
2003-12-01 18:40:51
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Me too... I get caught up in arguing lots of times, especially if I am winning! :)

It also means SK can help us tame the solution queue and vote on some of these problems!

Tristan
2003-12-01 21:04:21
Re: WOOHOO!!!

You're so lucky, you get to see the library forum. The total number of new comments in all the forums probably makes sense to you now... unless there's something else that's messing up that number.

Victor Zapana
2003-12-01 22:20:04
Re: WOOHOO!!!

hmm big meanies... have to resort to a library forum, away from the public eye.. i was wondering why there were only 5 new posts in the forums but it sed there were 20 new posts on the link to the forums. gr... let us hear your private squabbling.

Victor Zapana
2003-12-01 22:22:17
Re: WOOHOO!!!

wahhh i wanna be journeyman :P

Victor Zapana
2003-12-01 22:50:01
Re: WOOHOO!!!

hm.. i feel strangely uncomfortable. im the 2nd most problem giver according to site statistics.

SilverKnight
2003-12-02 08:50:00
Re: WOOHOO!!!

If you become #1, you win a T-shirt... or a flooble pin... or a baseball cap... or a frisbie or something... actually... I'm not sure.

Captain Paradox
2004-01-12 21:43:35
Re: WOOHOO!!!

Question . . . can you see the top 10 in each category while voting, or are all the puzzles pooled into one queue?

SilverKnight
2004-01-12 21:47:11
Re: WOOHOO!!!

... all pooled into one queue (so Journeymen can see only 10...), but the proposed problem category, given by the submitter, is shown.

Copyright © 2002 - 2024 by Animus Pactum Consulting. All rights reserved. Privacy Information