I'm no longer a flooble virgin!

I've had my first problem posted!

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

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,

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Congratulations SK, what is your secret?

Yeah Gamer, why ya gotta rain on his parade?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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!

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.

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

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