brianjn
2005-07-01 13:44:45 |
Queued Up Nihil!
Note the growing increase of problems posted by nikki and Jonathan Chang.
'Oneupmanship' is one thing, and it fully equates to boasting.
If, as it has been pointed out by certain Journeymen, I believe that any persons who deliberately misrepresent the posting of problems (for whatever reason), should firstly be warned by Levik (or a Scholar, as Levik's representative) and then suffer from a range of consequences; these might mean stripping:
a) 'earned' level(s),
b) a percentage of from x - 100% of all problems held within the queue,
c) other suggestions from the floor, er .. keypad. |
brianjn
2005-07-01 13:50:38 |
Re: Queued Up Nihil!
I unfortunately omitted that such Journeymen (plus) statements did occur within the Chatterbox forum. One could reference some of the fact to which they refer at Chatterbox history, provided it is still available to us.
Monitoring Site Statistics does give some supportive evidence.
|
Federico Kereki
2005-07-01 14:43:02 |
Throwing empties out
I've been checking the queue, and it's a fact that both Nikki and Jonathan Chang are "padding" the queue, with empty problems.
Nikki goes for numbered placeholders (for example, 142, 143, 144...) while Jonathan keeps to using number 1 as title & text.
Other than Levik, no one can do anything about it... or can we?
Using the URL trick that allows us to see the rest of the queue, we could also TD those problems and erase them, couldn't we? |
brianjn
2005-07-01 14:58:39 |
Re: Queued Up Nihil!
Some of us could (TD), when we have those priveleges, unless "those who have, refuse those who have not!" :-) |
brianjn
2005-07-01 15:03:12 |
Re: Queued Up Nihil!
Er FK? Is nikki or Nikki? There are two registered persons by that username; one has a Capital N.
|
brianjn
2005-07-01 15:08:15 |
Re: Queued Up Nihil!
Got it!! nikki can read the queue but Jonathan cannot so nikki is maliciously goading JC! One stupidly is following the 'carrot'
Watson! Had you taken proper notice of events .... |
Federico Kereki
2005-07-01 15:12:59 |
Some statistics
I checked the queue, from PID=3800 to the end (3856, currently) and found:
PID=3815 to 3822, and 3843 to 3846, Nikki's fakes
PID=3836 to 3841 (3839 excluded) and 3849 to 3856, Jonathan's fakes
You can check this out for yourself going to perplexus.info/queue.php?pid=XXXX (XXXX must be the PID number) |
Larry
2005-07-01 16:19:49 |
Re: Queued Up Nihil!
I don't really see blank problems as a problem at all. The author has a few months to put in a real problem into one of the placeholder blank problems. If it remains blank it will just get deleted when it reaches the evaluation stage of the queue, and all the other problems will move up one. One could argue whether using a blank problem as a placeholder is wrong; but I am not aware of any rule being violated. |
e.g.
2005-07-01 19:24:58 |
Re: Queued Up Nihil!
Having two persons compete, trying to outdo the other in posting empty puzzles, is not a problem, unless the queue grows a lot, and produces delays or overruns or other software problems.
But it's really childish. |
Gamer
2005-07-01 23:57:27 |
Re: Queued Up Nihil!
Larry, actually that is breaking the rules. Putting in placeholders means that when you submit a problem, it jumps ahead in line, which is cheating the queue system. It has been brought up a few times before.
I don't think that is good, but if the placeholder rule isn't being violated, and the problems are deleted before Journeymen see them (because queue clogging would be wasting our time and thus not allowed) then it's just two people trying to compete. It screws up the site statistics so I would advise against it, but I don't think it's anything to red alert about.
As for FK's suggestion, Levik says "Only the 10 least recent problems will be visible to avoid overexposure of problems when the queue grows beyond that size.", so peering over to the other problems would be breaking that rule to some extent. Also, if (Journeyman) Nikki and JC delete their problems before it reaches the queue, then we don't have to; if they don't then they are clogging the queue. |
Tristan
2005-07-02 07:26:38 |
Re: Queued Up Nihil!
I'm pretty sure that the placeholders have no real effect on the queue.
Because of the QW system, each user can have no more than 2 problems in the top ten at the same time. This prevents clogging, promotes diversity, and effectively puts a speed limit on how fast each person can post puzzles (but not submit puzzles). If you have 140+ problems, the ones in back will be waiting significantly longer than everything else in the queue, and it doesn't matter whether the user submits them today or next month, as long as the user submits them about 2 months (an estimate of the normal wait time) before all his other problems disappear. Even then, I fail to see any real negative effects. |
brianjn
2005-07-08 03:38:02 |
Re: Queued Up Nihil!
I note nikki's postings as identified by FK have disappeared from the site stats; now it only needs JC to act maturely and remove the rubbish. |
