Gamer
2004-02-22 19:40:31 |
Changing problems:
In "looking for n", the problem was (in my opinion at least) to easy, so it was spiced up and made harder. However, this wasn't the submitter's intent. I think that it should be listed somewhere that your problem can get changed, and will if the problem's too easy, too hard, or the wording is hard. |
Tristan
2004-02-22 22:39:56 |
Re: Changing problems:
I don't know which problem you're talking about. |
TomM
2004-02-23 00:09:35 |
Re: Changing problems:
(Shouldn't this discussion have gone in the library, since not everyone can see the waiting Queue? On second thought, no. It is better here, so all submitters can have a say in the discussion of what happens to their puzzles.)
As I recall, the ability to change someone else's puzzle was added in order to allow a good puzzle that was poorly worded to be "fixed" when the original poster has not been around.
That ability should be used sparingly. If the owner of the puzzle is around, suggest changes or improvements but leave the actual changes to him.
Even on those occassions where it is necessary to go in and fix it, it should not be changed into a different problem altogether. The person whose name is on the puzzle, the one who will be blamed if the solution is now incomplete, or does not make sense, should still be able to recognize it. |
Aaron
2004-02-23 11:12:55 |
Re: Changing problems:
Gamer, you trivialized the problem I had submitted, but your proposed solution to my original problem didn't measure up. It was my impression that the reason for me (the author) to see feedback on the problem was so that the reviewers could suggest changes and discuss concerns with my problem, not to rewrite my problem because you don't understand it.
As to the solution for the specific problem, you can't prove anything using prime factorization (a multiple of a prime may contain any number of factors of that prime - and by the way, four is not prime).
I think it should be listed somewhere for the people with the permissions to change problems only to do so when the author is absent, and suggestions have been made, or perhaps if the change is minor (spelling/grammatical). As TomM said, I'm responsible for the solution and for the puzzle being submitted on my name. You said, "if we change your problem, your solution doesn't have to cover it! Although it may seem like it, if we change the problem, we probably know the answer so you don't have to." Are you going to throw away my solution as well as my puzzle? How about just taking my name off it and putting your own on; wouldn't that be easier? That way, when you can't prove what you proposed, people will look to you for the answer instead of the unwitting author of the original problem.
I'm glad that I saw your changes before they were approved; I was never notified of the change, and you certainly never asked my (or anyone's) opinion, even in comments. A little discretion might be wise to apply in the future, and I will thank you to do so. |
levik
2004-02-23 13:10:09 |
Re: Changing problems:
I have to side with Aaron and TomM on this one. The scholar edit feature does request that only neccessary and publically accepted changes are made, and I certainly never intended it to be used to alter problems in a dramatic way.
I'm sure however that no harm was meant, and this is a simple misunderstanding, so let's just change the problem back to its original form, and think about how we can prevent this in the future... |
