30.06.2020, 20:29
(30.06.2020, 09:18)CHalb schrieb: [ -> ]Ich denke, hier geht's um die beiden Listen der Rätselautoren und Rätsellöser in den Top 100.Ja, genau.
(30.06.2020, 09:18)CHalb schrieb: [ -> ]Ich denke, hier geht's um die beiden Listen der Rätselautoren und Rätsellöser in den Top 100.Ja, genau.
(22.06.2020, 18:48)CHalb schrieb: [ -> ]In order to promote a broad variety of puzzles in the portal we suggest to publish not more than seven puzzles per week.
(06.07.2020, 09:23)Richard schrieb: [ -> ]I think we are way beyond that point.
My suggestion would be to ask authors to limit the number of puzzles they publish to one or two per week, not seven. With the enormous number of new authors, it is already a challenge to get more solves to the individual puzzles in case there is such a limitation.
(06.07.2020, 11:13)Joe Average schrieb: [ -> ](06.07.2020, 09:23)Richard schrieb: [ -> ]I think we are way beyond that point.
My suggestion would be to ask authors to limit the number of puzzles they publish to one or two per week, not seven. With the enormous number of new authors, it is already a challenge to get more solves to the individual puzzles in case there is such a limitation.
If such a limit is installed, I'd suggest making it a monthly limit, not a weekly or daily one. There are people like pirx or BFaw, for example, who often try new and refreshing things, and then post three or four puzzles of a new type on a single day, so that you can get familiar with the new concept. That still needs to be possible.
(06.07.2020, 14:21)Hausigel schrieb: [ -> ]If we are about to devise restrictions of some sort to the use of the Puzzle Porital, I suggest that we prioritise its goals first. I am under the impression that the conflict mainly lies between the second and the third item on the list. And some of the contributions in this thread suggest that the priority should lie on the third item, but I am far from sure that this is a universal view.)That is a good strategy to address the issue, as prioritizing the goals will also make it much clearer which actions may be better suited or needed to reach those goals.
(07.07.2020, 13:16)Joe Average schrieb: [ -> ](06.07.2020, 14:21)Hausigel schrieb: [ -> ]If we are about to devise restrictions of some sort to the use of the Puzzle Porital, I suggest that we prioritise its goals first. I am under the impression that the conflict mainly lies between the second and the third item on the list. And some of the contributions in this thread suggest that the priority should lie on the third item, but I am far from sure that this is a universal view.)That is a good strategy to address the issue, as prioritizing the goals will also make it much clearer which actions may be better suited or needed to reach those goals.
Question though is, who is part of those "we" that get to prioritize the goals of the Puzzle Portal? Who gets to have a say and who doesn't ? Tough call to make.
(07.07.2020, 15:47)Puzzle_Maestro schrieb: [ -> ]I am not sure whether it would be beneficial to set limits on puzzle creation based on solving. Any people who are solving purely to enable further publishing of puzzles would choose the puzzles which are easy and which have simple rule-sets, which would only serve to worsen the issue (namely that hard puzzles/puzzles with complicated rule-sets do not get sufficient attention).