(06.07.2020, 14:21)Hausigel schrieb: I strongly recommend not setting any publishing limits or installing any other kind of restrictions until the purpose of the Puzzle Portal itself and of such restrictions has been properly defined (or at least agreed upon). Any kind of restriction can only be a means to an end, and we must first clarify what that end should be. I could think of various objectives:

* to encourage new puzzle friends to solve puzzles;
* to encourage new puzzle friends to create puzzles;
* to gather feedback on existing puzzles;
* to provide puzzle material (as a pastime) for established members of the puzzle community;
* to publish puzzle series not suitable for contests;
* to publish leftovers from past events;
* to collect/exchange ideas for future events, regarding both creation and solving;
* to advertise membership in our (or any other) puzzle community.
There may be more, of course.

I daresay objectives were never actually defined when the Puzzle Portal was created, simply because there was no need. In the old days, puzzle floods were not a concern. The nature of the Puzzle Portal was self-evident; it served several of the above purposes, and at the time I don't think there were any conflicting interests.

That appears to have changed, as a - more or less natural - result of the growth of the puzzle community. Since growth was generally desired (not just for the Puzzle Portal, but for Logic Masters and its community as such), it is not a priori something to complain about. However, the increase in puzzle publication has led us to a point where the above goals can no longer coexist without conflict.

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.)

Settings limits quickly might chase away some aspiring authors, and as long as the goals of the Puzzle Portal are just vague ideas, it is not clear to me whether the benefits will really outweigh the drawbacks. And maybe there are other options as well, like restructuring the Puzzle Portal without imposing any actual restrictions on the users.

(21.06.2020, 14:13)Richard schrieb: Personally, the recent flood of (mainly) sudokus and puzzles brings me mixed emotions.

Many players that seem active on the Cracking The Cryptic platform have found their way to the German portal; those new authors are posting their puzzles here and there is really interesting stuff inbetween.
Personally, I have a lot of fun with all those new creations, and my list of possible types to include in SVS has grown severe in the last couple of months.

But this development also has a side effect.
Up until the end of 2019, on average one puzzle per day was posted. At the moment that number has risen to 7 or 8 and seems to rise still. And in my opinion, the portal simply can't handle such an amount of new puzzles.

I see many puzzles that have been posted are hardly solved, unthough they are attractive, and probably very good. But they just are not found since they go up in the mass. And that is a pity; every puzzle deserves appropriate attention. Some authors are starting to wonder why their puzzle is solved only a limited times after a certain time, and some players are starting to write comments about the current puzzle flood too. So I think I am not the only one with those mixed emotions.

So far, the portal is an open space. It doesn't matter if you are a member of LMGermany or not, every one can solve and post what he/she likes: the type of puzzle, the difficulty and the number of puzzles. There are no restrictions, rules or regulations.

I think it is in the interest of the portal, the authors and the solvers if there would be guidelines; and then mainly guidelines about numbers of puzzles posted. In total and per author. Although I don't exactly know what those guidelines could be; several things are possible. So far, they were not necessary, but things have obviously changed.

I would really like to read how others see this. Solvers and authors. I hope we can have a constructive discussion about this that is in the best interest of all.

Best regards, Richard

(20.07.2020, 13:56)glum_hippo schrieb: Auf einer Rätselseite wird einem neuen Nutzer vorgeworfen, dass er/sie ein fake Konto benutzt, um das Rating zu erhöhen. Offenbar nur auf der Basis von Mutmaßungen? Oder habe ich etwas verpasst?

(20.07.2020, 19:51)uvo schrieb: Könnte ein Testlöser gewesen sein. Vergleiche zum Beispiel mal mit diesem hier:

https://logic-masters.de/Raetselportal/Raetsel/zeigen.php?id=0000VP

(20.07.2020, 13:56)glum_hippo schrieb: Auf einer Rätselseite wird einem neuen Nutzer vorgeworfen, dass er/sie ein fake Konto benutzt, um das Rating zu erhöhen. Offenbar nur auf der Basis von Mutmaßungen? Oder habe ich etwas verpasst?