can we have a rules writing guide book

[bigger]

Hello. everyone. i want to draw some attention to the rules writing issue.
It's a problem i noticed a long time ago. Many setters use the line 'Standard/Normal Sudoku rules apply' without a follow up of a detailed rules. I even remembered a puzzle did not list the complete ruleset he use. There are also some minor problem with the rules writing, like using 'negative restraint' in rules writing instead of 'All possible xxx are given', or the rules don't have paragraphs which makes it unnecessarily tiring to find a certain rule.
In the past, i thought it's a time issue that can be solved with time. But today, i found i have trouble understanding rules. i had to guess the rules by the example. the sorce of my misunderstanding is that the setter repeat a noun in many lines, causing me to think those lines of rules are connected. It's very clear many setters still don't know how to write their rules more effectively.
In the 'How to publish puzzles' section, it is clear to avoid only using simplied version phase and check puzzle wiki. but i can't access the puzzle wiki English version page. And i didn't find how to write a new rule from 0 in wiki
To conclude, i think a rules writing guide book is necessary. It can help setters to write the rules like a pro, and may be some crtl C+V when too tired to write the detailed rule. As for what i expected to see in a guide book, it should contain example rules of every label/tag, how to paragraph a complex rule set, the usage of symbols(like ? in outside clues only have one direction while arrows can have three) and colors(what color should be used to be more accessible for colorblind, may be some sample color), and maybe some example of rules with many tags to illustrate the layers in writing the rules.
by the way, could there be a tag or label for all those fog of war puzzles? i want to exclude those from my search list. it's very frustrating clicking a puzzle only to find i'm physically impossible to solve those.

[Realshaggy]

There are a lot of different ways to mess up a puzzle and make solvers angry, even if the puzzle itself is good. Be it phrasing, layout, rule description, solution codes among other things. Even people who care for such things might not always be aware of things like color-blindness and a lot of things are also subjective. The help pages were written at a time when 95% of the user base of this site was german and people were actively working on the puzzle wiki. The language has completely changed and I don't think anybody works on the puzzle wiki anymore. The help pages list some things that should be "common sense" when publishing a puzzle, but it's a big task to write down all details one can think of. In particular "don't use the phrase 'standard X rules apply'" is already explicitely mentioned. Even if you do write down more things, people will find more ways you didn't think of to mess up, and somehow I also doubt that a 30 page style book to puzzle posting would avoid the bad cases you describe. (It would help some people who care for such things to get even better though.)

If you make "rules", you also need the manpower to enforce them, and we definitely don't have that. In an ideal world, a bad presentation would result in a worse "beauty rating", but the rating system has it's own flaws and other things have more impact on the result. (I actually do give less rating for serious presentation issues though.)

Regarding "Fog of war" puzzles, there was a discussion, that these puzzles are breaking one of our few rules, in particular that each puzzle should be self-consistent and not rely on outside sources. Because those might not be reachable a few years from now or might not work for some people at all. No further actions were taken, because deleting well received puzzles seems to be a bad idea and we first wanted to see how things develope. But actively supporting that type is another question.

There is a "block" function, so you only have to see each of this puzzles once and you can also do a search for "fog" and mass block all results (but there might be a few false positives.)

[bigger]

I think i might be a little bit misuderstood. i'm not suggesting to have a rule for the setters. i'm suggesting adding a few more lines in the 'how to publish pages' as suggestions for setters to check their rules writing. it's more like a guideline rather than a law to be enforced. i think that page hasn't update for a very long time. adding hints like, don't afraid to write a long rule and use <p> would be very helpful. a 30 page style book might, is a big project. it might not help new setters for their first few puzzles. but i believe, when a setter post more puzzles or solve more puzzles on this site, he might get a little interested in how this site works. this style book, if exists, will be a great help for a setter to understand each variant and find other variant option for future variant setting.
The thing is, i'm not trying to prevent bad rules writing, i'm hoping to see more comfortable rules writing. in the past, i learn how by checking others puzzles. but in recent months, this approach might not be useful. take my experience today for example, 20 puzzles on my sudoku tag page, 18 of them have the line 'normal/standard sudoku rules apply' without a detailed rule followed, 2 of them i can't physically solve, one of which has a second high solves. in this environment, i don't expect a new setter can learn anything useful from his peers. that's why i propose to have something solid for future setters to refer to, and maybe they can learn how to avoid the little mistakes i mentioned. sure people can mess up, in different ways,  but isn't that a chance to further improve the suggestion hints. i only notice the colorblind side when i notice a setter use colors which looks very similiar in dots and he improve it in his later puzzles. that's when i learn to try to be in one color. it's like  some kind of wiki, even if nobody listens, it has to be there so people feel safe and have something to check when lost.
As for the rating, i don't rate. if i like a puzzle, i set one to show my likes and thinking. i just feel sorry some new setters present their rules wierd when they could do better with a little bit of help
Another reason is a little bit personal. i'm recently try to set a non sudoku variant, but it's very hard to find a standard rules writing in puzzles. i remember i check a lot of cave tag puzzles simply try to find a rules presentation that suits me. it's not making my setting a cave variant easier. i understand non sudoku puzzles have less solvers and setters, but when i first heard of this site, i knew it's a good site for all puzzles. when i posted my puzzles, i know i will set non sudoku variant one day. that's why i really expect some help with my way of setting

There is a "block" function, so you only have to see each of this puzzles once and you can also do a search for "fog" and mass block all results (but there might be a few false positives.)

thanks, but i'm a little bit afraid i might miss a variant that goes well with the concept fog, like sandstorm. it is the precentage of this type in my first page that is a little bit annoying for me.

[CHalb]

i'm recently try to set a non sudoku variant, but it's very hard to find a standard rules writing in puzzles. i remember i check a lot of cave tag puzzles simply try to find a rules presentation that suits me. it's not making my setting a cave variant easier. ... when i first heard of this site, i knew it's a good site for all puzzles. when i posted my puzzles, i know i will set non sudoku variant one day.

I'm glad to read this . I use our Puzzlewiki as reference in cases of uncertainties in rule writing. [And additional I admit I look into portal puzzle of certain authors.] It behaves at the moment ... well, let's say ... in some aspects not as it used to some years ago. Here you find an overview in German: http://wiki.logic-masters.de/index.php?t...rie:Art/de
There e.g. on the second page following the link to the category "Höhle (Art)/de" (should be shown as Höhle) you find caves and some variants of this type and some with links to English sites, too.