31.10.2020, 12:56
A few abstract thoughts:
* Easy puzzles are typically solved by more people than hard ones. That is in the nature of things; authors must certainly be aware of this when they design harder puzzles. I also take it that less time is needed (on average) to create an easy puzzle than to create a hard one.
* So far I have had no reason to suspect that hard puzzles are generally more likely to be hand-crafted than easy ones. Are there any statistics or other kinds of evidence to support this claim? I don't understand what the term "linear" is supposed to mean in this context; according to my understanding, both easy and hard puzzles can have a linear or a non-linear solving path.
* I can think of many reasons why puzzle authors invest more or less time in a specific creation. The assumption that there is a straightforward link between the time spent designing a puzzle and the presence of a nice, clean, logical solving path is wrong in my opinion - not to mention the fact that different solvers may enjoy different kinds of solving logic.
* Finally: I do not think there is a simple relation between the difficulty and the quality of puzzles. It appears to me that both easy puzzles and hard puzzles have their supporters. As far as I am concerned, they both have their rightful place in the puzzle community and in particular the Portal. Which kind one prefers is mostly a matter of personal taste.
* It may be true that some distinguished authors can be found to produce the one kind more often than the other, but just as with the Sudoku-vs-Non-Sudoku debate, I find it (mildly) presumptuous to argue that the one kind is more "valuable" than the other, or that the majority of puzzles from one group is just "noise".
That said, I do not think it is a good idea to split the portal into two sections as suggested.
* Easy puzzles are typically solved by more people than hard ones. That is in the nature of things; authors must certainly be aware of this when they design harder puzzles. I also take it that less time is needed (on average) to create an easy puzzle than to create a hard one.
* So far I have had no reason to suspect that hard puzzles are generally more likely to be hand-crafted than easy ones. Are there any statistics or other kinds of evidence to support this claim? I don't understand what the term "linear" is supposed to mean in this context; according to my understanding, both easy and hard puzzles can have a linear or a non-linear solving path.
* I can think of many reasons why puzzle authors invest more or less time in a specific creation. The assumption that there is a straightforward link between the time spent designing a puzzle and the presence of a nice, clean, logical solving path is wrong in my opinion - not to mention the fact that different solvers may enjoy different kinds of solving logic.
* Finally: I do not think there is a simple relation between the difficulty and the quality of puzzles. It appears to me that both easy puzzles and hard puzzles have their supporters. As far as I am concerned, they both have their rightful place in the puzzle community and in particular the Portal. Which kind one prefers is mostly a matter of personal taste.
* It may be true that some distinguished authors can be found to produce the one kind more often than the other, but just as with the Sudoku-vs-Non-Sudoku debate, I find it (mildly) presumptuous to argue that the one kind is more "valuable" than the other, or that the majority of puzzles from one group is just "noise".
That said, I do not think it is a good idea to split the portal into two sections as suggested.