21.06.2023, 14:42
(Dieser Beitrag wurde zuletzt bearbeitet: 21.06.2023, 17:09 von 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.)
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.)