Is this acceptable on LMG: appending a solve path documentation with the puzzle

[FKlauser]

I want to ask what the opinion of the mods and more dedicated users is regarding an innovation I wanted to implement on the sudoku puzzles I post. What I want to add to each new puzzle I create is a pdf file documenting the solve path of said puzzle up to and including the finished solution. I anticipate that this would make the puzzle more accessible to solvers that get stuck in that they may, if they so wish, look up what deduction they are missing.  I myself do this with many of the puzzles showcased on Cracking the Cryptic - using the video as a solve path - and it has made many puzzles more accessible to me. This would, of course, mean that anyone essentially has access to the solution code (as the solution to the puzzle would be available). Although if one wanted to just "cheat" and not solve the puzzle themselves, there are many computer-solvers that can do that already.

Essentially, what I want to know is: would you feel that appending a solve path to the puzzle is in some way against the spirit of what LMG is trying to be?

[PjotrV]

Personally I would be pro solution guides, but I do know there are lot of people against this idea unfortunately.

[Hausigel]

I guess there is no consensus about it, but I believe it is acceptable if it is the author himself who provides the solution. After all, many puzzles that are published these days come with a link to a tool that has a "solve" function anyway. Even if not, those who really want to get their hands on the solution without actually solving the puzzle will usually find a way. The Portal is not competitive, so I do not think this should be an issue.

Of course, if the solution is available, it is impossible to determine whether those listed as "solvers" have really finished the puzzle or just copied the answer key. Among other things, anyone who does the latter can also submit a rating (raising doubts regarding the "legitimacy" of such ratings). Again, it is something I do not see as a problem, but others may disagree; this issue has caused heated discussions lately.

[ildiko]

Es gibt ein Label "Mit Tipp". Sollte dann nicht konsequenterweise auch eines "Mit Lösung" eingeführt werden?

Ironiemodus aus.

[glum_hippo]

I think there's something of a misunderstanding. The online solving tools that have a "Solve" function can only really solve a fraction of the kinds of puzzles that are posted here. Their primary function is to provide a solving interface for people who don't want to print out puzzles, not to provide solving help.

[FKlauser]

To clarify: I do not mean to (re)start the debate on online-solvers, their functions etc. I want to know whether the users of this site prefer it to be, as it were, "competitive" - only those who managed to figure out the logic of the puzzle should have the honor of having their names among the solvers - or "demonstrative" of the logic and interactions the setter has set, even if this means stating that logic outright in a solving guide attached to the puzzle? Or to put it more directly, would you be fundamentally against a puzzle coming with a guide to the solution?

[CHalb]

FKlauser, since you've asked so respectfully and thoroughly, I wanted to answer in the same manner right after your first question. But it's not easy for me to take the time for such an answer. So a bit shorter than I'd like to: I personally are clearly against openly presented or retrievable solutions in any way. The best keywords you gave yourself: For me the basic spirit of the portal is rather competitive (yet I agree to Hausigel) than demonstrative. Although of course our association behind the portal has educational intentions as well.