Rating level of difficulty
This is what I came up with, but I'm a little uncomfortable with it. I originated it after a couple dozen puzzles (as guest) where my best time was 11:??.
I figure Stephen is automatically rating them by the time spent on them. That rating is skewed when someone is interrupted, often more than once, during a game.
I don't rate a puzzle when I have to take a break midgame because it won't agree with official time (or rating, regardless of official scale used).
I'm open to suggestions to improve this scale.
+ 5 minutes after first 12:30
Over 52:30 min......10
AND, Stephen, can stats reflect min:sec instead of seconds?
I think ranking puzzles as to how difficult they are and awarding higher points for the more difficult puzzles in a good thing, but not based on the average time spent. Those of us who are faster solvers in general, in my case because I have been doing logic problems for years, are going to be skewed with higher scores. The cryptograms site scores based on assigned difficultly (based primarily on the length of the quote) and the time take to solve the puzzle. That, to me, is fair. You get credit for solving a more difficult puzzle, as well as your time playing a factor. Perhaps a difficulty rating could be based on the number of clues, or the number of non-direct clues?
Too many aren't rating puzzles. Personally, I don't use my own time to determine the rating, because if I make a mistake (marking northwest column instead of northeast, for example) and have to restart, that doesn't mean the puzzle is difficult. Some clues are more difficult because you can't use them until you progress to a certain point. If the names within a category are too unfamiliar or similar to one another, that puzzle would also be rated harder.
I wish it were possible to rate a puzzle after giving up, without solving.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 07:00 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.