Speed Records and "Cheating"

[compuspud]

Redpicker, Hitting 800 points occasionally, even frequently (if you pick and choose which puzzles you solve) is certainly doable (I get 800 every so often). Taking only 35-50 seconds to solve a puzzle also is doable occasionally (although I've never done one that fast) But, doing both all the time, and solving all the puzzles--that's really hard to believe. Of course, if you need to cheat on a free game like this, good luck to you.

[redpicker]

Compuspud, you have a point. I guess a lot depends on what you consider cheating. Choosing only easy puzzles, in my book, shouldn't be considered cheating since the board allows you to do that without penalty. If one was to only choose easy puzzles, it wouldn't be long before they started seeing repeats, in the clues as well as the puzzles. If, at this time, one was to start a new account, that person could maintain a very high score average and a 100% solving rate.

Since there is nothing on the board that prevents or even discourages such tactics, I'd have a hard time to consider that cheating. Same thing for using Google to find what element has an atomic number of 106. While I don't pick and choose my puzzles, I will use Google to find the atomic number of americium or the name of a song of a K-pop group I have never heard of. I take the puzzles as they come and take pride in trying to maintain a 100% solving rate, even if it might take me hours or more to complete a puzzle (I will, on occasion, go to bed with a puzzle open because I can't figure it out and return the next day. It's amazing how taking a new look at one I was stumped on will help).

What I do consider cheating is hacking into the programming of the board. Or building, maintaining, or using a database of puzzle solutions to allow the player to achieve the solution without even reading the clues. I guess some would argue there is no difference between using Google on obscure clues and the use of a solution database, but I definitely see one; since I am the only one whose opinion I care about on this issue, it doesn't matter.

In short, I don't spend much time wondering if someone cheats or not. I have no doubt there are players who are better than I am. Much better. Good for them. Me, I have solved 146 puzzles (100%) this month with an average score of 237.6! WOOT!

[Dunderchief]

Below is from a puzzle I just worked in logged-out non-competitive mode. Very fast time in a longer, harder puzzle, but I would have only gotten 245 points had I been logged in.

I too stopped playing in competition mode bcz there simply is no way the points have any meaning at all. And yet, I am too competitive a person to ignore them if logged in! So I personally want to work the harder and longer puzzle bcz they are more of a challenge and gave up on the competition aspect bcz -- cheating or not -- it is just meaningless here.

I have to agree -- reluctantly -- that it is not really "cheating" to select shorter and easier puzzles if the system lets you do that. I have no comments about other cheating tactics that manipulate the system or hack into it or something, I have no idea on how to even go about that.

But I have said this before multiple times: I do NOT think the game system should allow players to select shorter and easier puzzle WHEN they are logged in to competitive mode. If logged in, don't show the puzzles statistics to the player, ANY statistics, before they hit the button to begin the game. Force the player to select the random puzzle assigned or get docked with an incomplete game. That would at least eliminate one category that is "negatory" to the majority of players on here. Whether it is "cheating" or not, having to take what you get would at least give some meaning to the scores, relative to other players, it would even the playing field.

However, the statistics SHOULD be available to those NOT in competitive mode. Especially if you are just starting out, you ought to be able to pick easier puzzles until you get the hang of it.

I have no idea how hard or easy or practicable it would be to make the change I recommend.

Well, gotta go -- lots of dirty deeds to get to today!

This Puzzle's Statistics Success Rate: 55.6% Average Time: 1239 seconds Record Time: 307 seconds (Struggler) Your Time: 705 seconds Performance: Above Average

705 307 773.1 1239.3 3717.9 6196.5

PS -- the bell graph part disappeared when I hit the reply button, but trust me - the score was above the "very fast" line which was at 773.1 seconds.

[scitsorca]

I am very confused about how this "scoring" works. As I said before, I don't log on, or try to do things quickly, I'm out of that loop, I just saw this discussion on the side and was interested. If a puzzle is newly posted, where do those statistics come from, and do they keep changing? New puzzle, first person plays, the "statistics" consist of only one person's results until others play it too. If the statistics are taken from the "competition" players who are logged in, then they'll always be skewed if the outliers (the super-quick being discussed here) are included. Won't they?

(BTW, maybe I'm peculiar, but I find long(er) puzzles easier. If it's a short puzzle and you don't know the answers, you've got fewer chances to figure something out by thinking about it.)

[Guru]

Pretty much wrote off the "scoring" here as strictly PR abstract designed to keep the 'members' interested (if not happy). When something like that is not (or cannot be) explained on the site, it's already dubious (strike 1). When the scores between playing logged in (low) and playing not logged in (high) have such glaring discrepancies...can anyone pronounce BAIT & SWITCH ? (strike 2). When the "fire & forget aspect" of the site are made patently clear by the lack of ADMIN involvement/oversight/response to reported problems (e.g., puzzles with no clues) (strike 3). We're out...in the cold. I play the puzzles the same way I pursue other hobbies: because I enjoy it and (if applicable) to beat my 'latest best'.

[2cute]

I wish there was a section for the expert players and a section for the less experienced players. Then I would have a chance to ever beat a score. I'm never going to find a 28 letter word. I'm lucky if I can come up with 7 or 8 letters. Mostly I only find 5 or 6. It would be nice to beat another person's score and hold a record for a while. While I know if I spent 8+ hours a day 7 days a week, maybe I could improve, but I'm never going to do that either. I like to do other things with my life. Still, it would be nice if there were 2 sections. Then I could beat a score at least every once in a while.

[Phidel]

I believe that there is some way that people (Svenska for example) are cheating, for what reason I can't imagine, but it would be almost physically impossible for even the fastest of typists to fill in the solution as quickly as the results that these people claim.

[latourelljl]

The math doesn't add up either. 1500+ games at an average of 143 seconds. That's over 60 hours of playing at a record pace with no failed puzzles. No way.

[compuspud]

And don't forget the plyer who has solved one more puzzle than they played!

[PatienceCrabstick]

For those conspiracy theorists out there, there’s some interesting activity this morning. A user named Kellnerin set no less than SIX fastest-ever records between 9:01 and 9:51 AM. That’s right — six all-time bests in just 50 minutes. Of course, this kind of thing is possible — but it’s also highly suspicious.

[PatienceCrabstick]

I should add that it’s at least six fastest-ever puzzles — as the little drop-down box shows only six results. The actual number may be quite higher. Something fishy is going on ...

[PatienceCrabstick]

This morning our Kellnerin set at least 5 new speed records, all in a 29-minute span. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

[hootmon]

If you believe it’s a duck, please explain. Otherwise your comment will be seen as jealousy. Yes she is very fast. I just admire her skill

[PatienceCrabstick]

A minimum of 6 records in a row, accomplished in a 50-minute span, and then a minimum of 5 records in a row, accomplished in a 29-minute span. Certainly it’s possible that they’re all honestly come by, but as we all know “possible” and “probable” are two very different things. The very strong probability here is that the way the records were earned was less than ideal.

[PatienceCrabstick]

Today — March 7 — our Kellnerin set (at least) another 6 all-time speed records in a single 18-minute span. Quite a feat if these records were honestly come by, but the odds of that are vanishingly small.