New Scoring

[admin]

Hi everyone -

You'll notice a new scoring feature as of today (one we previewed a few months back). Each puzzle will now have a displayed "maximum" number of points based on its length. It used to be that every puzzle had a theoretical maximum of 800 points, regardless of size. Now puzzles can vary from around 250 to 1360 maximum points. These have been set based on the median solve times for each puzzle size, taken from millions of previous solves. End result should be that there is no longer any point advantage to solving only short puzzles.

[hootmon]

I like it. Takes a bit of time to get used to but it makes my brain work in different ways and that is always a good thing. This site has evolved from the days when getting 800 points on most puzzles is a distant memory. I appreciate the work this took to make this change. Thanks Admin

[sionnach57]

I like it a lot. My initial impression is that the assigned maximum point scores are pretty reasonable. For those of us with slight OCD tendencies (which might be just about anyone who does acrostic puzzles), the misspelling of 'maximum' on the descriptor page for a puzzle does kind of induce twitching. I'm sure it will be fixed in due course.
Thanks for this new feature.

[benjihall]

The scoring change is long overdue. But here is a problem. I just did a puzzle worth 1111 and I broke the record and only received 860 pts??? Shouldn't I automatically get the max by breaking the record? Instead of basing everything off of the same time frame - just make scoring an % of the history of scores. Makes more sense

[admin]

Breaking a record doesn't automatically get maximum points, especially in regards to our newest puzzles which have not yet acquired as many solving statistics as our more seasoned library.

[redpicker]

Breaking a record doesn't automatically get maximum points, especially in regards to our newest puzzles which have not yet acquired as many solving statistics as our more seasoned library.

This is how it should be. Otherwise, the points a solver received would depend on how many people had solved the puzzle before (the more people to solve a puzzle, the less likely one would break the record). In other words, with benjihall's example, let's just guess that his time was 260 seconds. Two months from now, someone finishing that same puzzle in 260 seconds should also get 860 points, even if someone had solved the puzzle in the meantime in only 180 seconds. I like they way they did this.

[benjihall]

While I agree that you would need to have a minimum sample size to implement my idea. You could use your timed scoring logic until then but after a certain threshold you would use my logic. The reason is that difficult puzzles will never yield the same point totals despite the "potential". Make the competition not revolve around time but against each other. That makes every puzzle type have an equal value. Fastest time could stay but avg points becomes more meaningful . Just some free ideas to help you make money

[DogMa]

But if Jane Doe automatically gets the maximum number of points because she broke the record, and Ann Smith comes along two days later and breaks the record Jane set, then does Ann get the maximum number of points? And the next record breaker and the next? Doesn't that penalize the later record breakers by giving them the same number of points as a slower solver?

[PatienceCrabstick]

Presumably admin has placed a "fastest possible" solving time on each puzzle; this is probably either related to the established distribution of solving times for each puzzle and/or (especially for the newer puzzles) a standard number of seconds for each clue. In either case, the chance of receiving maximum points on any puzzle is likely extremely small; the chance of beating the "fastest possible" time substantially smaller. This is like the old "angels on the head of a pin" debate - entertaining but ultimately pointless.

[PatienceCrabstick]

As a concrete example: I just set a new record. Maximum number of points for the puzzle was 1360, and average scoring time was 1445 seconds. Previous record was 847 seconds and my time was 482 seconds. I therefore pretty much demolished the previous record (sorry, WordBob) but received "only" 1178 points for doing so. How many seconds would I have needed to cut from my time to get those remaining 182 points? Over 200, I'm willing to bet - not an easy task for any of us, and not likely to happen any time soon. Maximum points are awarded for scores way, way to the left of all existing bell curves.

[admin]

This is basically how it works. It is (and should be) very, very difficult to achieve "maximum points" on a puzzle. But a very good performance compared to the median solve time will net you roughly 90% of the maximum points allotted. The specific formula may still be tweaked some based on real world stats as we continue to grow them.

[sewaneesue]

I've been setting news records, Patience, but I never recognize the prior player's name! These long Acrostics give me headaches, and the results are so weird. I will score 474 on a game and on the next game I'll score 1125! And I have no idea what the difference was. The thrill of my life used to be scoring 700 or above on a game, before this new system. Now, I am currently averaging 725 points.

[sionnach57]

So, just for the hell of it, I've tracked my scores on those puzzles where I managed to break the current record. Realistically, I have a chance of doing so only for the very long acrostics, so for a day I rejected any puzzle with fewer than 20 clues. These are the scores I got for the cases where I beat the existing best score:

1084/1254 ; 1109/1303 ; 949/1155 ; 1034/1254 ; 907/1111 ; 885/1111 ; 1153/1303 ; 1003/1254

So, for the most part they seem to be about 200 off the theoretical maximum. This doesn't seem too harsh to me, because the solving times I can manage for the longer puzzles almost never go below 10 minutes. I am quite happy to solve a 22-clue puzzle in 10 minutes, but it is a given that other folks will eventually come along and cut my solving time in half.

A propos of nothing, whenever I come across Piggly Wiggly as a clue, it brings me great joy. If I ever tried to construct acrostic puzzles, I would fail miserably because I would want to include Piggly Wiggly as a clue every time.

Anyway, I'm still liking the new scoring system quite a lot. One just has to recalibrate one's expectations a bit.

[compuspud]

My heart goes out to poor patiencecrabstick. Demolishes a record and only gets 1178 points. Dear me. Perhaps a remedial course in crostics might boost his/her score. Those of us who don't set records every time can take up a collection in case he/she can't afford the course. This was my two cents toward the tuition

[sewaneesue]

sionnach57, there actually was a Piggly Wiggly grocery store not far from the small Tennessee town where I grew up! Dear Administrator, I've been meaning to request this for a long time. Does there really need to be an exclamation point after "That's worth O points!"