Eligibility to be considered for monthly competitions

[kjambur]

Hi,
Is there a minimum number of games (say a 100?) AND average number of words per game for someone to have played to be eligible to be considered for a monthly competition? If not, shouldn't there be such a criterion?
For example, for Avg points per word, suppose I play 100 games AND manage about 1.5 words per game and I get an average points per word of say 25. While another player plays just 1 game and plays 1 word and scores 33 points. Who should be declared the monthly winner of average points per word?
There should also be a criterion of number of words per game. Why?
Suppose another player plays 1 game and 1 word and scores 33 and keeps simply submitting 99 games without playing, then he or she can still get an average points per word of 33. But only 0.01 words per game.

That's why I feel that minimum 100 of games AND average words of atleast 1 word per game should be an eligibility criteria.
Thanks and sorry for the long post.

[BoggleOtaku]

I don't play avg pts / word, so others could answer better than me...
50 games/month required, for 5x5: https://wordtwist.puzzlebaron.com/monthly5-2.php
but games can be dumped without submitting, and then they don't contribute to any statistics.
I guess someone could submit games with 0 points to achieve extremely low words per game, but I don't get the point of doing that. I can't imagine why someone would submit less than 1 word per game except by accident (which I have done)

[Spike1007]

The one word minimum for a board to count does make sense. Every once in a while a player (generally a newcomer, I think) will do what you described. In extreme cases, especially if it nets them an APPW trophy, some other player is likely to point this out in the forums. That (and a sense of fair play) are really the only deterrents. I try to stick to the spirit of the rules, and go for at least 51 boards and 51 words per month (although a few boards may have been "empty").

[Spike1007]

The main reason I sometimes submit empty boards is that I've gotten distracted & wandered off. Since I go for high APPW, counting those boards doesn't hurt (unless I've entered a low-scoring word & plan on dumping the game, but don't).

[BoggleOtaku]

I get it now. It would make sense to have a 50 words per month for average best word and 50 games per month for best game total.
I think 50 words per month is straight forward and aligned to current criterium of 50 games per month.

[BoggleOtaku]

Or another solution would be just ignore 0 point games as far as any statistics, then nothing would have to be changed downstream. That would also solve inadvertent scores because of being distracted, would be win-win.

[lalatan]

Hi,
...for Avg points per word, suppose I play 100 games AND manage about 1.5 words per game and I get an average points per word of say 25. While another player plays just 1 game and plays 1 word and scores 33 points. Who should be declared the monthly winner of average points per word?
There should also be a criterion of number of words per game. Why?
Suppose another player plays 1 game and 1 word and scores 33 and keeps simply submitting 99 games without playing, then he or she can still get an average points per word of 33. But only 0.01 words per game.

That's why I feel that minimum 100 of games AND average words of at least 1 word per game should be an eligibility criteria.
Thanks and sorry for the long post.

I'll give you a brief history on how the APPW (average points per word) competition has evolved since you don't seem to read the forum. (Not even sure you'll see this.) When I first started competing 7 years ago I was averaging .7-.8 words/game. crazykate was the first to suggest the minimum should be 1 word/game. I became convinced she was right and started competing that way personally. Subsequently I discovered that the APPW gold trophies had been won in the past with as little as 10 words played for the month. Eventually all the long word players in 5x5 came to a consensus and started playing that minimum as well. That's the way it is to this day in 5x5.

I wondered why you broke your years-long silence on the forum. 3 days ago I think I understood why. The player who was in line for a bronze trophy had at that point an APPW of .372 (.402 as of last evening). What's more is the player had won many other APPW trophies, more than likely with similarly low averages. I was in the top position all month and you weren't far behind. I was collecting records and wasn't too concerned what my APPW was, as in the case for the previous 3 months. You could have easily overtaken me for the top spot but chose not to do so. I assumed you didn't care much about trophy position so...

I thought it was ludicrous that anyone should ever win a trophy of any kind for that low an APPW. For quite some time I have wanted to see if I could get a high enough APPW by playing the competition for just 1 day. The time seemed right to try it. On March 30 I played 51 games with an APPW of 30.6. Surprisingly, it only took me 2 hours and 10 minutes. So I continued to play to see if I could reach your minimum of 100 games played but my forearms started to get too tight so I quit at 71 games. I would've had the time to do it but I thought why damage myself. So I achieved 2 goals that day.

[kjambur]

Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
yes, I am not active on the forum. I come to play now and then (more then, than now ). In fact over the last 3 years the breaks have been getting longer and more frequent. But with kids growing up and becoming independent, have been playing more often since last few months.

My interest in winning a trophy is primarily to show my 15-year old son - who is physically very active on the sports field and has least interest in word puzzles - that his dad has achieved something

Cheers

[bwt1213]

I might note that the current leader in the 5x5 contest for the highest average points per word is a player who has played 296 games and a total of exactly two words, for an average of 38 points. Do not emulate that.

[folkslinger]

I might note that the current leader in the 5x5 contest for the highest average points per word is a player who has played 296 games and a total of exactly two words, for an average of 38 points. Do not emulate that.

WOW I had not noticed the low word count of that player!

So now I'm thinking that a change to the eligibility might actually be needed. I still think over 50 games is a good standard but I would suggest that for APPW 1.oo words per game should be added to the requirements and that for all game play a zero word count should not register as a game played in any way. No stats change of any type whatsoever.

Allowing a player to win a trophy (virtual or not) by deliberately using zeroed games to meet eligibility seems to encourage unethical play.

Eliminating zero games from stats completely allows for the occasional interruption, accidental keystrokes or lapses of attention.

I don't know whether either suggestion even could be implemented, let alone how much work it would take for the Administrator, but perhaps he could weigh in on this topic.

P.S. kjambur, when I first stated playing and looked at the long words aspect which is the way I see the puzzle board (it was the 4x4 game if I remember correctly) you were a player who was competing for a trophy on a regular basis and it was through watching the play of players like you, lalatan, spike1007, John13verse34 and many others that I learned how to play and ethically win the long word hunt. Thank You.

[John13verse34]

So now I'm thinking that a change to the eligibility might actually be needed. I still think over 50 games is a good standard but I would suggest that for APPW 1.oo words per game should be added to the requirements and that for all game play a zero word count should not register as a game played in any way. No stats change of any type whatsoever.

Allowing a player to win a trophy (virtual or not) by deliberately using zeroed games to meet eligibility seems to encourage unethical play.

I fully agree with you! I've long wanted to see something like this implemented for APPW competitions.

[bwt1213]

I fully agree with you! I've long wanted to see something like this implemented for APPW competitions.

If such a rule were implemented, I might actually return to the APPW competitions.

[BoggleOtaku]

As well as the 0 point game throwout protection, I also want a backspace for "play" so when I accidently skip over a great board I would want to try, I can reverse to bring it up again. More protection from accidents!

[crazykate]

As well as the 0 point game throwout protection, I also want a backspace for "play" so when I accidently skip over a great board I would want to try, I can reverse to bring it up again. More protection from accidents!

I don't think that the game is keeping track of which games you've been presented with... I think this would be difficult to implement.

[BoggleOtaku]

You're probably right. I kind of wonder though... I know I can click to go back and see history on the browser and the browser will show me results on a previous played game even several pages back, without the game keeping track of this. But going backwards to the "play new game" screen generates a new random game that overwrites the game that otherwise might have been in history. Maybe if a new random game is not triggered when hitting the back button, you would get the page from history, with the previous game number, and be able to access it. I've done a lot of programming, but not involving web pages, so really have no idea.