Tweet
Thanks for the reply, Naboka.
For me the best thing that has come out of this effort so far is to give recognition to people that have been close to lifetime active participants in wordtwist and the competitions.
There are other ways to give recognition as well. It's a rich game with many different possible facets and combinations of facets that people like to explore and compete in that aren't directly recognized by such competitions. The lifetime list has narrower recognition than the monthy competitions, so there can be recognition for broader facets at a lifetime scale, at scales between monthly and lifetime (especially divided in three to recognize the mass broadening of allowed words that has occurred twice), in combinations such as high word count and word points combined, etc.
I think it is useful and relevant to look at different scoring formulas to try to draw out different facets and different people otherwise unrecognized directly in official competitions, that are excelling, intentionally or not, at some style of play. Especially those long supportive of the game. Some was of looking at the data may not be super useful (like the unique words I tried, usefulness dampened by the masking of higher point words). But press on, as you wrote, toward "relevancy and usability."
For me the best thing that has come out of this effort so far is to give recognition to people that have been close to lifetime active participants in wordtwist and the competitions.
There are other ways to give recognition as well. It's a rich game with many different possible facets and combinations of facets that people like to explore and compete in that aren't directly recognized by such competitions. The lifetime list has narrower recognition than the monthy competitions, so there can be recognition for broader facets at a lifetime scale, at scales between monthly and lifetime (especially divided in three to recognize the mass broadening of allowed words that has occurred twice), in combinations such as high word count and word points combined, etc.
I think it is useful and relevant to look at different scoring formulas to try to draw out different facets and different people otherwise unrecognized directly in official competitions, that are excelling, intentionally or not, at some style of play. Especially those long supportive of the game. Some was of looking at the data may not be super useful (like the unique words I tried, usefulness dampened by the masking of higher point words). But press on, as you wrote, toward "relevancy and usability."
Comment