Mwa ha ha ha ha I'm the mad sports programmer (sp) Hououin Riela! The organization is acting again, and as consequence the last round was unrated. However I'll break the convergence to change the worlds control structure.
The last cf round was an important one ― it is part of a tournament. However it was unrated because problems with the servers, many people downvoted the announcement post simply because the contest was unrated, however the problems were interesting. It is not the fault of the setter that the round ended unrated, and a decrease in contribution can be demotivating.
I know that contribution is just a number, but I would be affraid that if I set a round and there is a problem with the servers, then my post will be heavily downvoted.
Do you think is a good idea to remove the downvote button for cf round annoucements? what other solutions do you propose?
I think removing the downvote button is good, because there is no sense in downvoting those kind of posts. Also since I have many enemies (not only Mr Duck and teja[some numbers here]) if I set a round, I'm affraid it will get many downvotes!
A true "mad sports programmer" would care least about things like contribution scores. It's just a proxy for the thoughts and feelings of the mindless ignorant masses.
Wanting to get contribution is good
Wanting to get contribution is good because it motivates you to do things. Getting contribution is not that important.
But downvotes can demotivate you anyway.
How did you get enemies? teja349
I hope we can be friends riela.
There was a previous round that went unrated for similar issues and Mike made a special post apologising and told everyone to downvote that post instead of the contest announcement since it was his fault and not the problem setters. I think this was a good solution.
I am sure downvotes don't demotivate KAN.
Hououin Riela
How is it pronounced?
it is pronounced as in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drp6PqvKOwM
I love how the term "sports programmer" keeps spreading.
I don't. We should call it CP, it's way cooler. And when people say your into CP, that CP? I'd be like yeah. And they have totally the wrong idea (search it up on urbandictionary if you don't know what I mean)
brdy does cp more than 2h per week, he likes dp
A Steins Gate Reference . Yay :")
I would agree that removing the downvote button for contests is a good option but I feel people aren't easily satiated . I think they need some tangible way of expressing their disapproval albeit the wrong way .
The only actual solution is people being mature enough to understand that the issues with the server and rating changes should not blind them to the beauty of the problemset .
But that's an ideal thought and we're a long way off .
Sorry if I went offtrack but this is the opinion of a noob :)
What do you mean there's no sense in downvoting those kinds of posts? What's wrong with downvoting a round because I hated the problems? If the downvote button was removed from round announcements, they would just become a contribution farm.
Maybe if you're concerned about the contribution change from the announcement you can ask KAN to post the announcement for you.
Setting rounds is the highest form of contributing to the community. I think all setters make the round with love and with the best intentions.
Since there is a top red coordinator, the quality of the problems is guaranteed.
Is not correct to downvote a post if you hate the problems, e.g if you hate fft and convex optimization and the contest feature those topics, will you downvote the blog?
The quality of the problems is far from guaranteed.........
Even GreenGrape has many things to teach us. Not about algorithm, but about round quality.
Setting good quality problems is. Setting shitty problems isn't. Setting shitty problems is a waste of time for hundreds of contestants. It's a negative contribution to me.
Note that I don't consider a problem bad because I didn't like the topic. I consider the problem bad e.g. if it is unoriginal. And no, the quality is not always guaranteed, unoriginal problems happen quite often.
So far, I haven't seen a shitty contest in cf. If I see a problem and I don't like it, I just jump to another one. I think that most (probably all in cf) unoriginal problems are not fault of the setter, Is not possible to know all the problems arround the net, and if the setter and the coordinator didn't noticed that the task was not original, then it is just a notorious coincidence.
It's interesting that you say this. I know many people who consider like a third of all contests here to be shitty.
If you think these are shitty, go to leetcode. Then you will know. The quality here is magnitudes better and I feel that the setters really put in the effort and do their best. I did not feel that at leetcode. (leetcode is good too, although I hate them, but I believe CF is MUCH better).
It might be true when it's the problemsetter fault. But there were technical issues, not issues with the problems, so why downvote the author?
And also, as riela said
I would even suggest some contribution points for just preparing a contest. So the system would be more fair for contests prepared by more than one person. In the ideal each one should get contribution points, not only the one who wrote the announcement.
And, with the downvotes, the situation is a bit demotivating for the authors. Why prepare a contest if there's a risk of being downvoted and even appear on the last page in the contribution top (there was actually such a situation, remember Round #444 by Denisson).
That idea didn't even cross your mind, but out of all of comments I read, I like that idea the most so far. I definitely think that something like this should be implemented at the very least, because currently, I really don't see a negative to this. (correct me if I am wrong).
I think best solution would be to have independent voting for technical quality and problems quality. This way, CF itself could gain feedback and the authors would get a contribution change based on the quality of their work. It would completely destroy the sense of voting to not have both buttons (to be frank, I first understood you propose not having voting at all, and I think that would be better than having just upvote button, but then again, the idea of contribution and votes gets lost).
I strongly support your main point: that the authors have no fault. I also think that contestants are not to blame: their experience of the contest sucked because of the technical issues, so they should have a way of expressing their opinions, only that by downvoting the blog entry they show more than their opinion related to the technical part.
Great, now we can downvote twice!
so sad u got downvote, now i upvote for u 笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑
That's why Facebook didn't use the "unlike" button yet.
Despite of hating the unreasonable downvotes, I encourage you not to take these upvotes/downvotes too seriously. Your good intention and effort will be shown through time.
Or just create a bot army to upvote you every time you get downvoted.
Your profile picture makes me sad.
Happiness and pain in one profile picture.
I think a better idea would be to enable upvotes/downvotes on a contest announcement exclusively for users who have worked in some contest preparation before. It sucks that a problemsetter's contribution gets affected by a bunch of impulsive people who lack the slightest empathy to think about all the hard work done by the author. In this way, votes on the announcement would come from objective, experienced opinions, therefore being more accurate and fair, avoiding situations such as the last round.
This is a horrible idea. Contests are made for all users, not just a small subset of them.
You could still give feedback through comments, which btw is a lot more accurate than an angry, irrational downvotes. Besides, a regular post isn't the same as a contest for all the work it involves. And finally, letting ignorant people vote is a horrible idea. You're from the US, just look at your president and you'll see what happens when you allow it.
Downvotes are much more accurate than some comment. Not everyone frequents the comments (to vote on them), not everyone is willing to spend time ranting. Much more people are willing to click a little arrow. It's feedback straight from the audience.
Plus, red votes are worth more than other votes anyway, so your notion of "experienced" participants having a stronger voice is still there. But don't act like green/cyan votes are worthless.
You're actually supporting my proposal with what you're saying. If someone is not willing to spend time on comments, he probably won't even take the time to think his vote through.
I talked about "experience" having been involved in preparing a contest, nothing to do with rating.
All a vote means is "I'm satisfied" or "I'm not satisfied". What else is there to think through?
And experience preparing contests means nothing. Are you writing contest for some tiny clique? Or are you writing contests so people can actually participate?