By SGrade, history, 4 weeks ago,

Editorials are really useful, for sure! But sometimes in the editorials there is an explanation like "Obviously, this works this way". Or "Intuitively", "We can see", etc. In this moments I feel like I came to a math lesson and the professor says: "The proof of this theorem is obvious, don't you see?".

If it was obvious for me, I would solve the problem without the editorial. The ONLY reason I look into editorial is that the solution is not obvious for me. Would it be better if the editorial actually explained why it works this way?

Anybody feels the same?

Disclaimer: I really appreciate that the editorials exist and what their authors do. This blog is just to help both sides (editors and readers) understand each other a bit better.

• +162

 » 4 weeks ago, # |   -39 True, but i think it's good if it stays that way! If everything is written in the editorial it would become a plain implementation problem which is also given in the solution code, some thinking about obvious things forces you to know the obvious, its difficult at start but you get used to those.
 » 4 weeks ago, # | ← Rev. 2 →   +55 Yeah some of the editorials are hard to understand. I think this editorial by dario is the best editorial on the codeforces.Hints for intuition and proper written solution if someone is struggling with the problem.Maybe this can be kept as a benchmark.
 » 4 weeks ago, # |   0 I agree but I also think having the editorials presented the way they currently are has far more advantages including: Separating standard techniques from what is new in the problem Helping you to identify when the problem was simply too far above your level Leaving the reader with some challenge and not entirely solving the problem for them. I however agree that it is really annoying when the author of the editorial does not consider the level of the reader. For example if a div 2A problem involves nim game it would be really annoying if the author of the editorial wrote "It is clear that the parity of the stones is important" without at least providing a link to an article that explains why.
 » 4 weeks ago, # |   +40 most editorial are written assuming that the reader already knew certain algorithm/DS/trick.author don't need to write an editorial for hard 2500++ problem that can be understood by green/grey coder, because the problem is not meant for them anyway.
•  » » 4 weeks ago, # ^ |   +108 At least a reference to a source about the tutorial, or just a wiki article, won't hurt tho.And hard-to-read editorial doesn't necessarily mean the problem is above his level.I've seen plenty of editorials where I couldn't understand anything even after solving the main problem on my own.
 » 4 weeks ago, # |   +67 IMO, some editorials are hard to understand even by coders with the same rating of the problem. In fact, sometimes I struggle to understand the editorial even if I have solved the problem on my own (using an alternative solution). One of the main issues with editorials is that the order of the observations doesn't follow the natural thinking process "problem -> solution". Example: tutorial of 1316E - Team Building. SpoilerThinking process: 1) Let's do dp with bitmasks. 2) How to set the transitions? The audience is made by the $k$ largest elements in the prefix that were not taken as players. How to find them fast? 3) Sort the array.Second row of the editorial: "sort the array".When the problem gets more complex, like 1398F - Controversial Rounds, it becomes very difficult to understand how the observations in the editorial are supposed to solve the problem, and I usually need to read the tutorial several times.
 » 4 weeks ago, # | ← Rev. 3 →   -59 Um_nik THE GENIUS OF ALL TIME and worth more than 1000 SHITS , Please give your TRASH opinions .
•  » » 4 weeks ago, # ^ |   +3 I thought you got banned.
•  » » 4 weeks ago, # ^ |   0 Is there a competition to reach the last place in contribution standings?
 » 4 weeks ago, # |   +50 Common misunderstanding is that when editorials or books say things like "it's easy to see" it means that you ought to be able to understand it immediately, just by looking. It doesn't — you might still need to think about it for a time. It just means something more like "you don't need any kind of special insight to prove this fact".
 » 4 weeks ago, # |   +61 Read the comments, usually the superior editorial is there.
 » 4 weeks ago, # |   +11 I usually get more proper explanation in the comments section than the editorial...Thankful to those nice people who comments the simpler solutions and their proofs.