I had a nice reminder today of why I stopped visiting this site.
Any time I complained about how bad these community-created clashes were getting, the devs would just like my comment. ??
There are so many other coding sites with well-made content, and it has been a joy discovering them.
People who make these clashes just reply with, “OK, I’ll take that into consideration,” when you point out how bad they are.
This should never happen (I had 100% on all tests before submission, and I imagine the others did, too):
You have to accept the fact there there is bound to be something bad among community-made content (on CG or other similar websites), as (a) all approvers are volunteers and cannot dedicate all their time and effort on moderation, and (b) some approvers/creators just don’t do a decent job… But let’s be fair, not all the clashes are that bad. Some are actually quite good.
You can help moderate clashes too, if you have the time.
Remember to downvote bad clashes; a bad enough rating disables bad game modes or even the whole clash.
I’m requesting CG to include a freeze-period to avoid rushed approvals, and if they agree to that, hopefully the situation will improve a bit.
Fair points.
I actually spent maybe 15-20 minutes searching through all of the accepted Clashes to try to find it. It was reverse mode, so I didn’t have the name. And I didn’t take note of the author. That’s another complaint: that I have no way to retrieve info about a clash I just finished.
Every single person got 0% on submission. I actually think it was put in there as a troll, but I guess I’ll never know, because I cannot find it.
You don’t downvote a clash by searching the accepting clashes; you downvote it in the feedback form you see on the results screen that is shown right after you submit your code.
And just as a sidenote, it would be great if the name of the clash appeared on the screen in a clash, even in reverse mode. That way a player could easily look it up later on codingame.tools, if they wanted to spend more time on it.
1 Like
I’m afraid you’re wrong. That feedback form has no “Upvote” or “Downvote” option.
This feedback goes straight to the author, who, in many cases, doesn’t care and ignores it. Finding the clash in the “Contributions” allows me to write exactly what is wrong in a way that others can see. I know because I have used both methods for other clashes (also for positive feedback) and the comments I submitted in the feedback form were not added to the Contributions thread for that clash.
Anyway, I’m generally not a big fan of things disappearing and me not being able to find them later, whether it’s a clash I disliked, a clash I loved, or anything else.
Sorry to have confused you. The star ratings are what I meant.
Examples:
https://www.codingame.com/contribute/view/27572f2234473a3f4984a09b54bb048124d25
https://www.codingame.com/contribute/view/17307ef3c183dbd66312a7c0f527e1c244bae
More details here (see “Votes and ratings”):
https://www.codingame.com/playgrounds/40701/help-center/approval-process
Yes ! You are right !
Is there a way to “call” you like by using @ in a message from a Clash, in order to prevent you that a clash is corrupted ?
i.e : for this one Coding Games and Programming Challenges to Code Better, i tried to call you but i’m pretty sure that you did not have the info
That’s it!
They could at least have a system for suspending users’ rights to approve clashes or something. This one is atrocious.
Well, the fact is that actually new clashes (from Indian and Maroccan people) are accepted by their friends which don’t know at all about clashes and validation : they just accept because it is one from his friends.
@5DN1L and I prevented that there were no test cases with only letters, but their friends went too fast to accept it. I got this one during a clash and of course I was the only one to get 100% because I knew the solution. So, I have edited his clash by adding a last test/validator with only letters.
1 Like
The freeze period I mentioned is the closest thing. Or raising the threshold for approving clashes - currently it just depends on the number of clashes played; maybe try “number of clashes played and level” instead?.
Suspension should be reserved for the most serious abuse only, e.g. users which have repeatedly abused the contribution system (note: that can be done already - just report abuse via the users’ profiles). But that’ll be suspension of the whole account, instead of partial rights… I guess CG won’t be interested in subdividing players’ rights and maintaining it that way.
Hi to All ! I agree with you all : some clash are bad ones and may be removed from database or even moderated !
As suggested @5DN1L : the
could be a good idea.
Other idea : at least one of the approver may have a minimum level <n>, or <x> x100 played clashes, as an “experimented super-approver”
<n> or <x> beginning with experimented levels like 15 or 20, or experience > 500 played clashes and decreasing with number of already approved (good/useful) contributions 
…
Other option : freeze temporarily a contribution when down-votes > up-votes,
and require a more experimented codingamer(s) agreement to unlock/unfreeze it …