At the very least it would allow more experienced clashers to provide feedback on how to actually improve the puzzle before it gets accepted by people who don’t even try solving it. Some puzzle ideas are great but they need a little more polishing before getting accepted.
Perhaps more comments would help less experienced moderators in their decision (since you cannot expect all senior clashers to always be there to accept or reject in time).
But I admit that as a standalone suggestion, without anything discussed earlier, it would not do much.
2 Likes
I disagree with “it would not do much.” WIPs are getting a lot of likes/dislikes sometimes so someone is definitely checking them out.
There also can be some sort of after-approval period when it’s approved but still placed on the ‘pending’ page and not in the pull yet.
It would force a contribution to be hanging on the wall for some time to gatekeepers to get in and reject it if it’s too bad. Also, a third approving person will have some time to revaluate.
1 Like
Missed that initially, sorry. Just wanted to mention I don’t think that would change much: they can share links anyway.
It doesn’t take “checking them out” to like/dislike. 
No specific comment on the rest of your proposal. I suppose it could work if enough people cared.
Anonymity will reduce bias. Of course it’ll not prevent bias entirely but at least people that want to be as objective as possible will be happy and it’ll be just a little bit harder for sockpuppets.
I guess license prevents absence of credit tho
I get a big “people are bad and anything but force wouldn’t work” vibe from you.
I mean, you can be right but I haven’t seen any data on the badness of codin gamers yet. Are you talking out of expirience? You’ve seen features like that be implemented and failing?
I’ve made an update of the guidelines for Clash of Code:
Let me know what you think.
I’m aware of the current issues with the moderation process itself, some of which are probably consequences of the quest map updates.
I believe the moderation process has its downsides but globally works. I see plenty of members playing by the rules, helping each other and trying their best to make great contributions for the community. Perfect is the enemy of good.
However I do agree that some sub-par contributions get abusively accepted, from time to time. I don’t think new guidelines will prevent these abuses.
I’m currently looking into the data to check the extend of the issue and how we could smartly prevent most of theses abuses.
3 Likes
Shouldn’t #4 be two separate points? I understand that it’s logical to put it together because it both about output. But it shouldn’t both be about output I think. The language-specific output format is the most common form of language unbalance but it’s not the only one. Also, It has little to do with the binary output. Yes, ‘true’/‘false’ and ‘True’/‘False’ are common and both binary and language-specific, but it means nothing, you should still treat those problems separately. And mixing them into one rule may lead to some confusion.
Still, very cool addition. Clarifies which vision of CoC you support, yet doesn’t break anything.
2 Likes
Maybe guidelines should state that Unicode is not permitted?
I am a problem setter at SPOJ PL. Would it be okay if I copied one or two puzzles here that I originally created at SPOJ? I am talking about problems I authored. Your guidelines say “must be original” but that statement can taste differently depending how you feel about it.
[Unofficial answer] If your OJ does not object to your multi-publishing I think it is fine.
In most cases you cannot just copy. You may have to alter the in/out style and requirement and problems’ difficulty level (solvable by slow languages) to fit into this site.
1 Like