Vision for Community Puzzles - 1.5 years later

I welcome these notifications, including rejecting, accepting, or having comments added, etc. Having options to select/deselect Puzzle | CoC related posts is fine. I know my favorite can be very different from many other people.

1 Like

I find notifications very useful, they give me hint what people thinks is unequivocal/interesting to review.
The CoC/Puzzle filter will be great though. However there are some other general issues:

  1. Why I do not get notifications about puzzles I already validated/rejected? It seems weird.
  2. There is no distinction between normal validation and accepting validation (same with rejection). Maybe the message should be something “XX validated (2/3) YYY puzzle”
  3. Going back to list of pending puzzles, lack of information which one I validated/rejected is also annoying. One can don’t remember after a long time. (It is a special and more detailed case of one of my initial points of main page acceptance/rejection balance info.)

While we’re on topic with notifications: they’re implemented as JS-bound DOM event handlers instead of plain old HTML hyperlinks. So we can’t get a link out of them, or open in new window, private window, new tab.

This makes them completely unusable, for example, in an IDE tab where, no, I don’t want to leave without submitting my code, I don’t actually want to leave that tab at all, and now I clicked I can’t even have the notification stay “active” but it’s too late to repair. Why even have a notification area there if it can’t be usable?


If possible, I would like Official puzzles and Community Puzzles be downloadable as pdf, and best to include test cases in it, to help preserving and printing on paper for carry-around amusement.
Having a printer-friendly version of html is also fine.
Some puzzles need a longer thinking time than coding time. Having the puzzles on paper I can do the thinking anywhere.

Is it possible to have a menu somewhere where we can list the contributions we have upvoted/downvoted and validated/refused?
I’d like also that the refused puzzles/CoC go in limbo (we can still see them) instead of hiding them permanently. Why not a two-step validation process? First, a proposed puzzle/CoC is in limbo then, if three moderators validate it, it’s in the the second stage. Three other moderators might return it back in limbo or validate it definitively. A puzzle can oscillate between limbo and the second stage but once a moderator accepted or refused a puzzle once, he can not refuse nor validate anymore.

1 Like

Here are some enhancements that I thought of when I contribute/help contribution.
I also found this 1-year-old topic which deals with contribution sorting.
This other 1-year-old topic deals with interactive puzzles. It would be sooo good to have them.

For a contributor:

  • When writing a draft, the formatting is not applied. You have to submit it as non-draft before you see the formating.
  • It’s strange to have the button to test it in an IDE only on edition mode (well, it can make sense, but it’s different from when the puzzle is submitted).
  • The contribution guidelines are outdated.
  • Monospace strings leads to a block. It is not possible to have it inlined.
  • Allow more than 1000 characters in the output. (The limit is 10000 for the input)
  • Allow URLs (but I understand it may be dangerous)
  • Allow images (but I understand it may be dangerous)
  • For the stub generator:
  • Allow writing constants (numbers, texts, maybe maps or lists)
  • (I found something that made sense but was not accepted, but I can’t find it anymore)

For a moderator:

  • Pending puzzles list page:

  • See if you have already approved (green ✓) or refused (red ✗) a puzzle so that you know you don’t need to come back.

  • Have a mark telling how much approvals/refusals have been done.

  • Separate CoC from CP puzzles.

  • In a puzzle page:

  • Have a better indication of the type of the puzzle. The only way currently is a faint gray text over a gray background, at the top, hidden as soon as you descend in the comments, an the section “Game mode” which is present or not.

  • In a puzzle IDE:

  • If it is a CoC, allow switching to “Reverse” mode. Activating the Test cases in a modal window is not easy.

  • It would be good to test the tests first, then the validators. This would allow testing if a validator covers something the test cases don’t.

Yeah, I know it’s Christmas soon :slight_smile: :evergreen_tree: :gift:


Thank you @arglanir for the useful and constructive feedback. I hope you don’t mind that I moved your post to this thread which seems appropriate.

We’re currently working on our tools to create community contests. Improving the section of community contributions is part of our priorities (along with improving our emails). I can’t promise anything yet, but I’ll keep you updated.

Thank you. The current notification system is the only way to know where other moderators have approved/refused contributions, so it could stay as long as another visual information is not available.

Hello, I see all suggestions for improving community puzzles have been posted here. Most of my opinions have already been expressed, but I’ll still mention some of the ones I would really like:

  1. Mention difficulty of a puzzle, and what we will learn.
    [Thanks a lot to Nicola, who religiously does this :slight_smile: ]
  2. Have a community suggested xp for the puzzles. Everyone who accepts must suggest a suitable xp for solving the puzzle.
    [Again, this is susceptible to misuse, so keep limits]
  3. Sort puzzles in the community puzzles page (like aCat mentioned) in order of difficulty.
  4. Add a discussions page for each puzzle.
    [Maybe this already exists, but I have never come across it :confused: ]

My opinion might not stand for much, but I do hope that one day, codingame will implement these changes :slight_smile:


We’ll soon add difficulty and tags to community puzzles.

For existing puzzles, difficulty will be based on the success rate of the puzzle and there won’t be any tags. They can still be edited by those who have the rights (level > 29).

We’re also planning on merging community puzzles with all classic puzzle (from CG), ie in the “practice” section.


Where is your AI4Games course? It sounds interesting. I’ve bookmarked your puzzles to try them later.

Will we get XP accordingly for harder community puzzles solved?

And for future puzzles? Author-assessed?

Not yet. We prefer to wait a bit and see the first results of this change.

Difficulty will be author-assessed (and moderators-assessed).

University of Wroclaw, Poland.
Sorry, there are no materials online.

Nice. Good thing. I don’t really code for community puzzles at the moment. Because i have to search deep to find a “hard one”.

When you state “moderators-assessed”, do “moderators” mean forum/chat moderators, or players who have the right to accept/reject/edit the puzzles, or some other group of people?

I think this is “community puzzles moderators”. So people with a level >29.

Puzzle moderators indeed, so people who can currently accept/refuse puzzles (level > 20)

Is it possible to move the sorting and pathfinding puzzles ( to the “practice” section too?


The community puzzles have no pretty pictures. All practice puzzles have pretty pics. Please allow pretty pics before merging. Thanks.