Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

--order-from-ccs orders on number solved, disregarding tiebreaker number submitted #377

Open
vmcj opened this issue May 10, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@vmcj
Copy link
Contributor

vmcj commented May 10, 2024

We got the slides as:
A: tried(20), solved(8)
B: tried(10), solved(8)

Where I would say A should have been regarded harder and the order should have been B,A instead of A,B.

@mzuenni
Copy link
Collaborator

mzuenni commented May 10, 2024

Should we only consider num_judged or also num_pending?

@mpsijm
Copy link
Collaborator

mpsijm commented May 10, 2024

We had a similar issue in Delft, where problems C and K both had one solve before the freeze (scoreboard). Problem K had many tries from other teams, problem C had no tries from other teams. I would like to argue that problem K should be considered to be easier than C, because it looked like it was the easier of the two from the perspective of the participants (hence the many tries) 😛

Maybe this is a personal preference thing, that can be resolved manually using the --order flag if needed? I'm fine with the existing ordering, i.e. using alphabetical order as tiebreaker when the number of solves is equal.

@mzuenni
Copy link
Collaborator

mzuenni commented May 10, 2024

I would say considering this as a tie breaker is a good idea/better than just alphabetically (and its easy to add).
IMO less WA should be considered easier?

@vmcj
Copy link
Contributor Author

vmcj commented May 10, 2024

I would put the one with the most attempts (while easy) more to the middle to keep the attention available. Something which is solved often but not tried often (so almost ratio of 1) is interesting to tell in the beginning but people are waiting for the one they tried.

@mzuenni
Copy link
Collaborator

mzuenni commented May 10, 2024

hmm I am a bit sceptical about that ^^'

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants