Re: Easy/Expert quizzes

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "the hatter" <perl-qotw-NgzDhwZ5nIsuagvECLh61g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Bill Smith" <wksmith-p32f3XyCuykqcZcGjlUOXw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Perl-qotw-discuss" 
<Perl-qotw-discuss-ZxR0713JXSrQT0dZR+AlfA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Easy/Expert quizzes


> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Bill Smith wrote:
>
> > This group has a shortage of "Easy" quizzes.  Most of the "Expert"
> > quizzes are difficult because they require expertise in the problem
> > domain.  If we allowed (even encouraged) early posting of "Spoiler"
> > design information, far more of us could participate by producing perl
> > implementations.  Yes, there are a lot of details to work out if there
> > is interest in this approach.
>
> Surely the point of the spoiler time limit is to let people crack on with
> their design, so a range of strategies are seen, without being distracted
> down a maybe more obvious path ?  There's nothing to stop anyone posting a
> solution after the next week's quiz has been posted or after the official
> summariser has posted, if they either think their way is
> different/better/creative, nor to post it and ask for critique.  In fact,
> some people do this already.  I think I prefer the current situation,
> though maybe there is a demand for qotw-algorithms-discuss, less code,
> more maths, geeking off at a different tangent ?
>
>
> the hatter
>
>

The relatively large number of people responding to "Easy" quizzes suggests
that there is a demand for quizzes that primarily require coding skills.  I
offered my proposal as a way to meet that demand.

Few of these people use the option you suggest because posted code has the
same "spoil" effect on them as posted designs would on designers.

Clearly,rule changes should not be made without full support of the group.
I don't see any.  Lets carry on as always.

Bill