Posted 5th Jul 2012 at 09:45These are interesting and hopefully will compare like with like. Thanks for the work you have put into this, Gareth. The 'first time' statistic should now be more meaningful and relate to the class. No doubt we will all aim to be in class 1, but alas this doesn't always happen! My only query is that there seems a rather grey area between classes1 and 4 . Does this justify 2 classes? The statistics so far are showing most in 1 or 4, but early days yet. I shall watch with interest.

Posted 5th Jul 2012 at 16:43The new class ranking system is an attempt to provide a fairer way to compare times, implementing various requests several people have made over the past couple of months.

I'm very interested in any comments. In particular, are there too many classes? One alternative is to merge classes 1&2 and call this "Unassisted", and merge classes 3&4 and call this "Potentially assisted" or maybe "All other solvers" or some such. If I did that I could still label the class 2 times as "(minor assistance)" after the time or some such. Or perhaps 3 classes would be better... etc, etc.

If you have any thoughts please feel free to discuss the new system here.

Posted 6th Jul 2012 at 10:54The new rankings are interesting, I always try the puzzles without aids to start, sometimes I can do them others I need to resort to solving aids - I have wondered how some people could complete the puzzles so quickly "without aids" so it's no surprise to see the fastest times in class 4. Now we have the rankings to sort the wheat from the chaff - can the chaff have the "show current clue fits" for the ALL the jigsaw puzzles back? Some of us can't add, multiply or subtract without the use of several fingers and don't care if we need all the help we can get with some puzzle types!
Thanks Ziggy

Posted 6th Jul 2012 at 20:32I've updated the way the rankings work. Now it shows 'solved in one session without aids' (or only very minor aid), and 'all other times'. I think this is much better, and avoids the implication that one is better than the other. They're just different, and neither is 'better' in any absolute way.

Gareth, puzzlemix

Posted 7th Jul 2012 at 05:33Yep that's better.

Posted 7th Jul 2012 at 08:54This seems simpler and easier to follow. It answers most of our comments and allows me to shut down and start again with impunity! This, together with using 'show wrong', does enable us to arrive at the solution more easily and should be separate from those who manage without any major aids. The only problem is for those who 'save' and come back later, but allowing this in the first category opens the way for those who, sadly, abuse the system. Probably the best compromise so far, enables us to solve the puzzles in the way we want without feeling we are 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th class!

Posted 9th Jul 2012 at 18:47I've noticed that solving a puzzle for a second time can result in being moved from the "without solving aids" table to the "all other times" table.
Although I completed Slitherlink 582 unaided earlier today I have just completed it again (also unaided) to see if a different approach would have achieved a faster time.
I now appear in the second column along with my original slower time. Was this intended ?
I agree that the tables shouldn't be amended with subsequent faster times, but also thought that everything else from the first completion would be set in stone.
Thanks.

Posted 9th Jul 2012 at 18:56Hi TashaPuss,
No, it's not supposed to do that. I made some late changes to 'auto-upgrade' times made under the older system if you played again, and I suspect I made a mistake which has caused it to update newer times if you play again.

Sorry about that - I'll look at fixing that right now. I'll restore your status for this puzzle.

Gareth, puzzlemix

Posted 9th Jul 2012 at 19:12Okay, it's now fixed. I was right - it was my last-minute 'improvement' that had stopped it preserving the correct column. It won't happen again for any future plays.

Gareth, puzzlemix

Posted 9th Jul 2012 at 20:39Many thanks Gareth.
As I've not commented before I'll take this opportunity to say that I agree with and like the new way of presenting the statistics.

David (or TashaPuss as I'm known in these parts)

Posted 10th Jul 2012 at 01:16Thanks for the feedback everyone. Hopefully this is now reasonably stable and 'fair', or at least 'fair enough'. The next step is to provide rankings which accumulate over multiple puzzles, averaging out your performance. I think this will add a rather fun new dimension for those who wish to take part - a chance both to see how you're doing over time and also an opportunity to compete for general ranking positions for those who enjoy such things. There's lots of things that could be implemented, now the basic structure is there.