Topic: An offer for consideration

[Arunas]

Are we going to have tons of unsolved puzzles in the pro and pro&fr sections?

The basic idea is described below:

Why don't award not only the puzzlers for their correct answers but also the authors of the puzzles?

There are really many puzzles here in both pro and pro&fr writer sections that are really hard to solve and they don't get much attention. The idea is: once the puzzle in mentioned sections is unsolved for one year the author reveals the identity of mystery car gets one point for posting really tough puzzle. I think it is good because of several reasons:

1) The number of unsolved puzzles in top sections won't increase steadily
2) The puzzlers will have a chance to get points no only for solving but also for posting puzzles.
3) IMHO the purpose is to unveil mysteries not to leave them as mysteries for ever, thus following the idea the most mysterious cars that none knows even here in AutoPuzzles would be demistified.

What do You think?

[Ray B.]

I don't know if this is THE solution, but you put the problem right. Tons of unsolved puzzles that don't get enough attention is a bad thing.

In my opinion, some puzzlers should also pay attention to the quality of the puzzles they post. As Otto says, a gem will get more attention than a car whose only quality is to be little known.

I m also a strong believer of the 10-unsolved-puzzles-by-category-and-puzzler rule.
But as enthusiastic puzzlers won't be able to follow that one, you may well have a good solution to this issue.

[Arunas]

"10-unsolved-puzzles-by-category-and-puzzler rule" What is it? 

[ImpishGrin]

"10-unsolved-puzzles-by-category-and-puzzler rule" What is it? 

As the name implies, it's the long-advocated (I haven't been here for long, but that's the impression I got) rule stating that one person shouldn't have more than 10 puzzles open in each category.

Do I get a point for solving this question?

As for Arunas' proposition, I think it's a good idea.

[Ray B.]

The "10-puzzles..." rule has been discussed in several topics (see "Too much"), and generally approved but never enforced.
Of course, the limit could be slightly higher in the Pro section.
Let's wait and see what the others have to say about your idea, Arunas.

[faksta]

IMO it is a good idea. The main thing is not to let it force puzzlers not to give any clues at all or not respond for a long time etc in order to get an extra point.

[Arunas]

I have forgot to mention that this should be applied for the active puzzler not for those whose activity is zero or almost zero.

[Paul Jaray]

I don't think it's a bad idea but it brings some complications:
how many times we decide not to post a car because that will be really too hard? There are a lot of cars that will be impossible, really impossible, to find, unless someone has the same book, magazine or old picture. If we decide that all the 1-year old quizzes will award a point for its author, I can imagine an increase of such cars! Sometimes the quizz is just the detail of a car. If someone has the great idea to post a really insignificant detail waiting for the points? I know it's ridiculos to act like this, but if we create the opportunity, then we can't avoid that.
Sometimes I start from the last unsolved puzzle and go back to the newest. Many times I'm surprised to find out a car I know, other times I just bump it in the first page and someone else solve it. There are too many new puzzles each time, so the attention goes to them, but the old ones are not so hard if we concentrate on them.
I'm sure that if we start to ask for clues for some cars, we can find them. I posted a really obscure car, the Burrowes, remained for months without a single guess. Then i wrote "..it was american and if you have your cars alphabetically listed, you can avoid to look in the last part of your list...." and in few days Ray B. found it.
Not a bad idea, but it needs some rules.

[Arunas]

but it needs some rules.

Exactly!

[Ray B.]

The problem of rules is:
1- Too many rules can get boring.
2- You have to make sure that newcomers know there are rules.
3- Administrators eventually have to enforce them and you sudenly have puzzlers screaming "murder!" all around.

These are some reasons why I never really pushed for the 10-puzzles rule, which seems to me, yet, a much simpler way to deal with this problem.
But I think the problem is real, and maybe a threat, and Arunas' idea is still interesting.

And by the way, this kind of thing is usually discussed in "News, Information and Feedback", so I move the topic to this section, guys.

[Otto Puzzell]

I'm not convinced people would post 'impossi - puzzles', in the hopes of scoring one whole point 365 days later.

I'm glad to see Arunas' suggested solution to a growing problem. New oideas are cool.

This one seems relatively easy to administer (and more gratifying than some other admin chores - banning spammers, for instance).

I'm not sure rookies would be much impacted by a long-time member getting one point for posting what proved to be an unsolvable puzzle.

I, for one, will continue to post clues to my older puzzles, so expect to net very few points if such a practice is adopted.

However, some puzzles - some of my own multi-part mind-bending puzzles come to mind - that should garner any points. I'd be happy to label mine "non yearling-points eligible". Puzzles to which the answers are open to multiple interpretations, for instance, like "what is the connection between an AMC Javelin and a Robot from the Lost in Space TV show", should not earn me a point.

I think we're all better off if we can be self-policing - like a good community - and the admins should be needed to intercede or referee rarely, if at all.

[Arunas]

Thank You, Otto, for very good reply! The idea has two sides: not only the points but also demystifaction of mysteries  I think one year period is good enough to identify unsolvable puzzles. But why should these uncrackable nuts be left forever? Why not unveil their IDs and get well deserved point?

I must fully agree with PJ: there are really much cars that cannot be identified (or can be identified by one,or two puzzlers), but that's not the reason why this idea couldn't be applied. Just like You:

"I'm not convinced people would post 'impossi - puzzles', in the hopes of scoring one whole point 365 days later."