# Changes to the Weekly Competition website



## Mike Hughey (Aug 22, 2017)

As many of you may know, over 5 years ago, Oscar Roth Andersen built a website for our Weekly Competition that we have held here every week since early 2007. The website was a great contribution, and was a very nice addition to the competition. But it has been over 5 years since he did it, and it seemed like the website needed a facelift.

In case you don't know, the website is at:
https://www.speedsolving.com/competitions

I have been making some changes over the past few weeks, and a number of them have already been available on the website. In particular I made some improvements to the timer.

With today's competition, I am releasing a new feature - automatic score updating. Now, the default view for the competition will be the "Weekly View", which shows how you are doing relative to the other competitors as you compete. You will be able to watch your score grow as you compete in more events, and also as others compete and come in at a lower place than you are. Each event has a "Compete!" button that will allow you to use the online timer if you like. Or you can enter it manually there if you'd rather compete on a real timer and enter your results from there.

The previous entry form method is still available; you can select it in the menu at the top of the screen, by selecting "Manual Entry". If you have trouble submitting using the new timers, please try using this method instead.

The new Weekly View shows your individual solve results, the overall result, your standing (with the total number to have competed so far in parentheses), and the number of overall points you have so far earned. Note that after you compete in an event, this point result can change without any modification from you - others may compete and place lower than you, so your point total may rise. Also, it is possible someone could have a DNF so far because they haven't completed all their solves, and then they might complete them at a later time. So it is actually possible to lose points without doing anything! Anyway, I find it fun to see how the points change over the week, and I hope you all will too.

I hope that we can transition to having most people enter their results on the competition website now; unfortunately, anyone who enters their results here in the forum instead of there will not show up in the online point totals. So it would be best to have as many people as possible compete with the website. Of course, even if you compete there, discussion is welcome in the weekly competition thread, so feel free to post if you have something from your weekly competition that you'd like to talk about! I have had some discussions with Mats about the possibility of getting the results from here semi-automatically transferred there, but it does sound like it might be quite a challenge to get to that point. Perhaps someday we can get there.

If anyone would like to compete on the website but is having trouble logging in, please let me know in a PM and I can reset your password.

Despite the website changes, the official results are still the ones that are posted here in the Forum by Mats every week. There will be some discrepancies as I mention above because of those who do not enter results in the website. So Mats' posts are the official results, not those in the website.

Please note that this is a work in progress. There are still some bugs in it, and I will continue to make improvements as much as I can. Here are some of the things that will be coming soon:

1. An overall score list. Right now you can see your point total, and your ranking in each individual event, but there's no way to see your overall score ranking and a list of those above you. I intend to have this added very soon, perhaps tonight.

2. Much needs to be done for Mobile support. It is currently somewhat possible to use the website on a phone, but it doesn't work very well. I intend to add much better mobile support over the next few weeks; that's one of my highest priorities.

3. The icons that are there are the official WCA icons. I intend to add proper icons for the non-official events - the ones that are there now are really just placeholders until I get those done.

4. There is room for plenty of additional statistics options; I hope to add some.

5. There are requests for inspection mode and blind mode for the timers. I hope to add those, and also alarms for multiBLD and fewest moves when you run out of time. Please note no such alarms exist yet.

There are many other little things on my list, but those are the main things.

Right now the site has an annoying habit of timing out way too quickly. While I might try to implement a fix of some sort for this, realistically it is an example of the fact that the current website's technology is simply too old for what is needed now. So I am hoping to make some additional general fixes to the website over the next month or so as a temporary facelift, and then start a rewrite of the website with more modern technologies. Perhaps several months after that we can have a nice shiny new website that works even better!

Anyway, please feel free to PM me or post here with any bugs you might find that need fixing, or any additional improvements you'd like to see. I can't promise I'll make all the suggested improvements, but it would be nice to discuss them, anyway.

Happy competing!


----------



## T1_M0 (Aug 22, 2017)

Maybe make kilominx icon?


----------



## MatsBergsten (Aug 22, 2017)

T1_M0 said:


> Maybe make kilominx icon?


Point number 3 on his list .


----------



## T1_M0 (Aug 22, 2017)

MatsBergsten said:


> Point number 3 on his list .


Oh, didn't even read it properly


----------



## bubbagrub (Aug 22, 2017)

The changes are really great! Seeing your score go up as you complete events makes for a very engaging experience.

Thanks for the hard work on this, Mike and Mats.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Aug 24, 2017)

Just a suggestion... add in redi cube. I wouldn't personally do it, but a lot of other people would and I think it would be a very popular event.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 26, 2017)

I have just added an overall score list for the current week. I still need to add the ability to see overall scoring for past weeks, and this is still a bit rough around the edges, but it should give you enough that you can figure out what you need to do this weekend to catch up with others, if that's helpful.


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 26, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Just a suggestion... add in redi cube. I wouldn't personally do it, but a lot of other people would and I think it would be a very popular event.



I'd totally be down. At this point I'd say it's one of the more popular non-WCA events.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Aug 26, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Just a suggestion... add in redi cube. I wouldn't personally do it, but a lot of other people would and I think it would be a very popular event.


I really don't mind if it is made an event but I don't think it's really a good idea.
-Not many people have a redi cube let along the people that will actually compete.
-I feel like it's going to be like the Kilominx, where its hype dies down. Looking at the weekly competition now (it was added for basically the same reasons), very few people do it.
-too many events? Nah this isn't really a point but my argument still stands.


----------



## LegendaryMJS (Aug 29, 2017)

Maybe a best single section for each event? Idea inspired by @CornerCutter on Race to be Sub-x on Pyraminx.


----------



## T1_M0 (Sep 1, 2017)

You should try to get some kind of boxes/lines between the results. The comments get mixed with each other (impossible to read the fmc solutions without getting confused which one is whose).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 2, 2017)

T1_M0 said:


> You should try to get some kind of boxes/lines between the results. The comments get mixed with each other (impossible to read the fmc solutions without getting confused which one is whose).


Good suggestion! Done.


----------



## GarethBert11 (Sep 9, 2017)

Im waiting for the point 5 on your list. Cause Im used to press the spacebar immediately after scrambling, and also pressing the spacebar when finish memorization on BLD.


----------



## h2f (Sep 9, 2017)

I think there's needed option "clear". Last week I got last solve +2. I pressed +2 in a timer but next I've pressed another +2 and coudnt clear it. It ended +8.  I've edited the time manually.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 9, 2017)

h2f said:


> I think there's needed option "clear". Last week I got last solve +2. I pressed +2 in a timer but next I've pressed another +2 and coudnt clear it. It ended +8.  I've edited the time manually.


Sorry if this is confusing. I wanted to allow for any possibility, and it is possible to have as much as +16 according to the rules. If you keep clicking it, after +16 it goes back to +0.

I can think about adding a clear, but I worry that it will take up too much space on the screen, especially on mobile once I have the new version for mobile working.

(I'm making progress on the mobile support; it should be ready to try in another week or two.)


----------



## h2f (Sep 9, 2017)

Mike Hughey said:


> Sorry if this is confusing. I wanted to allow for any possibility, and it is possible to have as much as +16 according to the rules. If you keep clicking it, after +16 it goes back to +0.
> 
> I can think about adding a clear, but I worry that it will take up too much space on the screen, especially on mobile once I have the new version for mobile working.
> 
> (I'm making progress on the mobile support; it should be ready to try in another week or two.)



Ah thanks. I've gone to +12.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 24, 2017)

Sorry to take so long on further improvements here; life has been busy.

But I have just implemented my first attempt at a somewhat more *mobile-friendly* version of the competition website. Please let me know, either through PMs or here, about anything you find that needs to be fixed. Making a site mobile-friendly can be a challenge, especially when you're just doing it part-time as a hobby.  So my apologies if I messed something up.

A big warning: multiBLD is still pretty messed up with mobile; I highly recommend you stick with a regular computer browser if you want to use the multiBLD timer. I will try to fix the multiBLD mobile version as soon as I can, and I will post here when it's fixed.

I also changed the timer so that it requires waiting for 0.3 seconds before lighting up green, to be more similar to a stackmat. So beware of that or you may start your solve without realizing the timer isn't running yet - it might take a little getting used to. I might provide an option to turn that off later on.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 26, 2017)

I already had a request to be able to turn off the new delayed start feature, so I've started a settings menu. There you can turn that behavior on and off. I also added the ability to hide scrambles on the manual entry page, for anyone who might actually print out the scrambles - it can make it a little quicker and easier to enter your results.

Please do let me know if you see anything that you think should be improved - if I agree with your idea, I'll be happy to try to implement it.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Sep 27, 2017)

I had problems with the delayed start, the timer did not start in spite of
changing colour from red to green. So be able to turn it off seems good to me.


----------



## T1_M0 (Sep 27, 2017)

2 suggestions about the manual entry page:

It would be nice to be able to close the event "boxes": you could have them so that only the names of the events are visible, then open up one event at a time to view the scrambles and time input boxes. Now it can be irritating to try and find the event you're looking for, and would be nice to avoid scrolling by closing them up.

Also, some sort of markings to the events you've done here too? Coloured and bolded headings?

I still use the manual entry exclusively, since I'm willing to record the data to my timer.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 27, 2017)

MatsBergsten said:


> So be able to turn it off seems good to me.


The setting is already there to turn it off - I hope you've found it. I guess I need to figure out how to reproduce the problem you had so I can fix it.

The suggestions for the manual entry page sound good; I'll add them to the list. Thank you for the suggestions!


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 2, 2017)

Just a small suggestion. At Guildford Challenge the Skewb scramble is only halfway readable. Maybe make a scroll option there?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 2, 2017)

ichcubegerne said:


> Just a small suggestion. At Guildford Challenge the Skewb scramble is only halfway readable. Maybe make a scroll option there?


Yes, that is something I need to fix. The problem is actually much bigger with multiBLD, if you attempt a bunch of cubes. It's on my list to fix; until I do, you can get the scrambles for these from the competition posting or from manual entry (open another tab).


----------



## pjk (Oct 2, 2017)

Looking good, Mike. For mobile, a small request but make the Submit button a bit more large, maybe like a rounded button or something.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 2, 2017)

pjk said:


> For mobile, a small request but make the Submit button a bit more large, maybe like a rounded button or something.


On my list.


----------



## applezfall (Oct 3, 2017)

add redi cube


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 8, 2017)

I really like the weekly score thing, but it seems to be pretty SOR like. I would really appreciate it to also add a Kinchlike Score. The points you get for different events dont seem to be very good distributed. For example I get 40 points in 3x3 with a 10 avg, but only 27 points for Square-1 with a 12 avg. And in the previous week I got a 19avg in square and 27 points iirc.
How I said, I really like this feature, but I would maybe make the score dependent on current WRs^^ Or even a mixture of both or just both seperate.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Oct 9, 2017)

ichcubegerne said:


> I really like the weekly score thing, but it seems to be pretty SOR like. I would really appreciate it to also add a Kinchlike Score. The points you get for different events dont seem to be very good distributed. For example I get 40 points in 3x3 with a 10 avg, but only 27 points for Square-1 with a 12 avg. And in the previous week I got a 19avg in square and 27 points iirc.
> How I said, I really like this feature, but I would maybe make the score dependent on current WRs^^ Or even a mixture of both or just both seperate.


What's SOR? (The scoring is rather simple and (as you noticed) most of all dependent of the number of contestants in each event).


----------



## GenTheThief (Oct 9, 2017)

MatsBergsten said:


> What's SOR? (The scoring is rather simple and (as you noticed) most of all dependent of the number of contestants in each event).


Sum Of Ranks


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 13, 2017)

Yeah but I find it pretty unfair that you get so many points for an event just bc it is popular^^ And almost none for events like BigBLD or so


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 13, 2017)

ichcubegerne said:


> Yeah but I find it pretty unfair that you get so many points for an event just bc it is popular^^ And almost none for events like BigBLD or so


The big BLD events have some other advantages though. The participation points for big BLD are higher than for any other event (assuming you attempt every scramble). And if you get a successful big BLD solve, you get 1.5 times the participation points. So for instance, if you get a successful 7x7x7 BLD solve, you get 21 points just for having solved it.

I can look into creating something like a Kinch ranking when I revamp the statistics, which I hope to do soon. I do think it might be a nice addition as an alternative stat.


----------



## Keroma12 (Oct 13, 2017)

Mike Hughey said:


> The big BLD events have some other advantages though. The participation points for big BLD are higher than for any other event (assuming you attempt every scramble). And if you get a successful big BLD solve, you get 1.5 times the participation points. So for instance, if you get a successful 7x7x7 BLD solve, you get 21 points just for having solved it.
> 
> I can look into creating something like a Kinch ranking when I revamp the statistics, which I hope to do soon. I do think it might be a nice addition as an alternative stat.



I like the idea of having half your score based on kinch ranks, half based on participation-type points.
But maybe having them as separate rankings, as you suggest, would be better?

PS: I will start participating in BLD again soon; I almost have my new system sorted out.


----------



## Cubix Canaan (Oct 17, 2017)

Is there a way for me to change/reset my password on the competition site? Thanks in advance!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 17, 2017)

Cubix Canaan said:


> Is there a way for me to change/reset my password on the competition site? Thanks in advance!


I will PM you to allow you to do that.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 18, 2017)

Mike Hughey said:


> The big BLD events have some other advantages though. The participation points for big BLD are higher than for any other event (assuming you attempt every scramble). And if you get a successful big BLD solve, you get 1.5 times the participation points. So for instance, if you get a successful 7x7x7 BLD solve, you get 21 points just for having solved it.
> 
> I can look into creating something like a Kinch ranking when I revamp the statistics, which I hope to do soon. I do think it might be a nice addition as an alternative stat.



That is pretty unfair imo.
Getting a 7x7BLD success should be a lot more worth, than doing a not even middleclass 3x3 average^^


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 27, 2017)

Can you add inspection time to the timer? 

Also do you have to do all your solves in one session for bigger cubes? Will it save your times?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 28, 2017)

CornerCutter said:


> Can you add inspection time to the timer?


This is already on my list of things to add, along with BLD memo/execution split. I intend to work on this right after some of the statistics additions that I'm working on now.



> Also do you have to do all your solves in one session for bigger cubes? Will it save your times?


If you save after doing just some of the solves, it will keep the ones you've done so far, and you can come back and continue later. There is a bug though if you only have one solve remaining - it turns the last solve into a DNF, and you'll have to delete that DNF if you want to finish it. But you can delete that DNF when you come back to it and finish off, if you need to.

Be careful - you do need to hit "Submit Times" in order for your solves so far to be saved.


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 28, 2017)

Mike Hughey said:


> This is already on my list of things to add, along with BLD memo/execution split. I intend to work on this right after some of the statistics additions that I'm working on now.
> 
> 
> If you save after doing just some of the solves, it will keep the ones you've done so far, and you can come back and continue later. There is a bug though if you only have one solve remaining - it turns the last solve into a DNF, and you'll have to delete that DNF if you want to finish it. But you can delete that DNF when you come back to it and finish off, if you need to.
> ...


Thanks for the info! That helps a lot.


----------



## sigalig (Nov 6, 2017)

Hey Mike,
I just noticed after submitting my multiBLD results for the week that it seems certain parts of the website can't correctly calculate a winner when two people are tied for points. I got 28 points (33/38) in 58:54, and Shivam got 28 points (36/44) in 1:00:00. When I look at my "Weekly View" it says I got 1st place, but when I actually click MultiBLD to see everybody's results, it says I'm 2nd place.
Just a heads up


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 7, 2017)

sigalig said:


> Hey Mike,
> I just noticed after submitting my multiBLD results for the week that it seems certain parts of the website can't correctly calculate a winner when two people are tied for points. I got 28 points (33/38) in 58:54, and Shivam got 28 points (36/44) in 1:00:00. When I look at my "Weekly View" it says I got 1st place, but when I actually click MultiBLD to see everybody's results, it says I'm 2nd place.
> Just a heads up


Thanks for this, Graham. I understand the problem now. I was able to fix that individual result by changing Shivam's time to 60:00 instead of 1. Apparently it thought that meant 1 second, not 1 hour.  I will try to straighten out the code that is causing this sometime in the next couple of days (it appears to allow you to enter 1:00:00, and then treats that as 1 second), and then I'll see if I can go back and clean up any similar problems in the database.

And I suspect that the results in the Weekly View are probably not always correct either - I'll try to make sure that's corrected as well. Thanks again for pointing this out!


----------



## DGCubes (Nov 8, 2017)

Hey, Mike. Just a question (and a suggestion):
I just finished doing this week's FMC attempt, and I started my solution by doing EO. Only 2 moves were required (F2 U'), however these were (accidentally) the inverse of the last two moves of the scramble. The U' ended up canceling out with insertions, so it wasn't in my final solution, but it was originally used nonetheless. Would this result be DNFed or is it okay? I know the WCA has been harsh in the past with things like this, but I'm not sure if 2 of the same moves would be enough to DNF.

Also, if it's not too hard, I think it would be a good idea to append R' U' F to the beginning/end of the scrambles like the WCA does.

Thanks for all you do for the weekly competitions!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 9, 2017)

I think we should count your solve as a valid solve still; prior to the change in scrambles, the WCA regulations were really quite unclear on what invalidated a solve, and we like to be reasonably generous on gray areas here. But I agree that this is a real problem (I actually ran into something similar with using a premove that matched the beginning of the scramble this week, so I was already thinking about it); we will try to add R' U' F to the beginning/end of the scrambles as soon as possible - hopefully next week.

Thank you for bringing this up!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 14, 2017)

So I tried making the change for fewest moves to add R' U' F to the front and back of the scramble, but didn't realize that I needed to look for canceling moves (TNoodle does this). So we have a canceling move in this week's fewest moves scramble. I'm inclined to just leave it that way for this week; it's better than not having those moves added. But it could be confusing - please watch out for that canceling set of moves in the scramble. I can try to come up with a better solution for next week.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Nov 14, 2017)

When viewing someone's personal records, all the ordinal numbers default to having a th, even those that should not, such as 22th and 23th.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 14, 2017)

whatshisbucket said:


> When viewing someone's personal records, all the ordinal numbers default to having a th, even those that should not, such as 22th and 23th.


Thanks. I would fix that, but I'm working on redoing that page anyway to make it more like the WCA page, so I probably won't.


----------



## ttesc255 (Nov 14, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> I'd totally be down. At this point I'd say it's one of the more popular non-WCA events.


I'm getting one


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 8, 2017)

I'm just getting started with it, but if you go to the *Statistics *page now, you can see an overall Kinch ranking for the weekly competition, for any historical week.

The Kinch ranking here is calculated based on the all-time best results on the weekly competition website, not the current world record. (That was necessary because a lot of our events aren't official! And besides, this lets you know how you're doing relative to people who have competed here.) Keep in mind this will still only support those who enter their results on the website rather than in the forum.

There's much left to do with this. You can't really see yet how the scores are calculated (although they work like proper Kinch scoring, except using our records instead of WCA world records), but eventually you will be able to. The multiBLD Kinch scores aren't calculated correctly yet - they simply use the WCA representation to calculate percentages instead of doing it the "proper" way. I will fix that someday. And eventually we will have personal results pages for everyone. But at least now you have another way to compare your results with everyone else each week!

For those who don't know, "proper" Kinch rankings are done like this, so this is what my rankings are based on:
http://www.kinch2002.com/kinchranks/


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 17, 2017)

Okay, I've finally started releasing some of the new statistics pages. Please let me know of any bugs you find in them.

Note that our current database is a little messed up in that the 23456 Relay event is conflated with the old Magic event, and the 234567 Relay with the old Master Magic event. So you'll see that records are quite messed up there; the Magic / MM results completely blow away the relay results. I intend to separate these two events in the database sometime soon, so hopefully that will clear up the situation.

They are a work in progress, so sorry for the messy construction and the current lack of some functionality. The ultimate goal is to get our statistics pages to be a near mirror-image of the WCA statistics pages; we have a long way to go. It is still true that the view of a user's results for the current week is in the old format, so you'll notice that is different. Also, there is temporarily no way to see overall records; I will add those soon, hopefully this week.

Hopefully you will enjoy some of the new features; an underline appears under an average (or single if there is no average) to allow a tooltip showing any comment you might have had for that week. The Persons page shows everyone who has ever competed on the website, and is sortable by # of competitions participated in and by # of completed solves (non-DNF, non-DNS). And it's nice to have some of the extra statistics that the WCA pages had that we didn't. Still a bunch left to go, but it's a start.


----------



## applezfall (Dec 17, 2017)

Redi plz!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 17, 2017)

Wow, just "fell" over the new statistics - really great!

Just three things:

in 2016-32 I had a single 8.00 in 7x7x7. Can't remember what went wrong there , but as I'm ranked in place 52 overall, there have to be even better results. Is this a general bug or have so many competitors entered wrong results? For me it would be ok if it is replaced by DNF.

and: means-of-3 in 2,3,4,5bld could be added (I just checked, I have them all )

and: Thank you!!!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 17, 2017)

Thanks for the input!



Jacck said:


> in 2016-32 I had a single 8.00 in 7x7x7. Can't remember what went wrong there , but as I'm ranked in place 52 overall, there have to be even better results. Is this a general bug or have so many competitors entered wrong results? For me it would be ok if it is replaced by DNF.


I suspect it is just wrong results. I found a few of my own when I first enabled this and was looking at my own page; I've corrected mine to DNFs when I found them. I can do the same for you if you like. As for the ranking, I suspect this means I'm not taking DNSs into account for the rankings; I'll try to fix that tomorrow. Sorry about that!



> and: means-of-3 in 2,3,4,5bld could be added (I just checked, I have them all )


That's disappointing - they were working yesterday! (I was rather enjoying looking at mine, so I know they worked yesterday.) I'll try to fix that tomorrow too.


----------



## bubbagrub (Dec 17, 2017)

Mike Hughey said:


> Okay, I've finally started releasing some of the new statistics pages. Please let me know of any bugs you find in them.



Love it!

A low priority feature request: it'd be nice to see your PB single / average on the Compete page for an event.

Edit: Also, should we report data errors here? I just noticed that my one-handed results for OH for 2016-45 are clearly wrong and should be DNF'ed. I must have done 2-handed solves, inadvertently...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 17, 2017)

A suggestion: just so this thread doesn't become too cluttered, please just PM me with data corrections that you'd like done. I'll try to keep up - hopefully they won't be too overwhelming. But give me a few days just in case I get backed up by the requests. It is fairly clear that the database has a lot of untidy data in it.

Oh, and @bubbagrub, I do like that suggestion!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 17, 2017)

Update for @Jacck:
The bug that counted the zeros for best singles rank has been fixed. There were 6 entries for 7x7x7 that were sub-10; one of those I had noticed and already fixed (because it was mine  ), and two of the others belong to the same person, so you are currently ranked 4th in all of Speedsolving.com. (SR == "Speedsolving.com Record", in case you were wondering.)

I can go ahead and DNF that solve if you want. Or perhaps the best approach would be to assume there was some sort of bug in the website that caused those to happen, in which they are probably just the minute portion of your solve time. (I think that's very likely. I think I remember it being true that there was a way to misformat your entry such that it threw away everything after what you intended to be the minute. Another thing I should add if I have time - validation for manual time entries to prevent mistakes like that from happening.) If that's a good assumption, I could go ahead and change it to 8:59.99, which is probably a safe overestimate of your actual solve. I'm inclined to go do that to the others. Shall I do that for you too?

As for the BLD means, I found my bug. You now have BLD means showing in your records.

Thanks again for pointing those bugs out to me so I could fix them!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 17, 2017)

You should DNF the 7x7x7 attempt, could be that I tried to enter a DNF manually. But in general it could be a good idea to correct a 5 to 5:59.99.
By the way: I checked my other results, they should be ok (hmmm, there is a surprising 3.75 in 2x2x2, but it was a easy scramble, so it is possible).

But are you sure about the bld-mean-rankings: my mean-rankings are worse than my single-rankings. Could be at 2bld, but I wonder if 31 have made a 5bd-Mo3 better than 19:51 and only 27 a single better than 16:36. Or does it count all means that were ever made?
But just seeing the means is great!!!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 17, 2017)

Oops - you're right! I did a quick database query and discovered that there are only 6 of us who have ever even gotten 5x5x5 BLD means. I realize my mistake now; I had assumed that I could simply compare overall results, but had forgotten that for the BLD events, the overall result is the best solve, not the mean. I'll fix it soon.

And that was one reason I released it before it was all done - I figure others can help me find the bugs, and you are. Thank you!

Many of these bugs will become quite obvious once I add the next page that I am working on - the overall rankings by event. Then we can compare that list against the numeric rankings and be sure they're calculated correctly. Until that's done, I'd suggest taking the numeric rankings with a grain of salt.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Dec 18, 2017)

Mike Hughey said:


> (SR == "Speedsolving.com Record", in case you were wondering.)



I had assumed it stood for Site Record, which means the same thing but is shorter to type.


----------



## CarterK (Dec 18, 2017)

Is there a list of SRs somewhere?

Also add overall kinchranks?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 18, 2017)

CarterK said:


> Is there a list of SRs somewhere?
> 
> Also add overall kinchranks?


Thanks; those are on the list of things to add.


----------



## RyuKagamine (Dec 22, 2017)

2016-18 OH 1st time 1:31.04(not 1.31s , "1.31.04" typo)


----------



## CarterK (Dec 22, 2017)

RyuKagamine said:


> 2016-18 OH 1st time 1:31.04(not 1.31s , "1.31.04" typo)


You can edit your times on the site.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 22, 2017)

> RyuKagamine
> 2016-18 OH 1st time 1:31.04(not 1.31s , "1.31.04" typo)


Thank you; fixed.



CarterK said:


> You can edit your times on the site.


Actually, while this is still possible for the current week, I believe this is no longer possible for previous weeks. We allowed it at first, but when an edit to the code caused it to be no longer allowed, we discussed it and decided it was best not to reenable this capability.

If you are aware of a way to edit your own times on the website, and that method still works, please PM me and tell me how!

Please, if you find an edit for a previous week that needs to be made, simply PM me and I will take care of it.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 23, 2017)

Did you somehow reuse Event Ids? Because the website says, that I got sub10 times in 2-6 relay in 2014 (which ofc is silly)


----------



## MatsBergsten (Dec 23, 2017)

ichcubegerne said:


> Did you somehow reuse Event Ids? Because the website says, that I got sub10 times in 2-6 relay in 2014 (which ofc is silly)


Yes, I did when I reinstalled 2-6 and 2-7 relays. Those were for Magic and Master Magic . 
Mike intends to fix that some time in the future, but my fault.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 25, 2017)

When you look at the weekly results of a competitor, for example the FMC result is in column "Average" and in the column "Best" is DNF. Same in multibld and I guess it would be the same in 6bld and 7bld - will try again next week to get a success, just to prove this


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 25, 2017)

Jacck said:


> When you look at the weekly results of a competitor, for example the FMC result is in column "Average" and in the column "Best" is DNF. Same in multibld and I guess it would be the same in 6bld and 7bld - will try again next week to get a success, just to prove this


I believe I have this fixed now. But please do try your experiment anyway - always nice to have extra encouragement to get a successful 6bld or 7bld result!


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 27, 2017)

It would also be pretty cool to have the kinch ranks for WCA-Events only (seperate to the normal one). 
Cubers that don't do bigBLD are pretty handicapped in this Ranking imo.


----------



## Oatch (Dec 27, 2017)

I've noticed that if you go to a person's profile under their 'Current Personal Records' that if their FMC single is over 60 moves it displays the score in terms of minutes:seconds instead (e.g. 61 is displayed as 1:01.00), at first I thought that was the time to get their solution in terms of hours:minutes, but surely the website would automatically submit the attempt after an hour had elapsed haha.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 28, 2017)

Oatch said:


> I've noticed that if you go to a person's profile under their 'Current Personal Records' that if their FMC single is over 60 moves it displays the score in terms of minutes:seconds instead (e.g. 61 is displayed as 1:01.00), at first I thought that was the time to get their solution in terms of hours:minutes, but surely the website would automatically submit the attempt after an hour had elapsed haha.


Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 2, 2018)

The rankings pages are now enabled. You can access the rankings here:
https://www.speedsolving.com/competitions/showEvents.php

I will continue to try to add matching functionality for everything in the WCA statistics pages, eventually. 

When I first created the rankings pages, I quickly discovered a number of mistakes and/or problem entries in the database. I have edited all of those that I could find that greatly affected the top rankings in each event. If I edited a result of yours, you will see a comment added to the result beginning with "[mod:" that indicates the change that was made. If you see a change that you think is problematic or that you disagree with, please PM me directly and we will discuss it.

Edit: I think I now have the BLD average rankings working as well. Please PM me if you see any problems with the rankings pages.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jan 2, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> The rankings pages are now enabled.
> Edit: I think I now have the BLD average rankings working as well. Please PM me if you see any problems with the rankings pages.



Nice! But 6&7-bld does not work (for single)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 2, 2018)

MatsBergsten said:


> Nice! But 6&7-bld does not work (for single)


Oops. Yes, I discovered a bug in my support for filtering by year, and in the process of fixing that, I temporarily broke this. The single events are fixed again now.


----------



## Jacck (Jan 2, 2018)

The rankings are really great!
But there seems to be a bug, so someone can appear multiple times in a "n persons"-list with the same result.
Saw this at rank 99 in multi (that seems to be a double entry anyway) and it is easily to see in FMC.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 2, 2018)

Jacck said:


> The rankings are really great!
> But there seems to be a bug, so someone can appear multiple times in a "n persons"-list with the same result.
> Saw this at rank 99 in multi (that seems to be a double entry anyway) and it is easily to see in FMC.


Ooh, thanks. I saw that bug a while ago and I guess I forgot to write it down to work on it. I'll try to fix it soon, thank you.

Edit: I think this is fixed now. Please let me know if you see other problems.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 12, 2018)

I would like to announce that the WCA inspection feature is now enabled on the website. In order to use it, navigate to "Settings" from the menu at the top of the page, and check "WCA inspection". It can be used with or without "Disable Timer Start Delay"; to most closely emulate a stackmat timer, leave "Disable Timer Start Delay" unchecked. (But some people have had trouble with that feature, so it's a selectable option.)

With WCA inspection turned on, it will begin 15 seconds inspection when you first hit and release a key. It will let you know with audio (my voice  ) at 8 seconds and 12 seconds, and inform you if you get a +2 or DNF. (Mostly it works like CSTimer.) If you get a DNF it will stop the solve. (I believe that's different from CSTimer.) There is also audio now for a five minute warning and a stop for fewest moves, and for all solves it will let you know if you get a +2 penalty after the solve is complete.

Please send me a PM if you have any problems with the new feature - I'll be happy to try to fix it as quickly as possible.

Edit:


ichcubegerne said:


> Just a small suggestion. At Guildford Challenge the Skewb scramble is only halfway readable. Maybe make a scroll option there?


I fixed this.

I also added the ability to hover over a previous solve's time in the timer window to see the scramble for that solve. Mainly I wanted that for selfish reasons, since I'm too lazy after a match-the-scramble solve to actually solve the puzzle for the next attempt - I'd rather apply the inverse of the previous scramble to get it solved instead - and besides, that allows me to double-check that I really solved it properly.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 13, 2018)

Magic, master magic, snake, and 4x4 FMC all popped up on the website under "Error: unknown event!" headings. What's up with that?
EDIT: Looks like they're old stuff that was only held in the past. Are they going to be available again?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 13, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> Magic, master magic, snake, and 4x4 FMC all popped up on the website under "Error: unknown event!" headings. What's up with that?


We're working on adding the old results from the forum from prior to the competition website. Please excuse the mess; we should have the statistics all straightened out for 2009 by sometime later this weekend, if all goes well.



Sue Doenim said:


> EDIT: Looks like they're old stuff that was only held in the past. Are they going to be available again?


There are currently no plans to add new events; right now we're focused on trying to stabilize the website. But perhaps a few additional events might be considered at some point in the future after website renovations are done; we have always been open to occasional, controlled experiments with our competitions here (as you can see from those events being added to the database). Typically that happens on year boundaries, and we didn't do any this year; perhaps for next year we can consider looking at new events.


----------



## TheRubiksCombo (Jan 14, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> perhaps for next year we can consider looking at new events.


Redi Cube plz


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jan 15, 2018)

So many errors, pheeew. I've now entered all results from 2009-2011 and tried
to correct all errors. There were lots of them. Any errors I missed and you find, 
please tell me.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 16, 2018)

Tried to use the website for the first time, but I got "error: Username is already in use" when trying to make an account (same username as here, "xyzzy").


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 16, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> Tried to use the website for the first time, but I got "error: Username is already in use" when trying to make an account (same username as here, "xyzzy").


I believe you got added somehow as Mats was attempting to add results from the forum. Perhaps it was because he was including you with the intention of eventually including your results from recent years from the forum into the website.

I will PM you with instructions to get you going.

To anyone else who would like to sign up to use the website and is having any sort of trouble, please PM me and I will be happy to get you set up to use the site.

On another topic, I think I am going to have to start removing DNF results that are obviously people who have not even attempted the solve. In order to enter a DNF, you must actually have genuinely attempted to solve the puzzle. For non-BLD events, I'm going to assume that having all 5 solves DNF implies that you probably didn't really try to solve them. For BLD events, I will be generous if I know you really have a history of doing BLD solves, but if you want to be sure I don't remove your BLD results, please include some information about how the solve went so that I know that you really tried it. With the new BLD timer, it's pretty easy to at least include the memorization split for your DNF.

If you have a problem with DNFs that I removed, please PM me about that as well and we can discuss it.


----------



## Shadowjockey (Jan 17, 2018)

I'd love to see an option to change the colors of the site bcause:

#1: the yellow/green is kind of ugly

#2: i usually time with cstimer (everything black or grey) and the bright colors illuminate my cube in a way that makes it harder to recognise the colors

#3: i can't F12 to change the colors because that starts the timer


----------



## whatshisbucket (Jan 23, 2018)

There appear to several fake single results that were missed when they happened and now sit at the top of the rankings in several events.


----------



## CarterK (Jan 23, 2018)

whatshisbucket said:


> There appear to several fake single results that were missed when they happened and now sit at the top of the rankings in several events.


yeah. Quite a few events that shouldn't have fast singles have singles that are obviously not real. Such as 2.20 megaminx single


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 23, 2018)

CarterK said:


> yeah. Quite a few events that shouldn't have fast singles have singles that are obviously not real. Such as 2.20 megaminx single


Mats is going through adding old results that were entered in the forum but not on the website. I see I need to go through and clean up those results. I'll work on it.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jan 23, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> Mats is going through adding old results that were entered in the forum but not on the website. I see I need to go through and clean up those results. I'll work on it.


There are lots of typos in old results (not necessarely cheating) and those were not so 
easy to spot earlier as you most often only saw the averages. Please point out obvious errors.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jan 23, 2018)

CarterK said:


> yeah. Quite a few events that shouldn't have fast singles have singles that are obviously not real. Such as 2.20 megaminx single


Now at least those mistakes are corrected (there were five singles sub-11)


----------



## whatshisbucket (Jan 23, 2018)

The obvious ones have been removed. The only one I noticed that is definitely not real is the 5.08 3x3 single (was probably supposed to be 55.08 or something like that).


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jan 23, 2018)

whatshisbucket said:


> The obvious ones have been removed. The only one I noticed that is definitely not real is the 5.08 3x3 single (was probably supposed to be 55.08 or something like that).


Fixed that one too. It was the standard deviation that was 5.08


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 30, 2018)

bubbagrub said:


> A low priority feature request: it'd be nice to see your PB single / average on the Compete page for an event.


I just added this. Let me know if you see any problems with it.


----------



## CornerCutter (Feb 2, 2018)

Thank you guys for adding inspection and the PB stuff!

I regards to a discussion a few weeks ago. I think if there is over 100 people competing then you should have a chance to win the gift card every week.


----------



## CarterK (Feb 2, 2018)

CornerCutter said:


> Thank you guys for adding inspection and the PB stuff!
> 
> I regards to a discussion a few weeks ago. I think if there is over 100 people competing then you should have a chance to win the gift card every week.


How is this different from before? There are rarely any weeks that are under 100 people.


----------



## dnguyen2204 (Feb 2, 2018)

CarterK said:


> How is this different from before? There are rarely any weeks that are under 100 people.


I think there's some rule right now that says you can't win a card more than once in 5 weeks.


----------



## CarterK (Feb 2, 2018)

dnguyen2204 said:


> I think there's some rule right now that says you can't win a card more than once in 5 weeks.


Still, I don't see why you would change it.


----------



## CornerCutter (Feb 2, 2018)

CarterK said:


> How is this different from before? There are rarely any weeks that are under 100 people.





CarterK said:


> Still, I don't see why you would change it.


Last year when the gift card started there were only 50-70 people competing every week so people had a much greater chance. Now there are 130+.


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 3, 2018)

CornerCutter said:


> Last year when the gift card started there were only 50-70 people competing every week so people had a much greater chance. Now there are 130+.


That really doesn't seem like a reason to change it. If anything having more people reduces the chance that one person will win it twice but makes it even more unfair if someone does.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 4, 2018)

How about a overall Kinch Rank in the Profile along with the overall PBs? Would be pretty cool and doesnt seem like much work


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 4, 2018)

Overall Kinch score would be easy, but overall Kinch rank would be quite difficult because I currently do no preprocessing on the database (and telling you your Kinch rank relative to everyone else would require calculations against every single result in the entire database!).

But I do hope to add some preprocessing someday, so I'll try to make sure I can add that when I do - thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 7, 2018)

I have a 0/-1 MBLD result on the competition site for 2017-43, which is supposed to correspond to a DNS, but it also counts as one point since (cubes solved − cubes unsolved) = 0 − (−1) = 1. The actual result for that week was a 0/2 12:xx, though.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 7, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> I have a 0/-1 MBLD result on the competition site for 2017-43, which is supposed to correspond to a DNS, but it also counts as one point since (cubes solved − cubes unsolved) = 0 − (−1) = 1. The actual result for that week was a 0/2 12:xx, though.


Thank you. I have hopefully fixed it.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 8, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> Overall Kinch score would be easy, but overall Kinch rank would be quite difficult because I currently do no preprocessing on the database (and telling you your Kinch rank relative to everyone else would require calculations against every single result in the entire database!).
> 
> But I do hope to add some preprocessing someday, so I'll try to make sure I can add that when I do - thanks for the suggestion!


I just meant overall Kinch score and then a simple Ranking with these. Not realtive to to each other, just relative to the Records on the weekly comp


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 8, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> I just meant overall Kinch score and then a simple Ranking with these. Not realtive to to each other, just relative to the Records on the weekly comp


Okay, I'm still not sure you meant what I could easily do, but I added what I could easily add - Kinch scores overall and for each event on the personal records page. It's a nice addition.

I will add actual Kinch rankings someday when I add preprocessing of the database.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 9, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> Okay, I'm still not sure you meant what I could easily do, but I added what I could easily add - Kinch scores overall and for each event on the personal records page. It's a nice addition.
> 
> I will add actual Kinch rankings someday when I add preprocessing of the database.


That was exactly what I meant  Thanks!
Maybe it would be good to not let Events that are not part of the weekly comp anymore count into the overall kinch tho.


----------



## RedTopCuber (Feb 9, 2018)

I think fisher cube would be a good event to add becuase it is one of the shape mods most people have


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 9, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> Maybe it would be good to not let Events that are not part of the weekly comp anymore count into the overall kinch tho.


That makes sense; WCA Kinch rankings don't take into account discontinued events, so ours shouldn't either. I'll try to fix that this weekend. I'll leave individual event Kinch scores for even the discontinued events, though.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 10, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> That makes sense; WCA Kinch rankings don't take into account discontinued events, so ours shouldn't either. I'll try to fix that this weekend. I'll leave individual event Kinch scores for even the discontinued events, though.


I think I've fixed these now. I'm only counting current events now, and I corrected the multiBLD calculations, which were quite wrong before.


----------



## Keroma12 (Feb 11, 2018)

The rankings don't seem to go by single when people get the same average. (Two people have 10.88 average in 3x3 this week, but they are ranked in reverse order of best single.)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 11, 2018)

Keroma12 said:


> The rankings don't seem to go by single when people get the same average. (Two people have 10.88 average in 3x3 this week, but they are ranked in reverse order of best single.)


Good point. That's been a shortcoming for a long time; ranking was basically random. I had noticed it a couple of times before, but there were always other things that seemed like higher priority. But now with more people competing, this is happening much more often. I will try to fix it.

But that brings up an interesting question: when counting overall point score, we give people with tied results equal scores. Should we be breaking the tie on averages with singles before counting point scores? So should the two people with 10.88 averages in 3x3x3 this week get the same overall score for that event, or should the person who had the better single get an extra point? (Note that Kinch scores for averages would treat this as a tie.)


----------



## MatsBergsten (Feb 12, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> Good point. That's been a shortcoming for a long time; ranking was basically random. I had noticed it a couple of times before, but there were always other things that seemed like higher priority. But now with more people competing, this is happening much more often. I will try to fix it.
> 
> But that brings up an interesting question: when counting overall point score, we give people with tied results equal scores. Should we be breaking the tie on averages with singles before counting point scores? So should the two people with 10.88 averages in 3x3x3 this week get the same overall score for that event, or should the person who had the better single get an extra point? (Note that Kinch scores for averages would treat this as a tie.)


I've done that since 2009 here  (sorted ties by best single).
Only in FMC has there been split points (apart from the case where several 
people share last place in an event with DNF).

Actually I think it was you who taught me that back then.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 12, 2018)

MatsBergsten said:


> I've done that since 2009 here  (sorted ties by best single).
> Only in FMC has there been split points (apart from the case where several
> people share last place in an event with DNF).
> 
> Actually I think it was you who taught me that back then.


Okay; I'll try to make sure that's what's implemented then. Thank you.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 12, 2018)

I just realized that Kevin was arguing that he needed to be knocked down one placing.  I'm truly glad that cubing is such an honorable sport.

The 3x3x3 list this week is fixed, but there are some specific cases which the code still does not handle correctly; I'll see what I can do to fix it completely. I also still have not yet checked to see if the best single is factored into the overall score calculation yet.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 13, 2018)

A small Addition I totally forgot about: How about an extra alltime Ranking of the Kinch scores?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 13, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> A small Addition I totally forgot about: How about an extra alltime Ranking of the Kinch scores?


That would be an operation against every entry in the database, so it would be very slow to process. I do intend to add it someday when I start preprocessing results each week, but it will be a while before I get to that. Perhaps in a few months.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 14, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> That would be an operation against every entry in the database, so it would be very slow to process. I do intend to add it someday when I start preprocessing results each week, but it will be a while before I get to that. Perhaps in a few months.



Is it really that much work? I mean, you already have a Kinch Score on every profile, so just ranking them too seems not like it would be that difficult


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 14, 2018)

With alltime Ranking I don't mean the best Kinch ever, just a Ranking of the Kinch Scores everyone has atm


----------



## ColorfulPockets (Feb 23, 2018)

Suggestion: Add FMC mo3.
It could be separate from single solve in case people only want to do one attempt, so people can receive a ranking/points for just the first attempt, but also have 2 more attempts to do if they want to complete a mean.


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 23, 2018)

After using the website for entering times for a few weeks I have a couple of (I think) relatively trivial-to-implement suggestions that would make the website undeniably easier to use than the forum:

1. Ditch the yellow background. Too hard to read. 
2. Add space between scrambles: especially on longer scrambles like megaminx and 7x7 it's too easy to lose track of which line you're on. 
3. This one might be harder, but when you click on "compete" make manual entry the default, so you either use a different timer (like I do) or make sure you have the timer set up the way you want it before starting it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 23, 2018)

1. I intend to. I will be changing the layout and changing the color scheme at thw same time. Probably still a few weeks away, but it's coming. I also intend to allow custom colors if desired, as was requested earlier.
2. When I do #1, I'll experiment with this and see what I think works. It's hard to add space for the mobile version though, since there's already too little space on the screen as it is.
3. I really like it the way it is, since I use the built-in timer. But I can see how others would not. So I'll do the obvious thing - make it a setting. I'll add a checkbox to make it default to manual entry.


----------



## Shadowjockey (Feb 25, 2018)

I somehow have -1.85 kinch points in MBLD and it also says that I have 1 point with 0/-1


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 25, 2018)

Shadowjockey said:


> I somehow have -1.85 kinch points in MBLD and it also says that I have 1 point with 0/-1


Thank you. I'm working on the multiBLD scoring issues now. Hopefully I can get them straightened out today or tomorrow.


----------



## Keroma12 (Feb 27, 2018)

I finally got around to looking at the profile pages, and it's great!
I do notice that I have (at least) two 3x3 times which may have been copied over incorrectly; 22:02.00 I'm guessing was supposed to be 22.02 in 2011-31, for example. (Edit: My 5x5 single in 2011-21 can't possibly be right.)
I think this might have been mentioned earlier, but there are no comments/solutions for the FMC submissions back in 2010/2011. I guess it would be too much work to get those into the database?
(Side note: I knew I did 4x4 BLD back in 2010 a few times, but I had no idea it was up to 55 minutes!)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 27, 2018)

Thanks! We'll take a look at those entries and fix the ones that make sense to fix.

As for the FMC submissions without comments and solutions, it's my hope that we will go back and do them one day; I have an idea for a tool that would make it easier to do that eventually, but it may be a little while before I get that done - still a lot of more important work to do on the site first. So give us time - hopefully eventually we'll have even more of that history in there.


----------



## Shadowjockey (Mar 10, 2018)

I think the kinch score should only include events that are currently held every week.
Also a server ranking for the kinch score would be nice.
And I also think an optional FMC mean would be nice.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 10, 2018)

You're correct; the Kinch score should only include the events currently held on a given week, and the overall Kinch score for a user should be based only on currently active events. I believe I have corrected the calculations to do this now.

A sitewide Kinch ranking would be nice; as I explained before, it was computationally prohibitive to do so until I performed some preprocessing. But I am getting close on that now and should hopefully be able to add it fairly soon. Hopefully I can get that in sometime in the next few weeks.

I am tentatively planning to add an FMC mean at the beginning of 2019; it's too messy to change the format in mid-year. But since it is common now to do FMC means in official WCA competitions, I think we should have them here too, so I would like to add this for next year.


----------



## VDel_234_ (Mar 22, 2018)

I have a suggestion for the Timer (Weekly View) page:

If the devs are able, to put in a "Draw Scramble" feature like in CSTimer. I think it would make the end scrambles more accurate because it shows how the puzzle should look at the end of the scramble.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 22, 2018)

VDel_234_ said:


> I have a suggestion for the Timer (Weekly View) page:
> 
> If the devs are able, to put in a "Draw Scramble" feature like in CSTimer. I think it would make the end scrambles more accurate because it shows how the puzzle should look at the end of the scramble.


Thanks for the suggestion. It has not been suggested before, but it was already on my personal list of things I want to do for the website. I must admit that it's fairly low on the list, though - I have a number of other improvements that need to be done first.

But yes, I think it is a great suggestion!


----------



## GTregay (Mar 29, 2018)

I hate to post on an old thread, but figured it was better than starting a new one on the same topic. I have the same problem as the OP, but there is no "Remember Me" option when I log in. I am using my phone and it gets tedious to have to log in again, each time I go to submit times. I see the same issue using Chrome on Android (phone) and Windows (PC) - not using incognito, cookies enabled, javascript allowed... any thoughts?


----------



## GenTheThief (Mar 30, 2018)

GTregay said:


> I hate to post on an old thread, but figured it was better than starting a new one on the same topic. I have the same problem as the OP, but there is no "Remember Me" option when I log in. I am using my phone and it gets tedious to have to log in again, each time I go to submit times. I see the same issue using Chrome on Android (phone) and Windows (PC) - not using incognito, cookies enabled, javascript allowed... any thoughts?


There should be a "Keep me logged in" button around where you enter your password.

Actually, that's for desktop, I don't know about mobile.


----------



## GTregay (Mar 30, 2018)

Ah - one detail I glossed over, earlier. While there is a "Stay Logged In" option when logging into the forum, I was referring to the weekly competition login, which has no such checkbox (desktop or mobile).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 30, 2018)

We've been wanting to implement single sign on, which would eliminate that problem. But it's been slow getting that done.

I understand what a pain it is having to login repeatedly; I hope we can get it fixed someday soon.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Apr 14, 2018)

Competition Cuber said:


> Just a suggestion... add in redi cube. I wouldn't personally do it, but a lot of other people would and I think it would be a very popular event.


I still want this. I got one last weekend, and am now addicted. @Mike Hughey?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 14, 2018)

We might consider adding new events at the beginning of 2019. I am sure we will make FMC include 3 scrambles per week next year; not sure if it will be best of 3 or mean of 3. I'm leaning towards mean of 3.

For other puzzles, I'm leaning towards having a poll and basing the decision on that, but I will definitely wait until later in the year for that.

It is much easier on the statistics to make changes to the competition on year changes, so I'd rather wait until then to make changes.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Apr 14, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> We might consider adding new events at the beginning of 2019. I am sure we will make FMC include 3 scrambles per week next year; not sure if it will be best of 3 or mean of 3. I'm leaning towards mean of 3.
> 
> For other puzzles, I'm leaning towards having a poll and basing the decision on that, but I will definitely wait until later in the year for that.
> 
> It is much easier on the statistics to make changes to the competition on year changes, so I'd rather wait until then to make changes.


Awww.... I dont want to wait over 1/2 a year.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 14, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> I am sure we will make FMC include 3 scrambles per week next year; not sure if it will be best of 3 or mean of 3. I'm leaning towards mean of 3.



If you did mean, then people who had 3 correct solutions would be ranked first, and somebody with 1 or 2 would still count as more than DNF, right? For me it's rare that I get an hour that I'm reasonably certain I won't be interrupted. 3 times in a week would be highly unlikely.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 14, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> If you did mean, then people who had 3 correct solutions would be ranked first, and somebody with 1 or 2 would still count as more than DNF, right? For me it's rare that I get an hour that I'm reasonably certain I won't be interrupted. 3 times in a week would be highly unlikely.


That is correct, and is my justification for leaning towards using a mean - at least those who do a single solve get a valid result and will be ranked accordingly among those who did less than 3 successful attempts. Those without a successful mean (whether due to only doing 1 or 2 solves, or due to a DNF or two) would be ranked among themselves based on best single. Exactly as happens in official WCA competitions with 3 FMC attempts today.

One guiding principle for the events in our competition here is to always have at least as much participation opportunity in each event as is possible in a single round of an official competition. With the introduction of official means of 3 for FMC, we became glaringly lacking on FMC opportunity. So I'd like to fix that.


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 15, 2018)

What about reintroducing 444FMC?


----------



## cubeshepherd (Apr 15, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> What about reintroducing 444FMC?


Snoooooozer!


----------



## asacuber (Apr 30, 2018)

how about mean of 3 attempts across 3 weeks(rolling means)?


----------



## ichcubegerne (May 21, 2018)

Bug report: I am placed 0 in every event when looking in my solve history for the last week I participated^^


----------



## One Wheel (May 21, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> Bug report: I am placed 0 in every event when looking in my solve history for the last week I participated^^


I'm showing up as place 0 for all events I competed in for competition 2018-19 as well.


----------



## cubeshepherd (May 21, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> Bug report: I am placed 0 in every event when looking in my solve history for the last week I participated^^





One Wheel said:


> I'm showing up as place 0 for all events I competed in for competition 2018-19 as well.


I do not think that it is a bug because that is what happens every week until @MatsBergsten or someone else finishes entering everything from that week. It tends to be fixed around the time of the new results being posted, so the 2018-19 should be updated later this evening/tonight, when the 2018-20 results are posted.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 21, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> Bug report: I am placed 0 in every event when looking in my solve history for the last week I participated^^


That should be fixed now. There are some things that need to be precalculated, and when Mats enters the results from the thread here, there is an extra routine that must be run to correct those ranks. It appears that had not been run yet for last week. I just ran it again and now it's fine.

I'll talk it over with Mats and we'll try to figure out why it didn't get run properly last week. Until we figure it out, it might happen again this week, but hopefully we'll eventually get it properly straightened out.


----------



## CornerCutter (May 21, 2018)

I think there is a bug with inputing times. The first solve you enter is fine, but then all the others add an extra 0 after the first digit.


----------



## RedTopCuber (May 21, 2018)

CornerCutter said:


> I think there is a bug with inputing times. The first solve you enter is fine, but then all the others add an extra 0 after the first digit.


I also had a problem with inputting times


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 21, 2018)

I was trying to reproduce the problem with inputting times, but was having no luck; I was using Firefox. But I just tried it with Chrome and got the same problem described here. I notice Chrome just recently got updated - I wonder if the new update exposed a bug that wasn't visible before. I will try to fix it tonight - very sorry for the problems.


----------



## xyzzy (May 21, 2018)

Mentioned this in the 2018-18 thread: the FMC move counter isn't correctly counting lowercase wide moves.

This is yghklvn's solution for this week (2018-20): z y R u r' U R' E' R' U2 R2 U M2 U' r U' R' y L' U2 L U2 L F' L' F d M U2 M' U M' U2 M2 U M U' R2 
It's 42 moves, but the site counts it as only 38 because it ignores the four wide moves. (It really mostly only affects this guy's solutions, but occasionally there are also weird CFOP-y solutions that have wide moves in them and aaaaargh, do you even know how to do FMC?????)

While we're on the topic of FMC, it'd be nice if the results normalise the Unicode quotation marks into ASCII apostrophes (see e.g. obelisk477's solution for this week).


----------



## CornerCutter (May 28, 2018)

It would be cool if you had the persons PB number of points and highest rank on the main events page. Just like the individual events.


----------



## One Wheel (May 29, 2018)

I like the new color scheme! Thanks!

It would still be great to figure out how to put a fine line between scrambles on the manual entry page, especially for longer scrambles like 7x7 and megaminx.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 29, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> I like the new color scheme! Thanks!
> 
> It would still be great to figure out how to put a fine line between scrambles on the manual entry page, especially for longer scrambles like 7x7 and megaminx.


Thank you. I was struggling a bit with the scrambles this weekend trying to do something like that, but I couldn't get it to work in time for my release on Monday. I was trying to get it to do the white and grey stripes for background, actually - I was hoping that might work better than lines.


----------



## One Wheel (May 29, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> I was trying to get it to do the white and grey stripes for background, actually - I was hoping that might work better than lines.



Ooh, yeah, I think that might work better.


----------



## CornerCutter (Jun 1, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> I was trying to reproduce the problem with inputting times, but was having no luck; I was using Firefox. But I just tried it with Chrome and got the same problem described here. I notice Chrome just recently got updated - I wonder if the new update exposed a bug that wasn't visible before. I will try to fix it tonight - very sorry for the problems.


Thank you again for fixing the problems! It makes it much easier to enter times.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 1, 2018)

CornerCutter said:


> Thank you again for fixing the problems! It makes it much easier to enter times.


I'm glad it helped! I had introduced a bug with changes I had made right before that; it had nothing to do with the Chrome update.

I should perhaps go ahead and mention here the changes I made on Monday. I made the following changes then:
1. Changed the color scheme to match the rest of Speedsolving.com.
2. Some significant work on the Manual Entry page - the events show progress there now much like they do on the Weekly View page, there is a checkbox now to collapse events that you have already completed, and there is an option in Settings to make the Manual Entry page your default instead of the Weekly View, if you prefer that.
3. Added a Profile page. Now, when you are logged in, you are able to change your first and last names, your email address, and/or your password. Note that it is not active unless you first reenter your password on that page - once you enter your password, the other fields become active. There is also a checkbox there that will cause the site to display only your username, so that your first and last names are only visible to you while you are competing.

I still have a long list of other changes to make; I work on them whenever I have some free time to do them. As always, please let me know if you discover problems.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jun 11, 2018)

Somehow my 5/10 in Multi doesn't get displayed in my compete area as green and it seems that I don't get any points from it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 11, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> Somehow my 5/10 in Multi doesn't get displayed in my compete area as green and it seems that I don't get any points from it.


Sorry for the bug - thanks very much for reporting this! I was able to duplicate the problem and I will attempt to fix it tonight. In the meantime, it appears that your data is safe and everything else appears to be working properly, so hopefully when I fix the problem, everything should be working correctly in the future.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 21, 2018)

I posted this in this week's competition, but I thought I should mention it here as well:

We are starting to test out code that Mats wrote to test FMC results. I have added some code to check for weird characters when submitting, which may require you to change your solution to match WCA rules before submitting.

But I am also running by hand the new testing code Mats wrote, and verifying each incorrect solution by hand to make sure our code is working correctly. In the process, I changed 5 of the results for this week (so far) to DNFs. I copied the original solution to the comment field, so you can see what happened. I feel especially sorry for abunickabhi, whose solution was correct except for a missing F2 at the end. :-( But I decided I should DNF them all.

When this code is finished, the code will automatically check for DNFs, and if your solution is a DNF, it will automatically copy the original result to the comment field, much like I have done by hand this week. I will implement that once I am fully convinced the automatic checker is working well, which might be a few weeks from now. But for now, I will continue to periodically check submitted results by hand to make sure our code is working correctly.

Please let us know if you see any problems. Thank you for having patience during our "growing pains".


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 30, 2018)

An update on the FMC checker:

I have "manually" run the "automatic" checker on weeks 22 through 25 of this year (plus those that have been submitted so far for week 26), and have made corrections to those that were invalid. So a number of you have DNFs now that you did not have before for those weeks. I will probably go through a number of additional weeks manually before starting to run the checker automatically, so as to have greater confidence that it is working correctly. For most of the solutions I invalidated, I was able to discover the mistake and I explained that mistake in the comment. (I hope you understand that I will not be able to continue to do that for all past solutions - that would be ridiculous! But I do hope to do them for a while, as I try to make sure the code is working correctly.)

For all current and future submissions, we're going to require proper WCA notation to be followed. But for previous submissions, it seems to me that would be unnecessarily harsh. So, I'm hoping to correct submissions that are valid except for invalid notation, to make them have valid notation. I'll copy the invalid notation into the comment so the original version can be seen. I intend to try to support any invalid notation that I can understand and that can therefore be translated to a valid notation solution. Please, if you see me invalidate any solution that you think is actually correct, please let me know and I will look at it again.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Jun 30, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> An update on the FMC checker:
> 
> I have "manually" run the "automatic" checker on weeks 22 through 25 of this year (plus those that have been submitted so far for week 26), and have made corrections to those that were invalid. So a number of you have DNFs now that you did not have before for those weeks. I will probably go through a number of additional weeks manually before starting to run the checker automatically, so as to have greater confidence that it is working correctly. For most of the solutions I invalidated, I was able to discover the mistake and I explained that mistake in the comment. (I hope you understand that I will not be able to continue to do that for all past solutions - that would be ridiculous! But I do hope to do them for a while, as I try to make sure the code is working correctly.)
> 
> For all current and future submissions, we're going to require proper WCA notation to be followed. But for previous submissions, it seems to me that would be unnecessarily harsh. So, I'm hoping to correct submissions that are valid except for invalid notation, to make them have valid notation. I'll copy the invalid notation into the comment so the original version can be seen. I intend to try to support any invalid notation that I can understand and that can therefore be translated to a valid notation solution. Please, if you see me invalidate any solution that you think is actually correct, please let me know and I will look at it again.


Wow! That is great, and thank you very much for doing it. That will be really nice to have and see working. Thanks again for getting this working.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 13, 2018)

I'm running into a bug on the competition website: I got 3 DNFs in 3BLD, and it can understand two DNFs, but it wants to record the third one as a DNS. I was able to manually enter DNF, and I think it recognizes it now, but it sure tries to see a DNS.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 13, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> I'm running into a bug on the competition website: I got 3 DNFs in 3BLD, and it can understand two DNFs, but it wants to record the third one as a DNS. I was able to manually enter DNF, and I think it recognizes it now, but it sure tries to see a DNS.


Thank you; I was able to duplicate the problem. It happens when you are using manual entry and do not provide a time, but simply hit DNF. It seems to only happen when you do this with the second time - if you do, then the third time refuses to register - it treats it like it's a re-entry of the second time.
I'll see what I can do to fix this as soon as I can - perhaps this weekend.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 13, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> Thank you; I was able to duplicate the problem. It happens when you are using manual entry and do not provide a time, but simply hit DNF. It seems to only happen when you do this with the second time - if you do, then the third time refuses to register - it treats it like it's a re-entry of the second time.
> I'll see what I can do to fix this as soon as I can - perhaps this weekend.


So should I enter a time first, and then hit DNF?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 13, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> So should I enter a time first, and then hit DNF?


Yes, if you do that (when entering the second DNF), it should work for now (it should be a suitable workaround until I fix it). At least, it worked for me.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 18, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> I'm running into a bug on the competition website: I got 3 DNFs in 3BLD, and it can understand two DNFs, but it wants to record the third one as a DNS. I was able to manually enter DNF, and I think it recognizes it now, but it sure tries to see a DNS.


Okay, I've reworked some of the manual entry code, and while I'm still not sure it works perfectly, it seems to work a lot better than before, at least for the things I've tested. Entering 3 DNFs for 3BLD should work properly now. Please let me know if you discover any other problems.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jul 24, 2018)

When you go to the Ranking and click at the week where a result happened (on the right) then it shows you the ranking for this week, but for the event above


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 24, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> When you go to the Ranking and click at the week where a result happened (on the right) then it shows you the ranking for this week, but for the event above


Thanks - I've noticed this a couple of times but I keep forgetting to fix it. I'll try to get it fixed this week.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Aug 20, 2018)

I do not know how many cubers solve the master pyraminx, but since I have recently gotten one and done a few solves on it, I am really liking it and I think that it would be cool if that could possibly become an event for the weekly competitions. 

What do you all think?


----------



## CornerCutter (Aug 21, 2018)

cubeshepherd said:


> I do not know how many cubers solve the master pyraminx, but since I have recently gotten one and done a few solves on it, I am really liking it and I think that it would be cool if that could possibly become an event for the weekly competitions.
> 
> What do you all think?


I got one a few weeks ago too and it would really motivate me to practice.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Aug 21, 2018)

CornerCutter said:


> I got one a few weeks ago too and it would really motivate me to practice.


Cool and I agree on that. What is your PB single as of now?


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 21, 2018)

I got a master pyraminx at Euro and it is a very nice puzzle. Just short-yet-interesting enough to pick it up once in a while. I would argue that "if we do kilominx we should do master pyraminx". However that argument is week because that would also mean "if we do master pyraminx we should do gigaminx/terraminx/8x8x8/etc…..nope nope nope"


----------



## AMCuber (Aug 21, 2018)

I have a Master Pyraminx, It was my third "cube," when I started a long time ago, I thought that was the normal Shengshou Pyraminx, and it is very bad quality, lol. I want to learn how to solve it, though, because it looks ugly, unsolved when all of my other cubes are.


----------



## CornerCutter (Aug 21, 2018)

cubeshepherd said:


> Cool and I agree on that. What is your PB single as of now?


I haven't done many timed solves, but I think it is 59 seconds. 


AvGalen said:


> However that argument is week because that would also mean "if we do master pyraminx we should do gigaminx/terraminx/8x8x8/etc…..nope nope nope"


Your right, but that is a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 21, 2018)

A slippery slope is not always a fallacy.


> Logic and critical thinking textbooks typically discuss slippery slope arguments as a form of fallacy but usually acknowledge that "slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur.



To claim this is a fallacy, there needs to be a clear distinction between master pyraminx and the other puzzles that we're saying might also be added. How is master pyraminx different from gigaminx or teraminx or 8x8x8, such that the slippery slope is truly a fallacy?

From a standpoint of popularity of puzzles, I'm not sure. I own two gigaminxes and an 8x8x8, but I don't own a master pyraminx, so from my very bad sampling of one cuber, I'd say the master pyraminx is less popular than gigaminx or 8x8x8.  But in general if there were numbers that indicated master pyraminx was a particularly popular puzzle, I'd consider that a good argument for possibly adding it.

Master pyraminx is more practical in terms of solve times, so that could be a justification. But there are plenty of other puzzles that also have "practical" solve times.

I think it might be nice to add a couple of new puzzles next year, but I would like them to be selected based on criteria that give good justification for the choice. If there are one or two non-WCA puzzles that are clearly more popular among cubers than others, I'd see that as a potentially good justification.

I also wonder a little about mirror blocks, even if it is a puzzle that has been around for ages. We recently had a solver who is fully blind join our forum a couple of months ago, and mirror blocks is one puzzle that could truly "level the playing field" for blind solvers, especially if we made the event "mirror blocks blind, no inspection". Just a thought.

I'd like to have some discussion over possible events for next year, then have a poll (with choices based on the discussion) to see how many people claim they would attempt to compete in the event every week. Then I might select the top one or two, if they got enough votes, and add them to next year's list of events.

Note that I already intend to change Fewest Moves to a mean of 3 next year, since so many WCA competitions now use mean of 3 as the format for that event. (I need to start preparing for that change soon - it will be complicated making that change to the website and maintaining compatibility with old results, so I'll need some time to get it right.)


----------



## Keroma12 (Aug 21, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> Note that I already intend to change Fewest Moves to a mean of 3 next year, since so many WCA competitions now use mean of 3 as the format for that event.


Maybe Multi could also be changed, to best of 3?


----------



## CarterK (Aug 21, 2018)

Keroma12 said:


> Maybe Multi could also be changed, to best of 3?


Multi means are dumb lol, but now that you brought it up, I like the idea of a bo2 or bo3.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Aug 21, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> A slippery slope is not always a fallacy.
> 
> 
> To claim this is a fallacy, there needs to be a clear distinction between master pyraminx and the other puzzles that we're saying might also be added. How is master pyraminx different from gigaminx or teraminx or 8x8x8, such that the slippery slope is truly a fallacy?
> ...


That it is a great idea @Mike Hughey and I totally agree on that. I propose a few different things to try and find out what events to add.

(1) Whoever is interested in adding an event(s) to the weekly competition should first provide an coherent explanation on why they think the event(s) should be added vs. any other event. The explanation cannot be like "Because I am really good at the event", or "Because it is easy to solve", but something that has been thought through and that provides a new challenge that we do not have at the moment.

(2) If you have not yet tried a certain event or know how to solve it, then please do not be quick to say yes/no to it until you at least have an idea about the cube (like if I were to say that dino cube would be dumb to add is just silly to say, because I do not even have a dino cube, and I do not know how to solve one). Or you can watch a few tutorials on it to see if you have interested in it. I think that this is a obvious statement, but I just wanted to be clear on it.

(3) As @Mike Hughey said, having a poll would be great to do once there is some decision/agreement on the top x number of cubes to add (like the top 10 cubes that seem to get the most attention/talk about) and decide on 2 or so from those.

There of course is no rush for this all to be decided (especially since things can change from now until the end of this year), but I think that if it is decided sooner over later then that would give certain people more time to purchase/practice event X before it is officially unofficially added to the weekly competition.

I am not saying this for it all to happen/needs to happen, but they are just some thoughts that I have about adding new events. Please let me know if there is something that I have said that does not make sense or is irrelevant to adding new events.

I look forward to seeing all your thoughts/ideas about this, and I will be adding mine soon.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 21, 2018)

Just to add to this, I really intend to only make the changes (adding events, changing formats) at the start of the year. It's much easier to deal with the changes if they happen on a year boundary. So now seemed like a reasonable time to start the discussion, so that a decision can be made and the software can be ready in time for the start of the year.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 22, 2018)

Some good ideas here.
I would like to say that I understand changing FMC to mo3 for consistency with WCA, but for the same reasons as before (1 DNF = DNF, time) I would be against this change
Multiblind bo2/bo3....I really don't see a reason to do that. This would just take more time but likely wouldn't change the results at all except for a more crowded bottom of the sheet that would normally get DNF (1/3) but would now get a 1/3 and a 2/3 so they would get a result. The rest of the MBF-ers would probably only do 1 hour-long attempt anyway.

In general I am not in favor of adding hour-long events like FMC and MBF (and 13x13x13 and Terraminx and...). It is called speedsolving and speedcubing for a reason!
When adding events I think the main criteria should be "would many people like to do it?"
Other criteria that I think should be
1) Are the puzzles widely available and of a decent quality?
2) Does the puzzle offer something new (Master Pyraminx does, Kilominx doesn't)
3) No variations on existing events. So no 222oh, 777feet
4) No ridiculous things (555 underwater while riding a unicycle)


----------



## ichcubegerne (Aug 26, 2018)

What means the "inf" value for Kinch Scores? It seems to occur on maybe all people with missing nonbld results?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 26, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> What means the "inf" value for Kinch Scores? It seems to occur on maybe all people with missing nonbld results?


Thanks very much for reporting this - it was a bug in my code. I think I have fixed it now. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs fixing.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 13, 2018)

I just implemented support for the bracketed rotation notation for fewest moves (such as [f]); I'm hoping this means I now support all WCA-legal notation for fewest moves solutions. Please let me know by PM if you see any problems with it, or anything else that I'm missing.


----------



## Keroma12 (Sep 30, 2018)

On the current personal records page, for your multi-bld history, it doesn't take into account whether a solve is a DNF or not when it highlights it orange (to indicate a PB).
For example, my first solve (1/2 DNF) is highlighted, then the next several DNFs are not highlighted, then I get a faster 1/2 DNF later and it highlights it orange.

(I'm still in favour of making multi best-of-3 next year!)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 30, 2018)

Keroma12 said:


> On the current personal records page, for your multi-bld history, it doesn't take into account whether a solve is a DNF or not when it highlights it orange (to indicate a PB).
> For example, my first solve (1/2 DNF) is highlighted, then the next several DNFs are not highlighted, then I get a faster 1/2 DNF later and it highlights it orange.


Thanks. There are still a few bugs in the handling of multi DNFs (1/2 DNFs in particular); I know the current weekly ranking doesn't distinguish between 0 points and DNF either. I'll see what I can do about those problems sometime in the next week or so.

Still not sure about multi best of 3. If nothing else, there's the fact that it will really fill up the database with scrambles...


----------



## MatsBergsten (Sep 30, 2018)

Nah to best of 3.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 15, 2018)

Can you maybe add a Kinch score that only takes WCA-events into account? Would really like to know this


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 21, 2018)

Also maybe a overwiev over all Server records would be nice


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 21, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> Can you maybe add a Kinch score that only takes WCA-events into account? Would really like to know this


This is a good idea; I will try to add it.


ichcubegerne said:


> Also maybe a overwiev over all Server records would be nice


I have been planning to add more of the pages like the WCA has for a while; I will try to get to it soon.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 13, 2018)

This week I replaced the skewb scrambler with a direct translation of the current TNoodle scrambler. Hopefully that will prevent the problem we had with the scrambles last week.

I hope to eventually replace all the scramblers with direct TNoodle scrambler translations, but for now, at least the skewb scrambles should be valid.


----------



## Julio974 (Nov 13, 2018)

Would it be possible to allow people to indicate their nation? It would allow to have SNR and SCR.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 13, 2018)

Julio974 said:


> Would it be possible to allow people to indicate their nation? It would allow to have SNR and SCR.


That's a good idea, and I've thought of it before. But I'm not sure how to handle the people with no nation. I suppose I could just leave them out of that column, but I'm not sure if it's the best option.

I've also often wondered about allowing people to optionally enter their WCA ID; if they did, I could lift the nation from that, and auto-populate it. I would still want a nation field if I did that, though, since some people might have never competed.

Any other opinions about either of these ideas? WCA ID good or bad? Optional nation field good or bad?


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 14, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> That's a good idea, and I've thought of it before. But I'm not sure how to handle the people with no nation. I suppose I could just leave them out of that column, but I'm not sure if it's the best option.
> 
> I've also often wondered about allowing people to optionally enter their WCA ID; if they did, I could lift the nation from that, and auto-populate it. I would still want a nation field if I did that, though, since some people might have never competed.
> 
> Any other opinions about either of these ideas? WCA ID good or bad? Optional nation field good or bad?


WCA ID could be interesting (to compare the times on the site against official results).

I don't think it's necessary to include a nation field though; there aren't so many competitors that segregating them by nation (or even continent) makes sense, not to mention that the site's populace is obviously biased towards Anglophone territories (US, UK).


----------



## ichcubegerne (Nov 14, 2018)

I agree with xyzzy. Especially because I guess it would be easy to write short algorithm that compares the uploaded results of the weekly comp with the WCA results and gives the competitor a note if the relative difference is too big or something along these lines. Could also be used to give a notification for the mods to see fishy results.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 14, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> I agree with xyzzy. Especially because I guess it would be easy to write short algorithm that compares the uploaded results of the weekly comp with the WCA results and gives the competitor a note if the relative difference is too big or something along these lines. Could also be used to give a notification for the mods to see fishy results.



I don’t think I’m the only one for whom official results are not necessarily representative. I have an official feet single of I think 3:02, but in actuality and forum comps I’ve been running closer to 1:40 (although I haven’t practiced feet much since summer). Forum competitions are a much better gauge of my skill than the 2 comps I’ve been to.

Edit to note: I do think it would be fun to be able to compare easily. I also like the idea of listing a country for people who don’t have a WCA ID.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 14, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> I don’t think I’m the only one for whom official results are not necessarily representative. I have an official feet single of I think 3:02, but in actuality and forum comps I’ve been running closer to 1:40 (although I haven’t practiced feet much since summer). Forum competitions are a much better gauge of my skill than the 2 comps I’ve been to.
> 
> Edit to note: I do think it would be fun to be able to compare easily. I also like the idea of listing a country for people who don’t have a WCA ID.


Oh, certainly. I don't mean to say that site results which are "too much better" than official results should automatically get rejected. My big cube results on the weekly comps are way better than what my official results would indicate.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Nov 14, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> I don’t think I’m the only one for whom official results are not necessarily representative. I have an official feet single of I think 3:02, but in actuality and forum comps I’ve been running closer to 1:40 (although I haven’t practiced feet much since summer). Forum competitions are a much better gauge of my skill than the 2 comps I’ve been to.
> 
> Edit to note: I do think it would be fun to be able to compare easily. I also like the idea of listing a country for people who don’t have a WCA ID.


I dont want to reject results automatically. But I think that a programm that just overlooks and shows big differences may give the mods some help on finding cheaters.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 14, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> I dont want to reject results automatically. But I think that a programm that just overlooks and shows big differences may give the mods some help on finding cheaters.


I’m not a mod, so I’m just spitballing here, but if I had to guess I’d say that a program like this would just make more unnecessary work for the mods. If somebody claims a 2- second 3x3 average that’s just obvious, and you might get somebody who’s done 30 seconds at a comp claiming they got an 8-second average, but most of the cheats I’ve seen are doing things more like the 2-second average. If it’s a jump from 30 to 10 or something like that I’d rather give somebody the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe they got 30 seconds with LBL on a Rubik’s brand. Maybe they’re actually really talented, and got a good cube, practiced, learned full OLL and PLL, and actually improved that much. It’s a long shot, but possible, and tbh the harder you make it to cheat the more entertaining it sounds to try.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Nov 14, 2018)

I think that although it would be nice to be able to click on someone on the weekly comp website and compare there official results with there weekly results, I am not positive that it will work as good as some of you are hoping/thinking it will, because (And based off of experience) I know that there are cubers who preform better/much better at home or an environment that they are used to vs a competition, and therefore leading to a decent time difference in time, and from there leading certain individuals to assume that someone is cheating, without knowing if they are right or not, and from there it causes more unnecessary work and time for the mods and accused members, with no real reason, as well as hurting people and/or making some-many people leery of competing or just leaving the forums altogether to avoid the chance that something wrong in going to happen to them as well. And that is hard for me see to happen and it is one of the reasons that I am less for adding the wca id's then for

Of course there are times that you can tell are faked and therefore removed by the mods, and those members are talked to at that time, but I feel like by adding the ability to compare wca times is going to cause more work for the mods then it is worth. With that all being said, it is nice at times to compare times from others, and if it is added I hope that it does not add any stress or unnecessary work for others that would otherwise be better to not have added the changes in the first place. 
I hope this makes some sense to you all.


----------



## SpartanSailor (Nov 15, 2018)

I’m not sure the mods should use their time fleshing our cheaters either. I, too, have far better times here weekly than I have in official comps—for any number of reasons, not the least of which is I choose precisely when I compete here based upon a good streak or run when things are clicking. 

The cheater discussion seems to return somewhat frequently and I’m just not sure why... perhaps finishing in the bottom quartile every week makes me unconcerned?? Idk...

But to the nations thing... why stop there, why not add gender and age groups?


----------



## ichcubegerne (Nov 29, 2018)

How about a extra records page for the all time records?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 29, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> How about a extra records page for the all time records?


This is already on my list of things to do, but I think it will probably not happen until some time next year.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Nov 29, 2018)

Also I'd like to remind you of the idea for a kinch ranking. It seems pretty cool for allrounders


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 29, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> Also I'd like to remind you of the idea for a kinch ranking. It seems pretty cool for allrounders


Also on my list.


----------



## Julio974 (Nov 29, 2018)

Have an History of Records page been suggested?
Also, maybe marking sub-WR Single or less than 50% of the person’s PB Single as suspicious and sending it to moderators could be useful (then they look and approve/delete it)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 29, 2018)

Julio974 said:


> Have an History of Records page been suggested?


Actually, to be specific, my goal is to eventually match all of the statistics shown on the WCA pages, so yes this is also on my list.


----------



## Julio974 (Nov 30, 2018)

Also please add a database export, like the WCA!


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 8, 2018)

I reccommend that you maybe put the vote for the addition of Redi and Master Pyra on the weekly comp main page, so that more people see that this even is a thing. I mean like a small headline over the entry so everyone that participates sees it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 8, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> I reccommend that you maybe put the vote for the addition of Redi and Master Pyra on the weekly comp main page, so that more people see that this even is a thing. I mean like a small headline over the entry so everyone that participates sees it.


I'm not sure this is what you were requesting, but I just now added an announcement with links to the poll posts at the top of the Weekly View and Manual Entry pages. Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 8, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> I'm not sure this is what you were requesting, but I just now added an announcement with links to the poll posts at the top of the Weekly View and Manual Entry pages. Thanks for the suggestion.


Thats exactly what I meant


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 10, 2018)

This should probably be scored differently


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 21, 2018)

ichcubegerne said:


> This should probably be scored differently


This is a known bug that I really hope to fix soon, but I have been overwhelmed with other things so I have not gotten to it yet. If you notice, it gets straightened out after the week is complete (check week 49 and you'll see it's better now), so I've considered it rather low priority.

I have added Kinch Scores (WCA events only) to the weekly results page. I have not had time to check the numbers to make sure the calculations are correct, so if they are not, please bear with me - I'll try to verify them when I get the chance. Please note that, at the moment, it is based on our internal site's site records, not on current WCA world records. So scores here may be quite different from what you'd expect for real WCA results.

I've thought about making this work based on WCA world records, but there are two issues:
1. I would have to periodically import WCA world records to calculate against. I can do that, but it will take time, so it will have to wait until I have finished my end-of-year site changes, so several weeks at least.
2. I'm not sure whether I should take our own records into account for Kinch calculations if I do this, or just work against the WCA world records. If I just work against the WCA world records, it would be theoretically possible for someone to get a Kinch score over 100 (since they would be able to be better than the current world record). I'm not sure if that's a desirable thing or not. Any opinions on this would be welcome.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 21, 2018)

Switch to SiGN or WCA notation for the 6×6 and 7×7 scrambles? The weekly comps have been using the (very) old WCA notation ("3U" to mean 3Uw), which conflicts with SiGN's slice move notation.

(Best would be having an option to switch between (current) WCA and SiGN when logged in on the competition site… but maybe that's asking for too much. I prefer SiGN because it needs less eye travel to read, but it's less of an "everyone should know this" standard than WCA notation.)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 21, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> Switch to SiGN or WCA notation for the 6×6 and 7×7 scrambles? The weekly comps have been using the (very) old WCA notation ("3U" to mean 3Uw), which conflicts with SiGN's slice move notation.
> 
> (Best would be having an option to switch between (current) WCA and SiGN when logged in on the competition site… but maybe that's asking for too much. I prefer SiGN because it needs less eye travel to read, but it's less of an "everyone should know this" standard than WCA notation.)


As I stated earlier, I would like to change over to 100% TNoodle-translated scramblers for everything when I have the chance (I've only done skewb so far). So that will mean switching to WCA notation. I suppose I can look at the possibility of allowing SiGN as an option, but I would consider that much lower priority. And there are certainly a number of other things that are higher priority for me right now. But I definitely want the TNoodle-translated scramblers sometime early next year.

The last time I went to a WCA competition with 6x6x6 and got to do some scrambling, I spent the first 30 seconds or so staring at the scramble trying to remember how to execute it, because I was so used to our scrambles here. LOL. This is definitely something I'd like to fix.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 25, 2018)

Don't really know where to put this, but I think that's a good thread for it:

Thanx to Mike and Mats for giving us a great competition each week!!

Merry christmas - and to all others, who run this forum and the WCA or take part of it!

Ah, and I have a suggestion for a new event: "Counting the cube" - and Santa makes the start right here:


Spoiler: Santa counts a cube


----------



## asacuber (Dec 25, 2018)

somethings up with fmc my solution is right but its showing it as a dnf.
also when i go to the fmc page my there are 3 scrams.
wat


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 25, 2018)

Oops - growing pains trying to get ready for next week. I'll try to get this fixed right away, and I'll try to repair the DNFed results.

Edit: I think it's fixed now. Let me know if you see more problems. Sorry for the inconvenience!


----------



## asacuber (Dec 26, 2018)

my results have still not changed lol
around an hour ago it was 40 and got changed back to dnf again :/ (solution works, i can assure you)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 26, 2018)

asacuber said:


> my results have still not changed lol
> around an hour ago it was 40 and got changed back to dnf again :/ (solution works, i can assure you)


I'm truly sorry - I thought I had it fixed but I still had another bug. Please check now; it seems to me like it's all correct now. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.


----------



## Petri Krzywacki (Dec 28, 2018)

Hi, for some reason I haven't been succesful in my attempts to log in to the site - is the competition for week 52 only on there? In that case, I'd need to solve my login problem..


----------



## MatsBergsten (Dec 28, 2018)

Petri Krzywacki said:


> Hi, for some reason I haven't been succesful in my attempts to log in to the site - is the competition for week 52 only on there? In that case, I'd need to solve my login problem..


I mess you.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 1, 2019)

Okay, this week we have some major changes to the Weekly Competition.

First, Fewest Moves has been changed to Mean of 3 format. This was a HUGE change affecting large parts of the code, because the code was originally designed with the assumption that formats would never change. I have done all I can to try to make the interface work okay with the new format. The timer is still a little strange with fewest moves if you do weird things with it. Please bear with me as I try to clean it up. If you have any problems with the behavior on fewest moves, or in general, please PM me and I will be happy to try to straighten it out for you. Please consider keeping your on-paper solutions this week for a little while, just to make sure your solutions are properly saved. I will be making daily backups, so if you see that your solution and explanation shows up okay in the results pages, you can probably rest assured it will be saved.

Note that we now require an explanation for each of the three solutions. There is also an overall comment box, which is not required, so you can use that to talk about how you did overall with the mean of 3. Note that this is intended to follow WCA rules - anyone who gets a DNF for the mean of 3 is still ranked according to best single, so it is still useful to do your best on individual solves.

Second, we have added Redi Cube and Master Pyraminx as two new events. Redi Cube uses the Rubiks'kewb scrambling notation, which might not be the most popular notation now, but xyzzy kindly offered his scrambler, and that's what it generates. If anyone knows of a random state scrambler for Redi Cube that uses the other notation, and there is general consensus that it's better (which I'm not currently convinced of), please feel free to let me know. Master Pyraminx uses a notation suggested by one of our members here - "w" is appended to wide moves (moving 3 of the 4 layers), and lowercase means tips.

As I said, please PM me if you see any issues that need addressing, and good luck!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 1, 2019)

One note: The second scramble for 2019-01 for Master Pyraminx has a sequence "L' Lw' L", which is redundant. I will try to have the scrambler fixed to prevent that by next week, but for this week, I think it's safe to say the scramble is still a perfectly reasonable scramble for competition, so I will not be replacing the scrambles this week.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 2, 2019)

How exactly do redi scrambles work? I couldnt find a source for this scrambler and I dont wanna misscramble a fast event.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 2, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> How exactly do redi scrambles work? I couldnt find a source for this scrambler and I dont wanna misscramble a fast event.


The best description I could find for the notation is for skewb, not redi, but it should be obvious how it works for redi (just twist the same corners). It's also in Japanese, but the videos are pretty self-explanatory, so I don't think the language matters much:
http://rubikskewb.web.fc2.com/skewb/notation.html


----------



## cubezrawesome (Jan 2, 2019)

cool!!


----------



## asacuber (Jan 3, 2019)

im very sure Kered is a cheater and cuber rahul as well


----------



## Julio974 (Jan 3, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Master Pyraminx uses a notation suggested by one of our members here - "w" is appended to wide moves (moving 3 of the 4 layers), and lowercase means tips.


I wonder who that member is...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 3, 2019)

Julio974 said:


> I wonder who that member is...


Sorry for not giving credit - I couldn't remember who it was and it wasn't on this thread so it wasn't easy to remember where it was.

But yes, it was Julio974 who suggested it - thank you for the suggestion - it works nicely!


----------



## Julio974 (Jan 3, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Sorry for not giving credit


That's not a problem.
Thank you for taking that idea!


----------



## Julio974 (Jan 3, 2019)

By the way, where did you find the cubing-icons font that includes redi cube and master pyraminx?


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jan 3, 2019)

Julio974 said:


> By the way, where did you find the cubing-icons font that includes redi cube and master pyraminx?


I'm pretty sure Mike has done those himself.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 3, 2019)

MatsBergsten said:


> I'm pretty sure Mike has done those himself.


no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way no way


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 3, 2019)

MatsBergsten said:


> I'm pretty sure Mike has done those himself.


Yes, fortunately I had time to do them before the turn of the year - barely! (I was finishing them up that morning.)

I will be submitting a pull request to the WCA repository with them later this week. All our other unofficial event icons are already in their repository. So if you would like to use them, generally the place to get them is the WCA repository:
https://github.com/cubing/icons

Note that master pyraminx and redi cube are not there yet; I have to submit a pull request, and then hope that they approve it.


----------



## Jacck (Jan 5, 2019)

In my personal records it says that I made place 1 in 4bld. Obviously the mean is counted. Henry David's personal records show place 2, this would be his Mo3-rank (off-topic: I' m less than 5s in addition faster than him ). Our "normal" ranks in the weekly-results-list are 5 and 6.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 5, 2019)

Jacck said:


> In my personal records it says that I made place 1 in 4bld. Obviously the mean is counted. Henry David's personal records show place 2, this would be his Mo3-rank (off-topic: I' m less than 5s in addition faster than him ). Our "normal" ranks in the weekly-results-list are 5 and 6.


Thanks for pointing it out. I hope I have fixed it.
This is just another example of how expanding fewest moves to mean of 3 affected almost EVERYTHING in the software! Lesson: never build in assumptions if you can help it.

Please let me know if you see any other problems.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 22, 2019)

I know that Eric Lentzon (https://www.speedsolving.com/competitions/showPersonalRecords.php?showRecords=1555) has already been mentioned a few times, because of his suspicious results. 

I wanted to suggest to maybe give him a possibility to verify his ability to be able to get such results, and if he fails to delete them (like you do with the current case). I think that with him this is especially important, since he affects the server kinch with his SRs^^


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 22, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> I know that Eric Lentzon (https://www.speedsolving.com/competitions/showPersonalRecords.php?showRecords=1555) has already been mentioned a few times, because of his suspicious results.
> 
> I wanted to suggest to maybe give him a possibility to verify his ability to be able to get such results, and if he fails to delete them (like you do with the current case). I think that with him this is especially important, since he affects the server kinch with his SRs^^


There are a few cases like that in the database, including the one mentioned above, jonathan fast (who at least doesn't affect kinch because it's just a crazy single).

I am considering doing something similar to what you suggest. I'm thinking of creating a "quarantine" table. Then I can put suspicious results (by my decision) into the quarantine table, and place a message on the user's account that indicates that user's results have been quarantined, and that the user must contact me to have them reinstated. It seems like that might be the best approach, since the results would never be destroyed, but would be completely removed from the statistics until they have been verified. (Although I might continue to simply delete results that are completely non-serious and ridiculous, like 1 second 7BLD results, for instance.)

As this competition is becoming more popular, we're having more and more problems with suspicious results, and there are significant numbers of participants who don't have matching user accounts here and don't respond to their emails, so it seems like we may have to move to something like this. Does anyone object to my making a change like this?


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 23, 2019)

I guess you can also just do an autodelete function for a specific set of results, like sub 10 seconds in all events where the WR is 15/20seconds+, which would take a lot of work from you


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 23, 2019)

Thanks, but no, I intend to continue to handle them manually (as in, only triggered when I choose to do it). But I do hope to have it automated such that I can do it really easily - that should be good enough. And I will soon be implementing a records page, like the WCA has, which will make it easy to spot new people at the top such as those - I'll probably check that page several times a day once it's there, which will make it easy to spot them.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 26, 2019)

The current SR in MTS is fake, since the guy is about as fast in 3x3, which is impossible^^


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 26, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> The current SR in MTS is fake, since the guy is about as fast in 3x3, which is impossible^^


I have already been investigating several of the MTS results this week, and will likely DNF them soon if I don't hear back from the people I have messaged.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 26, 2019)

Also how about implementing the Ranking of the scoring points for certain times? Eg a year, month, lifetime


----------



## Jacck (Jan 26, 2019)

I saw ichcubegerne's impressive mean in FMC this week and wondered, which place he would be all-time and checked his "current personal records": only 666th? Even NicoFoot is only 657th and there are only 42 listed at all


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 27, 2019)

Jacck said:


> I saw ichcubegerne's impressive mean in FMC this week and wondered, which place he would be all-time and checked his "current personal records": only 666th? Even NicoFoot is only 657th and there are only 42 listed at all


Wow, I had some old, frighteningly inefficient code doing that calculation, from before I was precalculating averages. I'm hoping I've fixed that now, and the code is also much more efficient.  Please let me know if you see any more problems.

There is still so much code that should really be cleaned up - it's a never-ending job.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 29, 2019)

Two minor issues:

Kinch score calculations for FMC is still broken: my 27 average two weeks ago should get me a score of 83.95, but it's still calculating the Kinch score based on singles.

The results posted on the individual competition threads are printed in blue, which is almost unreadable when using the dark theme. Maybe you (or pjk) could tweak the stylesheets so that the results use a lighter shade of blue on the dark theme?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 29, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Kinch score calculations for FMC is still broken: my 27 average two weeks ago should get me a score of 83.95, but it's still calculating the Kinch score based on singles.


https://i.imgur.com/jEHbLYJ.png
Ew, this one is ugly to fix. The problem with having different formats in different years. I'll try to fix this eventually, but it may be a while - sorry!



> The results posted on the individual competition threads are printed in blue, which is almost unreadable when using the dark theme. Maybe you (or pjk) could tweak the stylesheets so that the results use a lighter shade of blue on the dark theme?


I'll talk to pjk about it. If not, maybe I can just pick a different color.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 29, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Kinch score calculations for FMC is still broken: my 27 average two weeks ago should get me a score of 83.95, but it's still calculating the Kinch score based on singles.


Okay, so I've been looking at this, and it's kind of complicated - I'm not sure what the right way to fix this is. Any suggestions?

For "official" Kinch ranks, it looks like they use a calculation of mean of 3 vs. WR mean of 3 if the competitor being ranked has a mean of 3, but they use a calculation of single vs. WR single if the competitor being ranked doesn't have a mean of 3. That's straightforward enough to implement for overall Kinch ranks, if there's agreement that this is how it really should be done. But what should I do for an individual Kinch score? For recent weeks (where mean of 3 is possible), if someone doesn't get a successful mean of 3, should I calculate their Kinch score against their best single? Or should they just get 0 points for it because they didn't finish the mean? My inclination is to use the best single, but I could see arguments for giving a 0 to anyone who doesn't complete a mean of 3. Not sure what to do.

Edit: Oops - I just found this in old text from one of Daniel's earlier posts:


> Averages or Singles for 3bld and FM (whichever is best for you)


So apparently, even for Kinch ranks, I need to calculate both in each case, and use the best one. That seems a little weird and arbitrary to me (to single out just those two events), to be honest, but should I honor that? And should I do the same for Kinch scores for each week?


----------



## Keroma12 (Jan 29, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Edit: Oops - I just found this in old text from one of Daniel's earlier posts:
> 
> So apparently, even for Kinch ranks, I need to calculate both in each case, and use the best one. That seems a little weird and arbitrary to me (to single out just those two events), to be honest, but should I honor that? And should I do the same for Kinch scores for each week?



If I recall correctly, the reason for 3BLD is that competition formats are bo3, not mo3, and the reason for FMC was that many people simply didn't have the opportunity to go to a competition with a mean. I think the intention was to eventually change FMC to mean only.

Based on this I would say that here FMC should be mean only and BLD should be mean or single.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 29, 2019)

Keroma12 said:


> Based on this I would say that here FMC should be mean only and BLD should be mean or single.


Based on this, I completely agree that the Kinch score for the week for FMC should be mean only. But I'm not sure about BLD - should we not treat 3BLD the same as 2BLD, 4BLD, and 5BLD? (I guess the way you worded it, perhaps you were saying we should.) In other words, say that for all 4 of those events, we use either the mean or the best single - whichever one gives the best result.

And that still leaves answering the question for overall Kinch score/ranks for FMC. Does it make sense there to use single or mean, whichever gives the best result (just as Kinch does), since all the old competitions didn't have a mean? I'm thinking the answer to that is yes.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 30, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> The results posted on the individual competition threads are printed in blue, which is almost unreadable when using the dark theme. Maybe you (or pjk) could tweak the stylesheets so that the results use a lighter shade of blue on the dark theme?


It appears pjk has fixed this issue - let me know if you still find it a problem. Thanks, pjk!


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 30, 2019)

Since you dont have the problem of so few comps with a FMC mean in the weekly comp, I think making kinch based on the mean is the best and most fair solution. For BLD I think that in general you should only value single for kinch, since it is the kind of result that gets valued by the wca. I think that kinch should value events according to the wca value and not something else.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 30, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> Since you dont have the problem of so few comps with a FMC mean in the weekly comp, I think making kinch based on the mean is the best and most fair solution. For BLD I think that in general you should only value single for kinch, since it is the kind of result that gets valued by the wca. I think that kinch should value events according to the wca value and not something else.


I like this idea overall. But as for overall Kinch scores (historically), I think I favor giving the best of single prior to 2019 or mean starting in 2019, so if you have a better Kinch score as calculated before we started doing averages, that counts, but if you have a better Kinch score as calculated with averages in 2019, that counts. Does that seem reasonable?


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 30, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> It appears pjk has fixed this issue - let me know if you still find it a problem. Thanks, pjk!


I'm guessing the fix should show up in 2019-05's threads and onwards? Still looks like this on 2019-04's thread.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 30, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> I'm guessing the fix should show up in 2019-05's threads and onwards? Still looks like this on 2019-04's thread.


Which theme are you using? Are you using "Dark Theme (cream text)"? I'm pretty sure the one pjk fixed was Speed Solving Dark; Speed Solving Dark looks like this for me.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 30, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> I like this idea overall. But as for overall Kinch scores (historically), I think I favor giving the best of single prior to 2019 or mean starting in 2019, so if you have a better Kinch score as calculated before we started doing averages, that counts, but if you have a better Kinch score as calculated with averages in 2019, that counts. Does that seem reasonable?


You could also just value the mean, and only single, if the person has no mean^^


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 30, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> You could also just value the mean, and only single, if the person has no mean^^


Yes, that would be another reasonable alternative. It does feel like a cleaner solution.

Edit: it turns out that this also makes this much easier for me to implement. If there are no objections, I'm planning to do it this way.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 30, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Which theme are you using? Are you using "Dark Theme (cream text)"? I'm pretty sure the one pjk fixed was Speed Solving Dark; Speed Solving Dark looks like this for me.


Oh, I needed to force-reload the page to get it to use the updated stylesheet. Looks fixed to me now.

(… although the fix is pretty funny; using a selector on style="color: Blue" to make it white.)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 30, 2019)

Okay, I think I have now implemented the new approach to Kinch scores; please let me know when you see problems, and I'll try to fix them.

(Note I said "when", not "if"; I have no doubt that was a correct word choice.) :-o

One other interesting change I implemented - I changed it so that the Kinch scores for the weekly results are based on the site records up to that week, instead of the overall historical site records. So some people's weekly Kinch scores went way up for competitions that were many years ago.


----------



## Keroma12 (Jan 31, 2019)

For multi, it would be nice to still enter the number of cubes you're attempting and have it display those scrambles, even after clicking 'enter times manually' (in the weekly view tab, not the manual entry tab).

Also, for any event, if I am using the timer and I type ctrl-tab or anything like that to switch tabs/windows, it starts the timer. It's mildly annoying, but not important.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 1, 2019)

Keroma12 said:


> For multi, it would be nice to still enter the number of cubes you're attempting and have it display those scrambles, even after clicking 'enter times manually' (in the weekly view tab, not the manual entry tab).
> 
> Also, for any event, if I am using the timer and I type ctrl-tab or anything like that to switch tabs/windows, it starts the timer. It's mildly annoying, but not important.


I have attempted to fix both of these now. Multi still has a number of problems, but I think I have that much working. Please let me know if you see any problems with them.


----------



## asacuber (Feb 6, 2019)

Can't see results


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 6, 2019)

asacuber said:


> Can't see results


Where can't you see them? Can you give me details? I seem to be able to see them everywhere, whether logged in or not, both mobile and laptop.

One thing you might try - hit refresh - I did modify the style sheet last night; maybe it didn't load properly for you somehow?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 6, 2019)

Try now; I discovered I was doing something that Google Chrome didn't like. I think I have that fixed now.

When I tried it in Google Chrome, it worked, but had a huge empty blue field that filled the page and you had to scroll down to see the results. That's what I fixed - it doesn't do that anymore.


----------



## GenTheThief (Feb 7, 2019)

Whenever I check the 'disable timer delay' box, the setting resets after I log out.
This is pretty annoying, since I'll get a few moves into the solve before I realize that the timer hasn't started yet.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 7, 2019)

I would like to see the events that are not part of the weekly comp anymore to be separated from the rest on the PB sheets. This makes it a bit easier to see what events are important there.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 7, 2019)

GenTheThief said:


> Whenever I check the 'disable timer delay' box, the setting resets after I log out.
> This is pretty annoying, since I'll get a few moves into the solve before I realize that the timer hasn't started yet.


I dont have this problem. I checked that box years ago and it never unchecked automatically^^


----------



## Keroma12 (Feb 7, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> I have attempted to fix both of these now. Multi still has a number of problems, but I think I have that much working. Please let me know if you see any problems with them.



Sorry to report that I don't think anything has changed that I can see. For multi, in the weekly view tab, the only way I can compete without using the timer is by being in 'use the timer mode', typing in the number of cubes I want to scramble, seeing and applying the scrambles, and then clicking 'restart without timer' (or whatever it says exactly). While applying the scrambles, if I ever switch tabs (with Ctrl+Tab or Ctrl+1 for example), it will act as if a key (the spacebar) has been pushed but not let go. In particular, the scrambles disappear, and next time I hit _any_ key in that tab the timer starts.

(The same thing happens in other events: I'm in weekly view, click on an event, and then do Ctrl-Shift-Tab to go to my cstimer tab, but this causes the site to think the spacebar has been pushed but not let go. Not a huge deal because when I get back to this tab I just click 'enter times manually' and it goes to manual mode, ignoring the started timer.)

If this isn't clear then I can try figuring out how to record my screen.
It's probably not a priority compared to some of the other stuff you're working on. Thanks for all the work you put into the site!

Although I do notice now that if I go to edit my multi result after having submitted it, I can see the scrambles that I used, which is very useful, thanks! (Could be useful to have this for all events, particularly blind ones to help figuring out DNF causes.)

Edit: These two issues have been fixed.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 21, 2019)

I have just implemented a new feature that I realize will be used by very few people (despite it taking a great deal of work). But those few people might provide some new capabilities that we wouldn't otherwise have, and besides, I wanted the capability myself, so I went ahead and did it anyway.

I am now supporting database exports, similar to those provided by the WCA. I am actually supporting 4 different formats, instead of the WCA's two:
1. An SQL export that basically mirrors our internal database structure, leaving out the private data such as passwords. Note I am also hiding first and last names, since there is an option to hide them, and I don't want old database exports to expose names that people might have since decided to hide. This export contains comments and FMC solutions, so it has more data per solve on average than does the WCA database.
2. A TSV version of the above export.
3. An SQL export where our data has been converted to tables to more or less match those of the WCA. It is my hope that this export will allow people with software written to work on WCA exports to be able to use our data with their software, basically unchanged. One thing I'm hoping is that this might allow Kinch ranks to be calculated for us, much as they are done elsewhere on the web for the WCA data. I basically tried to map or default any fields that we don't have an equivalent of so as to match the database table structure as closely as possible.
4. A TSV version of export 3.

Since this feature will likely have very few users, I would appreciate any feedback any user might be willing to give me. I have done some basic testing of the exports, but I would not be surprised if I have made some mistakes. Please contact me if you see anything I have done wrong, or anything I can do to improve the output (especially for the WCA format). I will be happy to work with you to help make your application of the database export work as much as possible.

The exports can be accessed here:
https://www.speedsolving.com/competitions/results/export.html

This can also be reached from the menu at the top of the statistics pages.

Again, please let me know of any problems you might see; I will attempt to fix them the best I can.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 26, 2019)

Hey, just wanted to know if a kinch score ranking is coming in close future?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 26, 2019)

Not sure how close, but I do hope to do it before too long. The database export was work done partially to better support adding more complex statistics. I certainly hope to have it done sometimein the next 6 months or so, but there still are a number of other things I need to do first.

That being said, if someone already has software to do kinch rankings for the WCA, theoretically our WCA database export version should be directly usable to generate them with the same code right now. So someone else could independently implement this themselves now for until I get to it!

(I say theoretically because I'm still not sure how well I matched the WCA export. I just realized I probably didn't fix the multiBLD results to match their format, so I probably need to fix that first. But if someone takes on this project, I will be happy to work with them to get my database export in better shape.)


----------



## Shadowjockey (Feb 27, 2019)

Your eventids (at least in ranksaverage) are just numbers, while that makes sense, the WCA uses shorthand names like 222 and 333.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 27, 2019)

Shadowjockey said:


> Your eventids (at least in ranksaverage) are just numbers, while that makes sense, the WCA uses shorthand names like 222 and 333.


Oops - one of those things I figured I'd miss - thank you. I'll try to take care of it in the next database export. Please continue to let me know as you find other things; these should mostly be easy to clean up.


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 27, 2019)

Would it be possible to change the scrambles for 2BLD so that the DBR corner isn't necessarily "solved"? I throw the cube up in the air after scrambling, but it seems like it would be better to throw in an L, D, or B move in the scramble somewhere.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 27, 2019)

One Wheel said:


> Would it be possible to change the scrambles for 2BLD so that the DBR corner isn't necessarily "solved"? I throw the cube up in the air after scrambling, but it seems like it would be better to throw in an L, D, or B move in the scramble somewhere.


Interesting. I never really thought about that being an issue before, but it does make sense. When I do 2BLD, I focus on a different piece, so I never noticed the DBL piece (it's actually DBL, not DBR, that is "solved") is always in the same place.

I intend to move to official WCA scrambles for the official WCA events sometime this year. When I do, I will try to address this issue as well. I will essentially try to treat it the same as the 3BLD scrambles, using L, D, or B moves in place of the wide moves, just like you suggest. Thanks for pointing it out. But it will probably be quite a few months before I get to it.


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 27, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Interesting. I never really thought about that being an issue before, but it does make sense. When I do 2BLD, I focus on a different piece, so I never noticed the DBL piece (it's actually DBL, not DBR, that is "solved") is always in the same place.
> 
> I intend to move to official WCA scrambles for the official WCA events sometime this year. When I do, I will try to address this issue as well. I will essentially try to treat it the same as the 3BLD scrambles, using L, D, or B moves in place of the wide moves, just like you suggest. Thanks for pointing it out. But it will probably be quite a few months before I get to it.



Great! I didn’t figure it would be a high priority, if it’s somewhere on the list of things to do that’s great.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 1, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> I will essentially try to treat it the same as the 3BLD scrambles, using L, D, or B moves in place of the wide moves, just like you suggest. Thanks for pointing it out. But it will probably be quite a few months before I get to it.


Note that you can't just append L/D/B moves to the end of a normal scramble, because that still guarantees that the DBL corner will never end up in URF. To ensure a truly random orientation, you would sometimes need to use stuff like D2 R or L' F2.

Well, I'm sure you'll figure it out when you get to it.


----------



## Jacck (Mar 1, 2019)

Curios: when I look at this weeks results in FMC there is at scramble #1 an oakley pugmire (MaSteR PugGleS) with exact the same 26-solution as Tommy. He isn't listed in the summary and imo it isn't a valid entry anyway, more a problem in the database?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 1, 2019)

Jacck said:


> Curios: when I look at this weeks results in FMC there is at scramble #1 an oakley pugmire (MaSteR PugGleS) with exact the same 26-solution as Tommy. He isn't listed in the summary and imo it isn't a valid entry anyway, more a problem in the database?


I've added new software to help deal with bogus entries, but it's still not complete. This user's results were clearly invalid, so his results were "quarantined". That solution will be removed when I finish the changes. While this problem still shows up, all the numerical results have been (at least temporarily) removed from the tables, so his entry does not affect any of the rankings.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 1, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Note that you can't just append L/D/B moves to the end of a normal scramble, because that still guarantees that the DBL corner will never end up in URF. To ensure a truly random orientation, you would sometimes need to use stuff like D2 R or L' F2.


My intention is to mirror the sort of thing that's done with 3BLD scrambles, based on the code that the WCA uses in TNoodle for those.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Mar 4, 2019)

Switching the view on the records page doesnt do anything (eg clicking mixed or slim)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 4, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> Switching the view on the records page doesnt do anything (eg clicking mixed or slim)


Correct - I haven't implemented it yet. That's why I haven't announced that new feature here yet. 

I just stuck it in partially implemented because that much was pretty easy to do after I put in necessary changes for the database export. I'll need to finish the other things I'm doing so I can have time to get back to implementing all the other options on the records page.

Too much to do - I can't keep up. The biggest problem, and the thing I'm focusing on now, is actually the quarantine system for people entering bogus results, because they've become such a problem lately. If it weren't for that sort of thing, I could get a lot more useful things done.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Mar 4, 2019)

In cubingtime you can connect your profile to your WCA-ID and there is a small icon displayed in the rankings which shows if you did that. It helps people identifying fake results to report and verifying really good results which are reasonable because they are from fast people.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 4, 2019)

Thanks; I have already been considering allowing the WCA_ID to be attached to your profile. It would have the added advantage of allowing merges of my WCA-style database export with the official one, for those willing to expose their WCAIDs.

I do hope to put out a new database export tonight with a bunch of fixes: the eventids fixed for the ranks tables, as well as corrections for DNF/DNS/multibld results. I'm still not sure I will have everything right yet with the WCA database export, but it should be much closer than the previous one.

Edit: the new database export is available now. Please let me know if you see more mistakes in it that should be fixed.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Apr 3, 2019)

It would be cool if events that are not part of the weekly comp anymore are displayed in a seperate field on the PB-sheet^^


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 3, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> It would be cool if events that are not part of the weekly comp anymore are displayed in a seperate field on the PB-sheet^^


Yes, I saw this suggestion the first time. It's a good one; I'll try to get to it someday. I apologize; I haven't had as much time lately for further improvements, and most of my recent improvements have been behind the scenes to help with administration of the competition, but I do hope to get back to them again in a month or so.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Apr 3, 2019)

Sorry, I didn't realize that I already suggested it, I just forget about a lot


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 29, 2019)

Feature request #1: make the session timeout (much) longer. Maybe two hours or more?

I think it's currently half an hour or so, which means that I have to log in again after each FMC attempt. It's not a big deal, but it _is_ a little bit annoying to have to do this all the time.

Feature request #2: after submitting a solution on the manual entry page, it shouldn't redirect to the "main" page, but stay on the manual entry page. (Subjective; I don't know would prefer this over the current behaviour.)

Same thing; I use manual entry for FMC and I have to go to the manual entry page for each attempt, unless I enter all three attempts at once.


----------



## Shadowjockey (Apr 29, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Feature request #1: make the session timeout (much) longer. Maybe two hours or more?
> 
> I think it's currently half an hour or so, which means that I have to log in again after each FMC attempt. It's not a big deal, but it _is_ a little bit annoying to have to do this all the time.
> 
> ...


Never really thought about it but, yes please I need those changes!


----------



## theos (Apr 29, 2019)

Looks like a bug in MBLD ordering - quicker 1/2 DNFs are being ranked higher than a slower 0 points success, e.g. from this week:


Week 2019-17 3x3x3 multiple blindfolded said:


> 13	Caleb Arnette (Caleb Arnette) | 1 | 2/3 |14:38
> 14	Abhijeet Ghodgaonkar (abunickabhi) | DNF | 1/2 | 2:06
> 15	Harry Owen (Alpha cuber) | DNF | 1/2 | 13:16
> 16	Mitchell Hum (MCuber) | DNF | 1/2 | 13:44
> ...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 29, 2019)

theos said:


> Looks like a bug in MBLD ordering - quicker 1/2 DNFs are being ranked higher than a slower 0 points success, e.g. from this week:


Sorry, this is a known bug; I'm short on extra time right now to work on fixes like this. I haven't worried too much about it because I consider it a somewhat low-priority bug - the ordering corrects itself after the week is over - the ordering bug only appears when calculating the current week.


----------



## ichcubegerne (May 7, 2019)

I just noticed that even tho me and Malte have the same AVG in skewb, we seem to have a different kinch value for that event, which seems a bit odd


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (May 7, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> I just noticed that even tho me and Malte have the same AVG in skewb, we seem to have a different kinch value for that event, which seems a bit odd


I think your single also slightly affects your kinch?


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 7, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> I just noticed that even tho me and Malte have the same AVG in skewb, we seem to have a different kinch value for that event, which seems a bit odd


The difference is due to the fact that I currently use the unrounded averages for this calculation. Your average is actually 4.6533..., while Malte's is actually 4.6466... That makes the difference.

I admit that I'm not sure if that is the same way the Kinch is calculated "officially" (admittedly, there's no such thing as an "official" Kinch score, but I don't remember what Daniel set up as his intended way of calculating this). If there is a general consensus that the rounded average is what should be used for calculating Kinch, I can try to change it. But my gut reaction is to think that using the unrounded average is somewhat more "fair", for what that's worth.


----------



## ichcubegerne (May 9, 2019)

Ah yeah, that makes sence. I think its better the way it is with unrounded averages. Not only because I profit in this case


----------



## CarterK (May 10, 2019)

Here's why unrounded averages are bad (and why the WCA doesn't use them):

Taking the average of numbers that only go to the hundreths shouldn't give you thousanths. If you had the thousanths in there originally, and averaged them out, then that might give a different result.

Example:
.96 .96 .97 = .963
.96 .96 .96 = .960

.961 .961 .971 = .964
.967 .967 .967 = .967

So the one with the actually faster average would get a worse result


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 10, 2019)

It doesn't always help. Since we truncate the thousandth digit, your problem can happen even if we don't keep the thousandths digit on an average.

Example:
.96 .96 .96 = .960
.96 .95 .95 = .953

.961 .961 .961 = .961
.969 .959 .959 = .962

The one with the faster average (.961 vs. .962) still gets a worse result (.96 vs. .95).

To me it seems that choosing where we do and don't round is somewhat arbitrary. If there's consensus on the preferred way, I'll happily change it, but I want to be sure there's actually consensus. I guess I'm curious what the pseudo-official Kinch ranks do (wcadb, I guess?).


----------



## CarterK (May 10, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> I guess I'm curious what the pseudo-official Kinch ranks do (wcadb, I guess?).


I just went to wca.cuber.pro and looked at Blake's vs Danny's 3x3 averages (6.753 and 6.747 respectively) and both have an 84.30 kinch for 3x3. I don't think it really matters too much though, as the difference is very marginal, so I don't think people will care too much either way.


----------



## xyzzy (May 10, 2019)

CarterK said:


> Here's why unrounded averages are bad (and why the WCA doesn't use them):
> 
> Taking the average of numbers that only go to the hundreths shouldn't give you thousanths. If you had the thousanths in there originally, and averaged them out, then that might give a different result.


This seems like a better argument for including at least one more decimal place in the averages than the singles, actually. (Why should singles and averages be written to the same precision anyway?)

If I could have my way with things, I'd change the WCA regulations to start recording milliseconds and use four decimal places for averages, I guess. And Kinch ranks aren't _ever_ calculated by hand in the first place; there's no need to "simplify" the calculation process by rounding some of the intermediate values to three or however many decimal places.


----------



## CarterK (May 10, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> This seems like a better argument for including at least one more decimal place in the averages than the singles, actually. (Why should singles and averages be written to the same precision anyway?)
> 
> If I could have my way with things, I'd change the WCA regulations to start recording milliseconds and use four decimal places for averages, I guess. And Kinch ranks aren't _ever_ calculated by hand in the first place; there's no need to "simplify" the calculation process by rounding some of the intermediate values to three or however many decimal places.


Singles and averages should be written to the same precision because of sig figs, which I thought I explained why but clearly I was wrong.

As for milliseconds, the timers aren't completely accurate so having more precision isn't going to help, and plus it would look so much messier. We don't have an event at this point in time where milliseconds are going to matter.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 25, 2019)

The new, shorter master pyraminx scrambles are courtesy of @xyzzy. He provided a new random-state two-phase scrambler, which I have begun to use this week. Much appreciation to xyzzy!


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Jun 25, 2019)

People can see the top 3x3 times in a comp, a year, and even all time. It would be cool if people could see the top overall scores in a certain year or of all time.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 25, 2019)

PingPongCuber said:


> People can see the top 3x3 times in a comp, a year, and even all time. It would be cool if people could see the top overall scores in a certain year or of all time.


This is something I will add to the list to do for the website at some point, although there are a number of other things that are higher priority.

However, in terms of by-year results, this is already available in this thread, starting in 2015. Last year's results are available in this post.


----------



## asacuber (Jun 29, 2019)

a while ago i wasnt using a blindfold for 2bld, is this legit? Like I'd close my eyes and start solving, and if i accidentally made a move before closing my eyes then I would DNF the solve (has happened a few times)


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 29, 2019)

asacuber said:


> a while ago i wasnt using a blindfold for 2bld, is this legit? Like I'd close my eyes and start solving, and if i accidentally made a move before closing my eyes then I would DNF the solve (has happened a few times)


Shhhhhhhhh......


----------



## CarterK (Jun 29, 2019)

asacuber said:


> a while ago i wasnt using a blindfold for 2bld, is this legit? Like I'd close my eyes and start solving, and if i accidentally made a move before closing my eyes then I would DNF the solve (has happened a few times)


Technically that's not legal but noddon is a thing so I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 29, 2019)

asacuber said:


> a while ago i wasnt using a blindfold for 2bld, is this legit? Like I'd close my eyes and start solving, and if i accidentally made a move before closing my eyes then I would DNF the solve (has happened a few times)


Technically you should be using a blindfold, but I realize it is often inconvenient to do so. I'd prefer that people at least make the motion to don the blindfold, even if they don't actually use one - either with their hand or via a pretend nod-don.

I'm afraid that this is the event that has the least trustworthy results in our online competition database; I'm pretty sure that many of the top 10 or even top 100 results were not done properly (although I do believe some of the really good results are legitimate). So I personally believe your results are as valid as or more valid than most of the other good results, so I'm okay with you keeping your results. I'm happy to hear that you have DNFed results where you accidentally made a move before closing your eyes.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jun 30, 2019)

I also do this to be honest, but since I am always pausing for a small amount of time, after closing my eyes from pure 3BLD habits, it makes no difference^^


----------



## asacuber (Jun 30, 2019)

Thanks everyone


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Jul 18, 2019)

It would be nice if you could comment or reply to someone else's solves. This would allow people to ask questions (for the solver and from the solver) and allow people to congratulate others. If people didn't want people commenting on their solve, maybe they could disable comments, like you would on a youtube video. Just a suggestion though, let me know what you all think.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 18, 2019)

I like this idea, and have been thinking about the best way to implement it for quite a while. I really hope to implement it someday. But realistically, with some of the other changes in progress, I suspect it will be next year before I can get to it.

Thank you for the suggestion. The idea of being able to disable comments is a particularly good addition to the idea.


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Jul 18, 2019)

I am also confused about one other thing. Will the winners of the gift card be simply posted on the forums, or will the winners be emailed as well?
I have been wondering about that some time and just thought that it couldn't hurt to ask.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 18, 2019)

PingPongCuber said:


> I am also confused about one other thing. Will the winners of the gift card be simply posted on the forums, or will the winners be emailed as well?
> I have been wondering about that some time and just thought that it couldn't hurt to ask.


I post them on the forum and also send a PM here if possible, or by email if I don't know the competitor's id here.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 30, 2019)

dude, experiment clicking continuously the +2 button on time submit page.
it's really weird, try it


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 31, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> dude, experiment clicking continuously the +2 button on time submit page.
> it's really weird, try it


Yeah, the idea was to allow up to a full +16 (maximum possible), and you can go back to 0 if it was done by mistake.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Aug 6, 2019)

Can you maybe remove the requirement of commenting on BLD DNFs? Iirc it got implemented to avoid people taking free points for BLD DNFs, but I dont think this would keep anyone from doing that. You could also do that in FMC btw. I feel like this is just annoying, especially because I never know what to write there because I dont time splits or look at DNFs to explain what went wrong, because its just a waste of time for me.
Edit: pls


----------



## ichcubegerne (Aug 13, 2019)

How is it possible that some people are shown to have 1 comp, but no solves?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 13, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> How is it possible that some people are shown to have 1 comp, but no solves?


A completed solve means no DNF. People with 1 comp but no solves have competed but have all DNFs.

Unfortunately, due to a bug I still need to fix, if they don't have attempts for 2x2x2, it's not possible to display the DNFs for that person. I do have this on my list of things to fix.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Aug 13, 2019)

May I ask about my previous question also?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 13, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> May I ask about my previous question also?


I admit I was conveniently ignoring it.  The truth is that when I implemented those changes (requiring the comments on the DNFs), the number of problems with people putting in fake DNFs really did decline quite significantly, so I really don't want to make the change. If there is a groundswell with lots of other people making the same request you made, I will consider making the change, but I'd really rather not make this change, as it has proven to be very useful to me to require the comments for DNF results. It was actually a good bit of work to put in the requirement, but it was worth it to me for the improvement in the results that we got. So I hope there will not be a groundswell of people making the request, because I'd really like to keep it the way it is - it makes my life much easier.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Aug 23, 2019)

Could you maybe implement TeamBLD next year? Sounds like cool idea to me 
When you compete, you just have to enter the ID of your partner and he/she has to accept the result for it to be entered. Everone can compete once each week, no matter what role he plays and partners are not fix.
For the rankings you just have to decide, if you want it to be counted like both competitors got the same result or if you want to have an extra team ranking.

Probably it would be useful to allow it to be done over skype or something like that


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 23, 2019)

I will implement the same sort of rules for new events for 2020 exactly as I did it last year. I will start a thread towards the end of November for suggestions, then a thread that allows comment/voting on the suggestions, then finally narrow to one or two events to be voted on, and if sufficient votes are reached, will add the events.

TeamBLD will be particularly rough on me , but I guess in some ways it might be nice because it could be a trial run for how the WCA might track it, in case it were ever implemented there. I could make all the mistakes with how to track it so they can learn from it and do it right.  But we'll see how the voting comes out this year.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 17, 2019)

I would like to know a top 10/20 of solves/comp in the weekly comp. Is that something you can easily extract?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 18, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> I would like to know a top 10/20 of solves/comp in the weekly comp. Is that something you can easily extract?


Not sure if I understand what you're asking for. Do you mean, for a given week, how many solves were successful solves, and a ranking of people by that number?


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Oct 19, 2019)

Would it be possible to use a Microphone / USB adaptor to connect the weekly comp to your stackmat timer like CStimer does? It would be convenient, but not necessary.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 19, 2019)

No, when you look at the competitors tab, u can see names/comps/attempts and I would like to be able to maybe order them after average attempts per comp (or just get a top 20 of that stat)


----------



## Deleted member 52088 (Dec 1, 2019)

Change 6x6 and 7x7 to Mean of 3


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 1, 2019)

BraydenTheCuber said:


> Change 6x6 and 7x7 to Mean of 3


I believe the reason that at official comps 6x6 and 7x7 are Mo3 is to save time, but since everyone is competing on their own time that’s irrelevant here. If anything faster events should be switched to an Ao12 format.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Dec 1, 2019)

One Wheel said:


> I believe the reason that at official comps 6x6 and 7x7 are Mo3 is to save time, but since everyone is competing on their own time that’s irrelevant here. If anything faster events should be switched to an Ao12 format.


oh, I agree 100%. 2x2, skewb and pyra should all be ao12


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 16, 2019)

It would be nice, if we could see Ao12,50,100 Pbs in the weekly comp


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Dec 16, 2019)

Oh
we should have real man BLD
forgot to mention that in the other thread
next year maybe?


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 18, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Oh
> we should have real man BLD
> forgot to mention that in the other thread
> next year maybe?


Why lmao, it will have a stupidly high DNF rate and its just BLD after all


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 23, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> It would be nice, if we could see Ao12,50,100 Pbs in the weekly comp


Would that even be doable in an easy way?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 23, 2019)

ichcubegerne said:


> Would that even be doable in an easy way?


It can certainly be done, but I'm not sure how much calculation will be required, and if it might be prohibitive on calculation time to do. It wouldn't be as hard if it weren't for the fact that the 5 solves per week are stored as 5 separate columns in the same row, so an SQL query to solve this would be quite complicated.

If calculation time is prohibitive, I could probably make it so you can see your own personal PBs by offloading the work onto javascript on your personal machine if you really want to know them. Anyway, it will take some time to think about it, so it will be a while before I add something like this.

I do hope to eventually go through anything in this thread and consider things for adding, but I already have a lot to do in the immediate future between the new events for 2020 and integration with the Forum. Once those things are done, I can start considering these other things.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 23, 2019)

Yeah sure, no problem. I may ask some database coder cubers to extract a stat like this from the database for me


----------



## Jacck (Dec 26, 2019)

Two suggestions for alternative 3bld:


Spoiler: Let it look like fake!










or


Spoiler: layer-by-layer and piece-by-piece











Merry Christmas, Mike! 
And to all others, too!


----------



## irontwig (Dec 26, 2019)

Would it be possible to generate images of the scrambles for FMC, using VisualCube or something else?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 26, 2019)

irontwig said:


> Would it be possible to generate images of the scrambles for FMC, using VisualCube or something else?


This has always been another item on my wish list. I'd like to think we will someday, but I'm afraid there are a bunch of other things ahead of it on the priority list.


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Dec 27, 2019)

it would be cool to add rankings for Kinch and SOR


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 27, 2019)

TipsterTrickster said:


> it would be cool to add rankings for Kinch and SOR


Kinch ranks are on the competition website.


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Dec 27, 2019)

One Wheel said:


> Kinch ranks are on the competition website.


Yes I can see what my kinch is, but there is no overall ranking for it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 27, 2019)

TipsterTrickster said:


> it would be cool to add rankings for Kinch and SOR


Those have already been requested, and I hope to get to them someday.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 31, 2019)

I decided to go ahead and add all 4 of the new suggested events this year. They are now live.

Please go easy on the timer for speed FMC (and probably for FMC as well, since they share much of the same code). The timers seem to work properly if you don't do anything too tricky, but I know there are still bugs in them. I will be trying to eradicate the bugs as fast as I can. I suggest that you keep your paper results (including the times, for speed FMC) until the start of the next week; that way if something goes wrong we can reenter them.

Scoring for speed FMC is moves + minutes, with minutes scored to the hundredths. I have not (yet) implemented a maximum time. I do see some justification for the recent suggestion that I perhaps create an hour time limit, as in regular FMC, just to stop the trolls. So please try not to take more than an hour for a solve; I might decide to retroactively DNF it if you do.

Please, if you see any problems, PM me. I will be attempting to watch messages closely, especially for the next few hours..


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 31, 2019)

Nice one, Mike


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 31, 2019)

Oof, I didnt got a 15 puzzle or a curvy copter yet :/
Means ill miss out some points sadly


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 31, 2019)

You should maybe include the standard orientation for Mirror Blocks, which is flat up, thick forwards


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 2, 2020)

The new icons are now up. Much thanks to ichcubegerne, who provided the icons for 15 puzzle, mirror blocks, and speed FMC, and to Sion, who provided the icon for curvy copter!


----------



## Dream Cubing (Jan 3, 2020)

For the 15 puzzle on the forum comp, can I use any app/software or do I have to use a real puzzle?
Also, for speed FMC, when do I stop the timer? After I write down my solution on paper or typing it in?


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jan 3, 2020)

No, you need to use a real 15 puzzle. Not sure about the speed FMC


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 3, 2020)

Dream Cubing said:


> For the 15 puzzle on the forum comp, can I use any app/software or do I have to use a real puzzle?
> Also, for speed FMC, when do I stop the timer? After I write down my solution on paper or typing it in?


As ImmolatedMarmoset said, we do expect you to use a real 15 puzzle. The weekly competition is intended to be a real puzzle competition, not a simulator competition, and it is likely that possible speeds on 15 puzzle would be much faster on a simulator than on a real puzzle. To be fair, this should definitely be done on a real puzzle only.

As for speed FMC, typing it in is not considered part of the event; we assume this would be participated in exactly as in a real competition for regular FMC, where the time applies to writing down a solution that is clearly indicated as your answer. Stop the timer after your solution is fully written down. That is why the software allows you to type in the results after the timer is stopped. Use the spacebar (or timer pad for mobile) to start and stop the timer for the attempt, and then type in your result in the solution and explanation spaces after having stopped the timer.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 4, 2020)

Dream Cubing said:


> For the 15 puzzle on the forum comp, can I use any app/software or do I have to use a real puzzle?
> Also, for speed FMC, when do I stop the timer? After I write down my solution on paper or typing it in?


Honestly I made myself a paper 15-puzzle until I get my real one


----------



## Claudio Garanzini (Jan 8, 2020)

Hi Mike! Just one little thing: for blind people the site is really good, in my opinion, congratulations for that! One little thing: could you please make the online timer so that it could be activated with the keyboard, like pushing space or something like that? I've tested it but it's somewhat impossible to activate it for us. Could you also ad an audible signal when the timer starts and when it stops? These little changes could make the competition site more accessible also for us. Thanks for your help! Bye for now!

Claudio


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 8, 2020)

Claudio Garanzini said:


> Hi Mike! Just one little thing: for blind people the site is really good, in my opinion, congratulations for that! One little thing: could you please make the online timer so that it could be activated with the keyboard, like pushing space or something like that? I've tested it but it's somewhat impossible to activate it for us. Could you also ad an audible signal when the timer starts and when it stops? These little changes could make the competition site more accessible also for us. Thanks for your help! Bye for now!
> 
> Claudio


What exactly do you mean? The integrated timer is getting activated with any keyboard button


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 8, 2020)

Claudio Garanzini said:


> Hi Mike! Just one little thing: for blind people the site is really good, in my opinion, congratulations for that! One little thing: could you please make the online timer so that it could be activated with the keyboard, like pushing space or something like that? I've tested it but it's somewhat impossible to activate it for us. Could you also ad an audible signal when the timer starts and when it stops? These little changes could make the competition site more accessible also for us. Thanks for your help! Bye for now!
> 
> Claudio


Thanks so much for the suggestions!

Actually, the timer already works with the spacebar, but what is probably keeping it from seeming to work for you is that we have implemented a couple of features that are useful, but not intuitive (and maybe not useful) for blind users, at least one of which is on by default.

The first is a start timer delay. This makes it such that you have to hold the spacebar down for a full second before the timer will start. This is done to duplicate the stack mat timers that we use in competition. The text changes color when it is ready to start, but of course that doesn't help you. There is a menu option called "settings" on the competition's webpage. On that page there is an option for "disable start timer delay". If you select that, the delay will no longer happen. It saves this setting once you make it for your particular device. I suspect disabling this will help you.

Also there is another setting on that Settings page to allow "WCA Inspection". If this is turned on, it will start a 15 second inspection timer, with audible warnings at 8 seconds and 12 seconds, a notification at 15 seconds that you have received a 2 second penalty, and a notification at 17 seconds that you have received a DNF for taking too long in inspection. You then have to use the spacebar again to start the timer before the inspection time expires. You might try it - you might find it useful.

But I completely agree that an audible beep to indicate starting and stopping the timer would be a great idea, at least as an option. I will try to add it for you when I have the chance, but there are some other features that must be included first. I'll let you personally know when I implement it someday. Thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## Claudio Garanzini (Jan 9, 2020)

Hi Mike! Thank you very much for your answer! I'll try to "see" the settings in the page you suggested! I'll let you know how it works in my experience. Thank you again! Bye for now!

Here I am Again: the timer is just great, really! I've been able to post my first five times; I'm not as good as other cubers; I'm just running for my sub 5 minutes objective; I'll try to go down, obviusly with my times but. This is a great result for mee; kthank you again for this page, Mike.
Just a quick question: could I post my results in the page despite the fact I've different objectives like, as said, the under 5 minutes one or? If this is not the case, I'll delete my records so someone else can post better times than mine.
Thanks again.
Bye for now


----------



## One Wheel (Jan 19, 2020)

Not sure if this is the right place to suggest this, but for Curvy Copter scrambles, would it be possible to use brackets or commas for jumbling that ends in cube shape, and maybe some line breaks, so instead of:

UF UR UL UF UR UB UL UF UR UL UF UL UF UR UL RF UF UL UB UR LB UL UF UR LB UB LB UB UL RB UB RB UB UR LF UF UL LB RF UR RB LF UL LF DB LB RB UR UF DF RF DR DF DR UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+ UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- LB RB+ DF+ DR RB- DF- DF LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR- LB UB DF+ LF DF+2 RF+2 DR DB DR+ RF+ LF LB DB LB+2 UB+ LB UB LB+ LF RF- DR 

It would look like:

UF UR UL UF UR UB UL UF UR UL UF UL UF UR UL RF UF UL UB UR LB UL UF UR LB UB LB UB UL RB UB RB UB UR LF UF UL LB RF UR RB LF UL LF DB LB RB UR UF DF RF DR DF DR
[UL- RF- UF UL+ RF+] [UR+ LF+ UF UR- LF-] [UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB-] LB [RB+ DF+ DR RB- DF-] DF [LB+ DR+ DB LB- DR-]
LB UB DF+ LF DF+2 RF+2 DR DB DR+ RF+ LF LB DB LB+2 UB+ LB UB LB+ LF RF- DR 

I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement, but it would make the scrambles easier to follow.


----------



## KingCanyon (Jan 19, 2020)

Claudio Garanzini said:


> Hi Mike! Thank you very much for your answer! I'll try to "see" the settings in the page you suggested! I'll let you know how it works in my experience. Thank you again! Bye for now!
> 
> Here I am Again: the timer is just great, really! I've been able to post my first five times; I'm not as good as other cubers; I'm just running for my sub 5 minutes objective; I'll try to go down, obviusly with my times but. This is a great result for mee; kthank you again for this page, Mike.
> Just a quick question: could I post my results in the page despite the fact I've different objectives like, as said, the under 5 minutes one or? If this is not the case, I'll delete my records so someone else can post better times than mine.
> ...


Anyone can put their results on the page, regardless of speed. You should definitely be good for that.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 19, 2020)

Curvy copter scramble 5 had the following sequence : UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- which is doing nothing^^


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 19, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> Curvy copter scramble 5 had the following sequence : UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- which is doing nothing^^


I have noticed this a couple of times as well, on this and previous scrambles. I will try to contact the scramble generator author about it.

I'm hoping it's just some weird quirk of the way the scrambles are generated and that it doesn't affect its validity as a random state scrambler. But I don't know.

@One Wheel, as for alternative scramble formats, I'd like to try several out, and I can include that one, but that will come later when I have more time. I hope I will get to it, but it may be a few months before I do.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 20, 2020)

I'd personally like to see UL+ RB+ UB UL- RB- be simplified to UBJ+, but the bracket notation would definitely be a step up.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Jan 20, 2020)

Quick question: For 15 Puzzle, can you maybe give us the option to just view the scrambled puzzle (as a string of numbers and a - for the blank spot for example) instead of the scramble? Putting the tiles in the spots on the qiyi is WAYYYY faster then doing all these moves^^


----------



## ProStar (Jan 20, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> Quick question: For 15 Puzzle, can you maybe give us the option to just view the scrambled puzzle (as a string of numbers and a - for the blank spot for example) instead of the scramble? Putting the tiles in the spots on the qiyi is WAYYYY faster then doing all these moves^^



Agree


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 21, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> Quick question: For 15 Puzzle, can you maybe give us the option to just view the scrambled puzzle (as a string of numbers and a - for the blank spot for example) instead of the scramble? Putting the tiles in the spots on the qiyi is WAYYYY faster then doing all these moves^^


This is a good idea, and I would like to implement it, but I probably can't get to it until I do the other alternate scrambles (such as curvy copter) as well. So this will go on the list of things to do. I'll try to put up a number of alternate scrambles for things when the time comes.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 21, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> I'll try to put up a number of alternate scrambles for things when the time comes.


SiGN for big cubes! (I requested this quite a while ago; just a reminder~)


----------



## YouCubing (Jan 21, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> Quick question: For 15 Puzzle, can you maybe give us the option to just view the scrambled puzzle (as a string of numbers and a - for the blank spot for example) instead of the scramble? Putting the tiles in the spots on the qiyi is WAYYYY faster then doing all these moves^^


I have an old metal 15 puzzle, where I can't take out the pieces, and I still think this'd be better. Slowly doing every move is a hassle, and I mess up a lot, it'd be faster just to solve the puzzle into a certain position


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 21, 2020)

YouCubing said:


> I have an old metal 15 puzzle, where I can't take out the pieces, and I still think this'd be better. Slowly doing every move is a hassle, and I mess up a lot, it'd be faster just to solve the puzzle into a certain position


Not to mention that this would be a good way to practice.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 8, 2020)

I regret that, due to malicious behavior that I am currently unable to prevent, I have decided that I need to suspend automatic creation of accounts for the Weekly Competition.

If you already have an account, you may continue to compete as usual.

If you do not yet have a competition account (note that the competition account is separate from the Forum account for now), please PM me if you would like to compete, and I will set up an account for you.

Or, alternatively, simply post your results on the current Weekly Competition thread. I will contact you about setting up an account if you do so.

Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience.


----------



## Jacck (Feb 8, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> Quick question: For 15 Puzzle, can you maybe give us the option to just view the scrambled puzzle (as a string of numbers and a - for the blank spot for example) instead of the scramble? Putting the tiles in the spots on the qiyi is WAYYYY faster then doing all these moves^^


But then you have a very long "inspection time", don't you? Because you always see the scrambled state while getting to it.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 8, 2020)

Jacck said:


> But then you have a very long "inspection time", don't you? Because you always see the scrambled state while getting to it.



Well, you can also inspect while doing the last moves aswell. There are tons of options to cheat urself here and there always will be. But I think if you just get glimpse on the scramble while concentrating on something else, it doesnt really make a big difference. Like, you always get free inspection while doing the last moves or when u put down the cube and press space. You cant completely look away.


----------



## YouCubing (Feb 9, 2020)

Hey, can we get an updated scoring rules explanation? I looked at the old ones, but there are some events not listed on there, and some of the scores look to have changed since then


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 9, 2020)

YouCubing said:


> Hey, can we get an updated scoring rules explanation? I looked at the old ones, but there are some events not listed on there, and some of the scores look to have changed since then


Okay, I updated the first post in that thread with the new event point bases. I don't see anything else that needs altering in that description, so I think it's current now. Thanks for pointing out that it needed updating!


----------



## Jacck (Feb 9, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> Well, you can also inspect while doing the last moves aswell. There are tons of options to cheat urself here and there always will be. But I think if you just get glimpse on the scramble while concentrating on something else, it doesnt really make a big difference. Like, you always get free inspection while doing the last moves or when u put down the cube and press space. You cant completely look away.


Well, a general problem when you have no scrambler (same with cubeshapes of Square-1 or Curvycopter). I try to un-inspect as much as possible, but I just can't look at a puzzle without thinking. Maybe it is easier for you to switch your brain off


----------



## GAN 356 X (Feb 9, 2020)

Jacck said:


> Well, a general problem when you have no scrambler (same with cubeshapes of Square-1 or Curvycopter). I try to un-inspect as much as possible, but I just can't look at a puzzle without thinking. Maybe it is easier for you to switch your brain off


I certainly don't think when I solve... but thinking in inspection is important I think, at least to start off with, then you can recongnise patterns in the edges and corners and turn them into blocks and bars etc


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 8, 2020)

The new integrated version of our Weekly Competition has now been released! We hope you will use the new integrated version to compete in the future.

What does this mean for you?

1. If you have never competed before, simply select the "Competition" menu choice above, and you can immediately begin participating. You will be competing with your current Forum username, and your results will be displayed accordingly. It can be helpful for you to go to the "Competition Profile" menu choice, and set your first and last name, so you can more easily spot your results in the statistics.

View attachment 13361

2. If you have competed before, and you made the wise choice of doing as we asked, using the same username as your Forum username, you can do the same as a new user - simply select the "Competition" menu choice above, and you will be competing using your current username. The results should be added to your competition history as if you were using your old competition account, and everything should work as normal, except that you no longer have to log in separately to your competition account - your login to the Forum also logs you into the integrated competition.

3. If you have competed before and you unfortunately used a different username in the competition than your username in the Forum, then by selecting the "Competition" menu choice above, you will actually create a new competition account to match your Forum username. Please go ahead and do so if you would like to compete now, and then PLEASE contact me (Mike Hughey - please PM me) and provide your old competition username so I can combine the accounts. After receiving your message, as soon as I have the chance, I will combine your old and new accounts, and your history will be unified.

4. If you have competed before and don't currently have a Forum account (which is probably true for some people), you will still be allowed to compete with the old website, but will be unable to use the integrated version of the competition. Please continue to use the old website www.speedsolving.com/competitions, and log in as usual. But it would be appreciated if you would create a Forum account to match your competition username, and begin competing with the integrated version.

Note that no more separate accounts will be created outside the forum for the competition. All new competitors going forward must use a Forum account to compete.

The old website will continue to function (for a while, at least). It would be nice if I could phase it out someday, but I wanted to make sure the move to an integrated version goes smoothly, and does not leave people unable to compete. If we phase it out someday, there will be plenty of warning given and efforts will be made to try to make the change as painless as possible.

Please note that if you have never competed outside the Forum, you will not be able to log in using the old website - you MUST use the integrated version. There is no way to set your password for the old website if you do not already have an account from the past, so you will not be able to log into the old website in that case. I will no longer reset passwords for the old site - I will insist that you instead use the integrated version.

Please let me know via PM if you see any issues that need correcting. If you find functionality that does not work as well with the new integrated site as it worked with the old site, please let me know and I will try to address it. Thank you to everyone who participates in the Weekly Competition!


----------



## BradyLawrence (Sep 8, 2020)

Not sure if this is just me, but the new integrated system is looking a little buggy...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 8, 2020)

BLCuber8 said:


> Not sure if this is just me, but the new integrated system is looking a little buggy...


Thank you for reporting this. It doesn't happen on my system which makes me suspect it's a caching problem, but I will try to fix it. It is associated with the tooltips that are supposed to display on that page. I will fix it as soon as I can.

A lot of code changed with this integration, so there may be some bugs to fix. Please let me know when you find them and I will try to fix them as quickly as I can.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> Thank you for reporting this. It doesn't happen on my system which makes me suspect it's a caching problem, but I will try to fix it. It is associated with the tooltips that are supposed to display on that page. I will fix it as soon as I can.
> 
> A lot of code changed with this integration, so there may be some bugs to fix. Please let me know when you find them and I will try to fix them as quickly as I can.


Umm on records when I pick a year it stays the same


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 8, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> Umm on records when I pick a year it stays the same


This is actually not due to the new changes. The records page has never really worked - all it does for now is just give a complete history of all records. I do hope to fix it someday; I might finally have time to work on it now. Although I will probably make improvements to the scrambles before I get to fixing the records page.


----------



## Gnome (Sep 8, 2020)

It's probably my end rather than yours (probably an addon I'm using) but I'll ask anyway.. any idea why some of the event icons are weirdly aligned?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 8, 2020)

Gnome said:


> It's probably my end rather than yours (probably an addon I'm using) but I'll ask anyway.. any idea why some of the event icons are weirdly aligned?


It should not be doing that. I need to figure out why it is happening. I have tried it on many devices and browsers, and have not been able to duplicate the problem, but I have had others tell me the same thing, so I know it's not just you. I will continue to try to figure out what's going on with it.


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 8, 2020)

Firefox (nightly) on Windows; only the Mini Guildford box is broken for me. But besides that, the colour contrast is janky with the dark theme.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 8, 2020)

xyzzy said:


> Firefox (nightly) on Windows; only the Mini Guildford box is broken for me. But besides that, the colour contrast is janky with the dark theme.


Thank you. Yes, I may have to change the color background of the incomplete event boxes for the sake of the dark theme.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 9, 2020)

There's some of the weird offset stuff going on when I look at my profile, too.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 9, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> There's some of the weird offset stuff going on when I look at my profile, too.


This is a problem several people have seen. It appears to be associated with the browser still holding onto an old style sheet (the texts with tooltips on them are not displaying, causing the other text to be offset); I'm not sure what is causing it. Perhaps clearing your cache and restarting your browser might help; I'm hopeful it will resolve itself after a while. I will continue to try to find an explanation for why this happens on some machines but not others.


----------



## freshcuber.de (Sep 9, 2020)

Is it not possible to open "My results" directly in the menu? Do I have to go to "Persons" and scroll down for my name?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 9, 2020)

freshcuber.de said:


> Is it not possible to open "My results" directly in the menu? Do I have to go to "Persons" and scroll down for my name?


Oops, sorry - added now. I just forgot to add it.


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 10, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> It should not be doing that. I need to figure out why it is happening. I have tried it on many devices and browsers, and have not been able to duplicate the problem, but I have had others tell me the same thing, so I know it's not just you. I will continue to try to figure out what's going on with it.


Oh, I may have figured it out: the boxes have a hard-coded height, so when the event name is two lines long (this depends on font rendering!) the contents don't fit within the border.

(I assume flexbox is the modern way to do the layout "correctly", but I'm not familiar enough with that to be of any help.)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 10, 2020)

Yes, but even a flexbox won't work here because I also need every box to be the same size. I need to guarantee that the text fits inside the box. Apparently the Forum code allows a greater variety of fonts than the old website, and the fonts displayed on some systems now are too big to fit in the box. I'll either have to limit the font options, or shorten the texts I use (by abbreviating, which is ugly), or make the boxes bigger (which is sad, because it would mean fewer boxes would fit across the screen). I'm hoping I can limit the font options. I'll try to figure out something today to fix it.

Edit: I figured out why it wasn't limiting the fonts properly. I think I've fixed it (by limiting the font choices), for these boxes anyway. I've decided not to change it for the rest of the site for now to try to maximize the flexibility of display, but if you see other places that need it, please let me know.


----------



## freshcuber.de (Sep 10, 2020)

Hi Mike, can I bother you please with an extra wish, now that you are already coding?
I would like to see the events name in front of "Results" if it's not much work. Then you can see easily if these are 2x2 or Pyraminx solves, also if the screenshot is cropped for Instagram or things like that. Would that be possible and how do you like that suggestion?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 10, 2020)

freshcuber.de said:


> I would like to see the events name in front of "Results" if it's not much work. Then you can see easily if these are 2x2 or Pyraminx solves, also if the screenshot is cropped for Instagram or things like that. Would that be possible and how do you like that suggestion?


That was easy enough to do and seemed harmless and possibly helpful, so I added it. Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## freshcuber.de (Sep 10, 2020)

How great that you added it instantly. Thank you so much.


----------



## thomas.sch (Sep 17, 2020)

Hello Mike,

I "work" now since some months with the weekly competition webpage and have some suggestions.

Suggestion 1: Layout, separate scrambles in relay events
I think it would be easier to read if 2 scrambles are separated. By a spacer or a line or something like that.

Suggestion 2: Layout, highlight alternate rows of longer scrambles
Sometimes if I am on the end of a line I loose orientation, especally Kilominx and Megaminx or Curvy, because every line has nearly the same lenght. So it would be easier if the alternation would be shown

Example:


Suggestion 3: Layout, Copy'n Paste of Scrambles
I know I can go into "Manual Entry" to copy the scramble but sometimes I am not 100% sure if my scramble was correct. So I just would like to copy it to a webpage to visualize the scramble and to check my cube against it and it is not possible to select the scramble on the competition page.

Suggestion 4: Weekly-Page-View for past weeks.

There is this nice overview of the personal results of a whole week, e.g. yours Mike: Current Week of Mike Hughey
If the current week is over there is no possibility to get this view again.

Would it be possible to have GET-Parameters in addition to showPerson=XXX for the year and the week?

Suggestion 5: The Blind-Events have this excellent feature to get the interim time after memo. The same feature for the relay events would be nice to get the time for each cube. At the moment I stop the relay times sometimes in csTimer but there I have to change the number for each attempt an this is annoying.

I know people are solving the cubes in different orders but I think everybody will know the order right after the attempt!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 17, 2020)

@thomas.sch Thanks so much for your suggestions. I do have a bunch of other features backed up that I'm working on, so I might not be able to get to all of these immediately, but most of these seem doable. If nothing else, I should at least be able to make options that allow for your suggestions.

For your suggestion 4, there actually already is a GET parameter that will do it; I'm sorry there's no easy way to click to or select it, but it is possible by supplying the GET parameters in the URL. So, for instance, this shows your personal results for week 2020-35:
https://www.speedsolving.com/competition/showPerson.php?showPerson=5367&week=35&year=2020

Just add "&week=<weeknumber>&year=<yearnumber> to get any week and year.

Someday I really do hope to have an easy link to those, and a selector on the page to let you switch; I just need to get around to adding it.


----------



## thomas.sch (Sep 17, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> For your suggestion 4, there actually already is a GET parameter that will do it; I'm sorry there's no easy way to click to or select it, but it is possible by supplying the GET parameters in the URL. So, for instance, this shows your personal results for week 2020-35:
> https://www.speedsolving.com/competition/showPerson.php?showPerson=5367&week=35&year=2020
> 
> Just add "&week=<weeknumber>&year=<yearnumber> to get any week and year.
> ...


Works like a charm! Thank you!

I do not need a selector because I want to make a crawler to this page so the call will be done by a program. At the moment I copy/paste the content of this page every week into a softeware I have written that converts my results into TwistyTimer-Format so that I can have all my times in one App on the Android phone.

But with this parameters I will crawl the page and parse the HTML-code.

The result is a time with the comment that the time was made in the weekly, which week and which attempt


----------



## Gnome (Oct 12, 2020)

Just noticed some weird "dots" shown on the profile page (for your own results) that perhaps shouldn't be there? Unless they're for spacing or something and I've just been blind all this time which is highly possible of course

To the left of each icon


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 20, 2020)

Can you modify the weekly view of the SpeedFMC results, so that you can see the points and the moves (moves in brackets behind the points)?


----------



## abunickabhi (Oct 23, 2020)

ichcubegerne said:


> Can you modify the weekly view of the SpeedFMC results, so that you can see the points and the moves (moves in brackets behind the points)?


Also one more modification to the FMC event. Since SpeedFMC is average of 5 event, just for homogeneity, it will be better to have 5 solves for FMC event.

And I also want 4x4 FMC to be reintroduced. It was scraped about a decade ago, and I never got a chance to compete in it.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Oct 23, 2020)

abunickabhi said:


> Also one more modification to the FMC event. Since SpeedFMC is average of 5 event, just for homogeneity, it will be better to have 5 solves for FMC event.
> 
> And I also want 4x4 FMC to be reintroduced. It was scraped about a decade ago, and I never got a chance to compete in it.



I was always against Ao5 for FMC, but when I am honest with myself, it seems like a good idea.

4x4 FMC on the other hand isnt 

Edit: But is it really fair to have a Ao5 compared to a mo3 for the all time rankings?


----------



## Spacey10 (Oct 24, 2020)

Super stupid but when I click on my notifications on the weekly compewebsite, the font color is dark blue (I'm in mobile chrome is that helps)


----------



## BenChristman1 (Oct 24, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> Super stupid but when I click on my notifications on the weekly compewebsite, the font color is dark blue (I'm in mobile chrome is that helps)


I have that on my computer as well.


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Nov 22, 2020)

Will we be voting on adding events this year? I know you are super busy [mention]Mike Hughey [/mention] but it would be exciting to add more events.


----------



## ichcubegerne (Feb 2, 2021)

Small suggestion: Tag the WCA Events, so they can be identified by people as WCA events in the competitors tab and the rankings  That might be useful to know for newbies


----------



## abunickabhi (Feb 2, 2021)

ichcubegerne said:


> Small suggestion: Tag the WCA Events, so they can be identified by people as WCA events in the competitors tab and the rankings  That might be useful to know for newbies


This is a nice suggestion. Even I get a lot of newbies asking me whats the use of 15 puzzle and curvy copter as it is not there in the WCA. I just tell them it is just another twisty puzzle that a small community speedsolve and improve on.


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 4, 2021)

I'm not sure how hard this would be to fix, but there's a minor issue with manually entering times. It's the same in Chrome and Firefox: if I click away from the line for entering times, to enter a comment or DNF, +2, or to edit a time, the spot I need to click to get the cursor in the correct place again is a very narrow line above where the time is actually written.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 4, 2021)

The WCA indicator is not a bad idea; the hard part is figuring out all the best places to put it. It would be easy enough to put it in a corner on the Weekly View and Manual Entry pages and in the Timer page. It's harder to figure out where to put it in the rankings.



One Wheel said:


> I'm not sure how hard this would be to fix, but there's a minor issue with manually entering times. It's the same in Chrome and Firefox: if I click away from the line for entering times, to enter a comment or DNF, +2, or to edit a time, the spot I need to click to get the cursor in the correct place again is a very narrow line above where the time is actually written.


The manual entry in the timer page is pretty clunky. I should really completely revamp it. It was the best I could do at the time to allow it to still mostly work from a phone as well as from a computer, but it's not very good. I'd like to try to make it better; I need to find the time to work on it. But it will probably be at least a few months before I can get to it.


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 4, 2021)

Mike Hughey said:


> The manual entry in the timer page is pretty clunky. I should really completely revamp it. It was the best I could do at the time to allow it to still mostly work from a phone as well as from a computer, but it's not very good. I'd like to try to make it better; I need to find the time to work on it. But it will probably be at least a few months before I can get to it.



It's clunky, but it works. I wasn't sure if you were aware of that particular issue. Don't sweat over it.


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Feb 4, 2021)

I’ve been meaning to thank you for adding FTO Mike! I’ve gotten back into it and I’ve really been enjoying it - I just ordered a fancy one and can’t wait to improve more!


----------



## Gnome (Feb 12, 2021)

@Mike Hughey Think there may be a bug somewhere in thne database / front end because this screen is showing different data for the same session

I'm 51st and 53rd at the same time for this weeks comp? (At the time of posting I am 51st so the top one is wrong)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 12, 2021)

Gnome said:


> @Mike Hughey Think there may be a bug somewhere in thne database / front end because this screen is showing different data for the same session
> 
> I'm 51st and 53rd at the same time for this weeks comp? (At the time of posting I am 51st so the top one is wrong)


I guess I hadn't noticed that the place is being recorded on the top location and that this could happen for the current week. Current week rankings are calculated in a strange way because they're live; they get "properly" calculated when I finalize the results at the end of the week. Theoretically, what you're seeing should straighten itself out once I have finalized the week's results. I might see if I can figure out how to fix what you're seeing, but since hopefully it is only temporary, I don't consider it urgent. Please let me know if you find it is still incorrect next week when the results are finalized.


----------



## Gnome (Feb 12, 2021)

I guessed they might be, and will do.


----------



## Gnome (Feb 16, 2021)

@Mike Hughey Still borked 

I'm 70th in the list but the record highlights as 71st


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 16, 2021)

Wow, okay, I guess it is a bug that goes beyond the current week. I wonder if it's because of the average "tie" at that place? I'll try to figure it out.

Edit: Okay, I have tried to fix it. It turned out there were several bugs in those tooltips. I fixed some of them; it would probably still be nice to see what place you were for a given week for singles when the event is judged by averages, or for averages when the event is judged by singles, but that would require some additional work that I don't think is worth the trouble right now. But I think that the initial problem you pointed out should be fixed. Please let me know if you see any other problems.


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Apr 1, 2021)

Suggestion: For curvy copter scrambles, could you put jumbling moves in parentheses? It makes scrambling so much easier to keep track of and do those moves. I found how nice it was after using the scrambles here: https://extraevents.org/events/curvycopter/training# 

Another curvy copter note, it has been discussed that the best regulations for scrambling might be to jumble it, but not shape shift it due to bandaging and forcing moves, causing lots of issues and complications. Among the other solvers that I have talked to, it seems to be the most popular, but it was not totally comprehensive, so as a newer solver I do not want to speak for everyone. Not necessarily a suggestion for you to do, but possibly a discussion point and a possible change in the future.

Also, this has probably been mentioned, but an image of scrambles at least on some events would be awesome


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 1, 2021)

PingPongCuber said:


> Suggestion: For curvy copter scrambles, could you put jumbling moves in parentheses? It makes scrambling so much easier to keep track of and do those moves. I found how nice it was after using the scrambles here: https://extraevents.org/events/curvycopter/training#
> 
> Another curvy copter note, it has been discussed that the best regulations for scrambling might be to jumble it, but not shape shift it due to bandaging and forcing moves, causing lots of issues and complications. Among the other solvers that I have talked to, it seems to be the most popular, but it was not totally comprehensive, so as a newer solver I do not want to speak for everyone. Not necessarily a suggestion for you to do, but possibly a discussion point and a possible change in the future.
> 
> Also, this has probably been mentioned, but an image of scrambles at least on some events would be awesome


I agree with the jumbling moves set apart in some way, whether that's parentheses, line breaks, or something else. I strongly disagree with the shape shifting part: that's an important part of the solve. 

As far as images: I figure that checking the scramble and then solving it is cheating on inspection. Even if there were images I wouldn't use them.


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 1, 2021)

One Wheel said:


> I strongly disagree with the shape shifting part: that's an important part of the solve.



Honestly, cubeshape gets so heavily bandaged that I find this part of the solve highly trivial. This is especially true if moves are "forced" through pieces that barely block the way. I wouldn't mind the puzzle being just jumbling with no cubeshape, as jumbling to me is truly the most interesting part of this event compared to any other puzzle. Additionally, I think that if this puzzle were to ever be considered as an event, the logistics of dealing with this puzzle in non-cube form are too much for scramble images and running/setting the puzzle that I'd prefer to practice and make normal a version of the event that's actually competition viable.


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Apr 1, 2021)

One Wheel said:


> I agree with the jumbling moves set apart in some way, whether that's parentheses, line breaks, or something else. I strongly disagree with the shape shifting part: that's an important part of the solve.
> 
> As far as images: I figure that checking the scramble and then solving it is cheating on inspection. Even if there were images I wouldn't use them.



That is why I made sure to say that I don’t want to speak for the whole community. But @OreKehStrah, @Kit Clement and I seem to all agree that it cubeshape could be thrown out, here is why:
- Mostly a trivial step, not a ton of method or higher level thinking necessary
- Shapeshifting makes drawing scrambles an arduous task
- Bandaging makes the puzzle a mess
- Differences in hardware make certain moves possible on some puzzles, but not on others. 
- Jumbling adds fun aspects to the solve, but not the cubeshape step.
- Adds so much confusion and a lot of issues to the event. Some moves won’t happen unless forced, are those legal? If not, then there is a limit to the amount cubeshape can be scrambled before these moves are the only option. If so, then differences in hardware provide different solving advantages to some, and it gets closer and closer to issues like twisting a corner on 3x3. It is commonly accepted as being not allowed to solve the puzzle. I think this shows that just because it can happen does not mean it is part of the solve.

This is exactly why I wanted to bring this point up, I am glad you shared your opinion.
Back to images, I guess I might agree with you on that, I had forgotten that issue


----------



## OreKehStrah (Apr 1, 2021)

Yeah, dealing with cubeshape is just an absolute drag of a step and is one of the main reasons I don't participate in the weekly comps. It's not interesting, fun, or standardized. You instead get a locky mess to undo before you can actually get the cube back to it's cubic form. I don't know a single person who enjoys dealing with cubeshape as a step.


----------



## qwr (Apr 1, 2021)

I suggested two categories: one for jumbling and one for non-jumbling, as long as there is sufficient interest. (Personally I like the solve without jumbling) Because for weekly comps there's no burden of official judging and it's pretty much adding yet another event to the list.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 1, 2021)

@Kit Clement and @PingPongCuber I like the intuitive aspect of solving, and for me the shape shifting aspect of CC is just that.

As far as competition viability, I believe that any scramble graphic would have to have at least 3 different pictures: after non- jumbling moves, after jumbling moves, and after shape shifting. Ideally future versions of tnoodle might even have the ability to show the scramble after any given move. I believe that this could save significant time on rescrambles. I'm not sure carrying and setting down are much to worry about: because of bandaging any incidental turns are likely to be trivial. This should likely be addressed in the regulations for CC, should it ever be added.


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Apr 1, 2021)

qwr said:


> I suggested two categories: one for jumbling and one for non-jumbling, as long as there is sufficient interest. (Personally I like the solve without jumbling) Because for weekly comps there's no burden of official judging and it's pretty much adding yet another event to the list.


I have practiced both as well, but the question is, on jumbling solves, is cubeshape mixed up?


----------



## qwr (Apr 1, 2021)

I mean by non-jumbling is that centers can switch orbits but the puzzle is always returns in cubeshape


----------



## OreKehStrah (Apr 1, 2021)

One Wheel said:


> @Kit Clement and @PingPongCuber I like the intuitive aspect of solving, and for me the shape shifting aspect of CC is just that.
> 
> As far as competition viability, I believe that any scramble graphic would have to have at least 3 different pictures: after non- jumbling moves, after jumbling moves, and after shape shifting. Ideally future versions of tnoodle might even have the ability to show the scramble after any given move. I believe that this could save significant time on rescrambles. I'm not sure carrying and setting down are much to worry about: because of bandaging any incidental turns are likely to be trivial. This should likely be addressed in the regulations for CC, should it ever be added.


The hardware is just way too poor for me to think CS scrambling is worth it at all. It only adds additional complexity and would only further discourage new solvers. Modded hardware can easily fudge through the "bandaging" compared to stock hardware, which usually can on loose tensions. Furthermore, there isn't really room for creative/intuitive solutions to CS either. Either the CS scramble is trivial and it is extremely obvious how to get back to cubic form, or there is so much bandaging that you are pretty much forced into making specific turns for a while, reducing the cube into an obvious state, so there really isn't a lot of mental food there imo. Plus having to deal with cubeshape makes looking into the solving during inspection way worse, which inherently makes the event slower in general for a step with ambiguity of the the legality of some moves due to hardware differences, that the majority of solvers do not enjoy.

EDIT: Also, doing cubic jumbling scrambles opens the doors to more methods. For example, the topic of sorting the centers into the correct orbits, then solving the puzzle is relatively unexplored/unoptimized to my knowledge. A method like this would be 100% not worth doing if the cube also has cubeshape jumbling since it would make tracking all the orbits nearly impossible.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Apr 1, 2021)

qwr said:


> I mean by non-jumbling is that centers can switch orbits but the puzzle is always returns in cubeshape


That's not non-jumbling. That's cubic jumbling


----------



## qwr (Apr 1, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> That's not non-jumbling. That's cubic jumbling


ok I didn't know that. 
I like the orbit swapping aspect as long as we don't have to worry about the forced turns


----------



## OreKehStrah (Apr 1, 2021)

qwr said:


> ok I didn't know that.
> I like the orbit swapping aspect as long as we don't have to worry about the forced turns


Yeah jumbling just refers to scrambling in a way that the center pieces swap orbits. What we want is this, since it makes the solve more interesting and enjoyable. Cube shape is the part where forced turns are an issue. I got my Sub-1:30 jumbling with jumbled cube shape and then stopped lol.


----------



## thomas.sch (Apr 1, 2021)

PingPongCuber said:


> Suggestion: For curvy copter scrambles, could you put jumbling moves in parentheses? It makes scrambling so much easier to keep track of and do those moves. I found how nice it was after using the scrambles here: https://extraevents.org/events/curvycopter/training#


Excellent suggestion! At the moment I copy and paste the curvy scrambles to Word with a big letter size and then I identify the Jumbles and make linebreaks by hand!



PingPongCuber said:


> Another curvy copter note, it has been discussed that the best regulations for scrambling might be to jumble it, but not shape shift it due to bandaging and forcing moves, causing lots of issues and complications.


Here I disagree. The shape shifting part is the exciting and special part of the curvy copter.



PingPongCuber said:


> Also, this has probably been mentioned, but an image of scrambles at least on some events would be awesome


That would be fine for every event. If the traffic is the problem you can generate the images on the server an make links to pop ups. Then the image is only delivered if a cuber needs it.

But I think a the moment there is no curvy copter scrambler available that generates pictures of the "end state"! All few scramblers that I know show the picture befor shape shifting (like the one you posted with the [verify] tag in the scramble).

At the moment I check my scrambles of the "important" events (important in my opinion) also by coping the scramble to another page (e.g. cuberider).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 1, 2021)

I would just like to state that I am one person who enjoys trying to get to cubeshape for curvy copter. I think it is a nice puzzle to try to be able to get to cubeshape "cleanly" (without any even partially forcing moves), and while it feels like a goal that is entirely achievable, I'm not really there yet. Sometimes I do solves where I just don't worry about how long it takes so that I can try to go completely without forcing moves, and it takes many minutes to get to cubeshape. I think it is a very interesting part of the puzzle. (It is not surprising that I enjoy this part of the solve; I also really enjoy solving truly scrambled Magic and Master Magic puzzles, and would love a competition event which involved unscrambling scrambled Magics and Master Magics, if only a scrambler could be built for that.)

However, that being said, I recognize clearly that it is not very practical for competitions, and especially not for official competitions, since forcing moves are so easy to do on curvy copter. I can see where the practical thing to do, certainly for any official competition, would be to do jumbling moves but keep it in cubeshape. As for here, I wouldn't make any changes without the usual end-of-year polling process, but I could see considering that change if community opinion were overwhelming in that direction.

As for displaying the jumbling moves, I've had the intention for quite some time of eventually having optional display modes for various scrambles, and one of these would be for curvy copter. The idea would be that the scrambles would be identical positions, but given in different notation. For curvy copter, I would probably add the parentheses as one option, and use some of the shortcut move notation as another option. Also, for 15 puzzle, for instance, there would be an option to just give the final position, for people with magnetic versions of the puzzle. This is something I still hope to do as one of the next improvements, but right now I'm rather busy so it might be a few more months before I can get to it,.


----------



## Cashoutmiah (Apr 7, 2021)

How do I join the competition?


----------



## abunickabhi (Apr 7, 2021)

Go to this link, and start competing.

https://www.speedsolving.com/competition/index.php


Happy Cubing!


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 3, 2021)

A silly little bug: if you leave the competition site open even after it ends, the countdown goes into the negative numbers.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 3, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> View attachment 16530
> A silly little bug: if you leave the competition site open even after it ends, the countdown goes into the negative numbers.


Aww, I thought I specifically tested for that when I put it in, but maybe I didn't. I guess the correct behavior would be to show that it is completed, and maybe provide an option to refresh to show the new week.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 3, 2021)

Mike Hughey said:


> Aww, I thought I specifically tested for that when I put it in, but maybe I didn't. I guess the correct behavior would be to show that it is completed, and maybe provide an option to refresh to show the new week.


or explode the person's computer
just an idea


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Dec 22, 2021)

So I know this didnt happen last year, and its getting kinda late, but will there be the end of the year event polls this year?


----------



## Garf (Dec 22, 2021)

Sometime in the future, could there be a setting to allow Bluetooth cubes to enter times, like cstimer, cubeast, etc.?


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 22, 2021)

TheEpicCuber said:


> Sometime in the future, could there be a setting to allow Bluetooth cubes to enter times, like cstimer, cubeast, etc.?


There is a manual entry mode. So you can do the solves on your bluetooth cube with cstimer or cubeast and then write them in, or post the times on the weekly thread.


----------



## White KB (Dec 22, 2021)

I think, if there were a new event, that the best idea would be 8x8x8 with a mean of 3.

Also, there are a few events that have very few competitors, and so may need to be removed. Listed here are the events with under 100 people who have completed a non-DNF single:

6x6x6 Blindfolded - 29 people
7x7x7 Blindfolded - 19 people
Snake (Removed) - 11 people
4x4x4 Fewest Moves Challenge (Removed) - 9 people
Curvy Copter - 37 people
Face-Turning Octahedron - 53 people

I think we should keep all of them despite this, but thought that I should still put it out there, just in case.

Here's my full list of ideas for potential future events:
TOP CONTENDERS
8x8x8 Cube
Mastermorphinx
8x8x8 Blindfolded
POTENTIAL EVENTS
4x4x4 Multiple Blindfolded
3x3x3 Blindfolded, but with One Hand
2x2x2 Fewest Moves Challenge
Fisher Cube
Axis Cube
MISCELLANEOUS
Gear Cube
Pie/Domino Cube (basically 3x3x2)
Team Blind
Factory Solves

I hope that sparks some ideas. I really enjoy the weekly comp, so let me know what you guys think!


----------



## cuberswoop (Dec 22, 2021)

White KB said:


> I think, if there were a new event, that the best idea would be 8x8x8 with a mean of 3.
> 
> Also, there are a few events that have very few competitors, and so may need to be removed. Listed here are the events with under 100 people who have completed a non-DNF single:
> 
> ...


I like the fisher cube idea, as well as the domino cube. Things like 8x8 and 4x4 MBLD are a bad idea, only like 15 people do 7x7 already.


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 22, 2021)

White KB said:


> I think, if there were a new event, that the best idea would be 8x8x8 with a mean of 3.
> 
> Also, there are a few events that have very few competitors, and so may need to be removed. Listed here are the events with under 100 people who have completed a non-DNF single:
> 
> ...


I could get behind adding 8x8 or a small cuboid, otherwise I don't see much value in adding any of those events. It seems like speed FMC hasn't lived up to the initial expectations, but that's the only one I could support removing.

Edit to add: 4x4 WF would also be a great, if lightly contested, addition.


----------



## thomas.sch (Dec 22, 2021)

White KB said:


> 6x6x6 Blindfolded - 29 people
> 7x7x7 Blindfolded - 19 people
> Snake (Removed) - 11 people
> 4x4x4 Fewest Moves Challenge (Removed) - 9 people
> ...



Is there really a need to remove events? 6 and 7 BF is a good place from people all over the world to competite! Yes there are only a hand full each week but I think this is an important platform!

Also the Curvy Copter and FTO. Both have only 3 to 10 competitors each week but this competitors take place since months. So they like it.

So is there an important reason to strip the number of events?


----------



## White KB (Dec 22, 2021)

cuberswoop said:


> I like the fisher cube idea, as well as the domino cube. Things like 8x8 and 4x4 MBLD are a bad idea, only like 15 people do 7x7 already.


That makes sense.


One Wheel said:


> I could get behind adding 8x8 or a small cuboid, otherwise I don't see much value in adding any of those events. It seems like speed FMC hasn't lived up to the initial expectations, but that's the only one I could support removing.
> 
> Edit to add: 4x4 WF would also be a great, if lightly contested, addition.


Same here, except I think for 4x4 WF, OH would have to be added first, but otherwise, probably good.


thomas.sch said:


> So is there an important reason to strip the number of events?


The main reason is Kinch-- some people care a lot about it, and some people don't, but it's still a vital part of cubing. Created in 2002 and named after a man who went by 'kinch' at the time (or at least online), it involves taking the world record average divided by your personal record average and multiplying it by 100. This is done for every event and averaged. More events = less impact per event, and vice versa. (That's the gist anyway; for FMC and BLD, single is automatically calculated for if it achieves a better result than for a mean.) Hopefully that answers your question.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 22, 2021)

Just to let everyone know, since there wasn't a particular outcry for it started by someone else this year, and since I've been pretty overwhelmed with things other than cubing this year, and since we've had quite a few changes in recent years, I decided I would take a break from changes this year, so there will be no poll and no changes to events for 2022. I will probably have polls and opportunities for 2023; I will try to start a poll next year in late November as usual. I hope everyone will understand - I just felt I needed to take a one-year break from the changes.

I mostly prefer not to remove events. Due to the nature of the online competition, it seems like the disadvantages of removing events outweigh the advantages to me. If there is ever a really large groundswell to remove events, I will consider it, but otherwise I will probably try not to remove events as much as possible.

And as I have said numerous times before (and probably several times in this very thread), I will not remove 6BLD or 7BLD, regardless of others' opinions. Their permanent inclusion in the Weekly Competition is my "payment" for running it. I know I haven't competed in them in 2 years, but as soon as I can get back in my company's office and retrieve my 6x6x6 and my 7x7x7 (they've been trapped in my desk there since the start of the pandemic), I will probably start doing them again. (Or at least trying... I wonder if I even remember how?  )

As for additions, I'd like to point out that team BLD (or any team event) is probably sufficiently complicated that I will need to have a lot more time on my hands (which I'm not likely to have anytime soon) to be able to support it. The current system is built for individual competitors only, and it would take a great deal of thought and probably a good bit of effort to set something up to support team events. I also suspect this is a significant reason why team events haven't been added to the WCA - a great deal of work and decision-making would be required to make it happen there as well.


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 23, 2021)

White KB said:


> Same here, except I think for 4x4 WF, OH would have to be added first, but otherwise, probably good.


OH anything is silly.


----------



## DGCubes (Dec 23, 2021)

White KB said:


> Created in 2002 and named after a man who went by 'kinch' at the time (or at least online)


Just to clarify, Kinchranks was created in 2015 by Daniel Sheppard, first referenced in this Speedsolving post. His username is kinch2002 so I can see where the confusion about the year could come from 

EDIT: The original site linked in that post is down and now seems to redirect to a scammy page - the link in my post is safe to click but don't click the "KINCHRANKS WEBSITE" link on Daniel Sheppard's post.


----------



## White KB (Dec 23, 2021)

DGCubes said:


> Just to clarify, Kinchranks was created in 2015 by Daniel Sheppard, first referenced in this Speedsolving post. His username is kinch2002 so I can see where the confusion about the year could come from
> 
> EDIT: The original site linked in that post is down and now seems to redirect to a scammy page - the link in my post is safe to click but don't click the "KINCHRANKS WEBSITE" link on Daniel Sheppard's post.


Thanks for the info! That was actually really helpful / informative. I guess you learn something new every day!


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 28, 2021)

GenTheThief said:


> There is a manual entry mode. So you can do the solves on your bluetooth cube with cstimer or cubeast and then write them in, or post the times on the weekly thread.


Isnt this giving a huge advantage if u dont have to use a timer?


----------



## ichcubegerne (Dec 28, 2021)

White KB said:


> I think, if there were a new event, that the best idea would be 8x8x8 with a mean of 3.
> 
> Also, there are a few events that have very few competitors, and so may need to be removed. Listed here are the events with under 100 people who have completed a non-DNF single:
> 
> ...


While I always supported the removal of certain events (especially speed FMC), it doesnt seem to be worth the problems that come with it.
Imma be honest, the only event from that list that I would support even slightly is 233( or 223). All the other events have major reasons against it imo:

8x8,8x8 BLD, 4MBLD,2x2FMC are all pretty niche (Bld even more than normal) and they dont add anything really new. Fisher, Axis and Mastermorphix are just less popular shapemods then Mirror. BLD+OH is just one of these typical event mixes that just come down to people that are solid in both of them. Team Events are a shitton of work and thought to put in and I honestly dont like the thought of having to find other people to do the weekly with. Gearcube is just not complex enough and has bad hardware.


----------



## abunickabhi (Dec 28, 2021)

White KB said:


> I think, if there were a new event, that the best idea would be 8x8x8 with a mean of 3.
> 
> Also, there are a few events that have very few competitors, and so may need to be removed. Listed here are the events with under 100 people who have completed a non-DNF single:
> 
> ...


8x8 sounds good.

I already enjoy doing 8x8 on the cubers.io weekly comp, although it does not happen every week.


----------



## NevinsCPH (Dec 28, 2021)

Out of curiosity, can't seems to find the info anywhere, is there a weekly comp this week?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 28, 2021)

Wow, very sorry. Just too much going on this week and I forgot to generate the scrambles. They're going up now.


----------



## NevinsCPH (Dec 29, 2021)

Mike Hughey said:


> Wow, very sorry. Just too much going on this week and I forgot to generate the scrambles. They're going up now.


Ah don't be! We all got lives to live! I just thought it's all automated and maybe something gone wrong in the automation. Thank you for updating them on time for so many years, that's really impressive.


----------



## ichcubegerne (May 1, 2022)

How strictly are we meant to follow the WCA rules? My brain occasionally blanks when competing and I am kinda annoyed to give myself DNFs for not starting the timer cause I was on the wrong tab. I just now did one solve on my OH cube for Guildford in 2 handed, undid it and properly started the OH solve. Are we allowed to give extras/still count these solves or not? I feel like competitors discretion could be going so far as to decide if an unfair advantage was gained but I would like to have some input on my opinion here cause I might be biased


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 1, 2022)

ichcubegerne said:


> How strictly are we meant to follow the WCA rules? My brain occasionally blanks when competing and I am kinda annoyed to give myself DNFs for not starting the timer cause I was on the wrong tab. I just now did one solve on my OH cube for Guildford in 2 handed, undid it and properly started the OH solve. Are we allowed to give extras/still count these solves or not? I feel like competitors discretion could be going so far as to decide if an unfair advantage was gained but I would like to have some input on my opinion here cause I might be biased


This is a difficult question to answer. If I were to allow using discretion on anything within reason, there would be some here who would take that too far and we would get even more invalid results than we currently get on here. And that sort of thing has really been out of control lately, so I'd hate to do anything to encourage that even more.

My own approach, and one I think is probably a reasonable one to take, is this: if the cause of the problem is something that could have just as easily happened in a real competition as happened to you, then you should treat it as strictly as would be treated in a competition. So things like starting a OH solve in a mini-Guildford with both hands should probably be a DNF; it's true that it's not an official event, but if it were, the WCA would certainly consider that a DNF. A similar case I've had is with 3BLD where I forgot to start the timer before looking at the cube. I've had 2 DNFs in official WCA competitions like that; it only makes sense that should also be a DNF at home. (I can't believe how often I make that mistake!) And as a good example, clock DNFs are very common and should still count as DNFs at home, whether it's due to being off by one or due to solving to the wrong 12 o'clock (both of which I've done multiple times in online competition, and both of which I've done in official competitions).

On the other hand, if it's something due to weird conditions of solving at home, I think more discretion should be reasonable. If I have an FMC solve which was correct on paper, but I copied it into the computer incorrectly, I think it's perfectly reasonable to correct it and count it as a valid solve. If it was not written down correctly to begin with, that's different though - that should be a DNF. For your example of not starting the timer because you were on the wrong tab, that feels like something you should have another chance at, and I have done this. I think that should be treated as an extra; as I have said a couple of times before on here (probably many years ago), I think you should feel free to generate yourself an extra scramble if needed (using a decent scramble generator) for the sorts of things that would generate extras in a competition. I also think extras are perfectly reasonable for cases where the circumstances are something that are due to competing online and that could not have happened in a real competition.

I hope that seems reasonable, and I hope it helps.


----------



## ichcubegerne (May 2, 2022)

Mike Hughey said:


> This is a difficult question to answer. If I were to allow using discretion on anything within reason, there would be some here who would take that too far and we would get even more invalid results than we currently get on here. And that sort of thing has really been out of control lately, so I'd hate to do anything to encourage that even more.
> 
> My own approach, and one I think is probably a reasonable one to take, is this: if the cause of the problem is something that could have just as easily happened in a real competition as happened to you, then you should treat it as strictly as would be treated in a competition. So things like starting a OH solve in a mini-Guildford with both hands should probably be a DNF; it's true that it's not an official event, but if it were, the WCA would certainly consider that a DNF. A similar case I've had is with 3BLD where I forgot to start the timer before looking at the cube. I've had 2 DNFs in official WCA competitions like that; it only makes sense that should also be a DNF at home. (I can't believe how often I make that mistake!) And as a good example, clock DNFs are very common and should still count as DNFs at home, whether it's due to being off by one or due to solving to the wrong 12 o'clock (both of which I've done multiple times in online competition, and both of which I've done in official competitions).
> 
> ...



Thats a pretty good take imo. I DNFed my guildford and will use this guideline from now on  
I have also started streaming my participation and ill may share the twitch, when I am a bit more used to streaming.


----------



## ichcubegerne (May 2, 2022)

Well now that I think about it, I dont see any problem with sharing the link: 



.
The name of the channel is kinda a meme, but I dont really wanna change it. Ill stream at random times and will do the ss and the cubers.io comp


----------



## Timona (Aug 17, 2022)

I wanna request a little quality of life change to the main website. Is it possible to make it so that we can organise the Competitions Page to have the events we currently do at the top and the event's we don't do at the bottom, kinda like a drag-and-drop sorting system. You keep your "main" events at the top and the event's you don't do at the bottom? 



I shrunk my font size so I could capture everything at once. It's a bit nitpicky, but I just want to have Megaminx, Skewb and 234 and 235 really at the top after OH.


----------



## White KB (Aug 17, 2022)

Timona said:


> I wanna request a little quality of life change to the main website. Is it possible to make it so that we can organise the Competitions Page to have the events we currently do at the top and the event's we don't do at the bottom, kinda like a drag-and-drop sorting system. You keep your "main" events at the top and the event's you don't do at the bottom?
> 
> View attachment 20419
> 
> I shrunk my font size so I could capture everything at once. It's a bit nitpicky, but I just want to have Megaminx, Skewb and 234 and 235 really at the top after OH.


Seems like a good idea, and I'll even add to that: We could have an event layout reset button that gets all the events back to their default positions, if people accidentally move one or just want to get back to normal. We could also have certain preset slots they can save so they can save their favorite layouts or orders. (I think a limit of 12 or so wouldn't be unreasonable.) There would also be a check box that would allow the current layout to apply to manual entry as well.

But what I think would be most beneficial is making a SpeedSolving Competition experience that's friendly for mobile users. That way, more people could enjoy it since a lot of things are becoming available on mobile now. Just my two cents, but I think it'd be great.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 18, 2022)

White KB said:


> Seems like a good idea, and I'll even add to that: We could have an event layout reset button that gets all the events back to their default positions, if people accidentally move one or just want to get back to normal. We could also have certain preset slots they can save so they can save their favorite layouts or orders. (I think a limit of 12 or so wouldn't be unreasonable.) There would also be a check box that would allow the current layout to apply to manual entry as well.


This is a nice idea, and I actually already played with that a couple of years ago. If you notice, you can already try to drag the tile, but when you release it, it doesn't actually do anything. I actually have special code right now just for my personal account that orders the events by putting the official WCA events first, then listing the others in the order of their popularity (number of competitors) from the previous week. It's interesting to watch what events are most/least popular each week.

The catch here is that I'd probably want something like the layouts stored on the server, rather than in local storage, so they would persist if you move to a different machine, which requires a little more work. (For that matter, it might be nice if the regular settings worked that way too, but there are potential problems with that, like that you might want different settings for mobile vs. non-mobile, and using local storage for that as I do today is actually a little better for mobile vs. non-mobile.)



White KB said:


> But what I think would be most beneficial is making a SpeedSolving Competition experience that's friendly for mobile users. That way, more people could enjoy it since a lot of things are becoming available on mobile now. Just my two cents, but I think it'd be great.


I actually always wanted to do this, and I actually put a lot of work in a while ago just to make it in its barely usable form for mobile users now. (It was completely impossible to use it from mobile before I worked on it, but I know it can be done now because I have competed in every event at least a few times from my phone. It's not easy, but it is possible! Even multiBLD, but I totally don't recommend that because the experience is really terrible there - even worse than the other events.) To really make it FRIENDLY for mobile users would take a ton of work; probably at least the timer page would have to be completely rebuilt from scratch. I'm afraid I don't have a lot of time right now to work on the site, which means it might still be a while (years - sorry) before I can get to this.


----------



## White KB (Aug 18, 2022)

Mike Hughey said:


> This is a nice idea, and I actually already played with that a couple of years ago. If you notice, you can already try to drag the tile, but when you release it, it doesn't actually do anything. I actually have special code right now just for my personal account that orders the events by putting the official WCA events first, then listing the others in the order of their popularity (number of competitors) from the previous week. It's interesting to watch what events are most/least popular each week.
> 
> The catch here is that I'd probably want something like the layouts stored on the server, rather than in local storage, so they would persist if you move to a different machine, which requires a little more work. (For that matter, it might be nice if the regular settings worked that way too, but there are potential problems with that, like that you might want different settings for mobile vs. non-mobile, and using local storage for that as I do today is actually a little better for mobile vs. non-mobile.)
> 
> ...


Hey, it's ok if you can't make the changes right now! I think you guys have already made the weekly comp super amazing. It's a whole lot better than cubingtime.com's weekly comp (which won't let you come back to the page to finish or delete solves, so as to prevent cheating, but has a continuing cheating problem despite this) and manage to make it lenient and fun. Cheating isn't a huge issue, and mobile weekly comp is at least usable at this point, with the only major issues being accidental timer starts while scrolling and not being able to see the whole scramble during manual entry because of the auto-zoom on iOS. Neither of these are overly detrimental and it's not too bad.
For ordering, I understand it'd be difficult to set it up on the servers / local storage bit since I only know HTML and could probably never figure something like that on my own, much less set it up. You guys are doing a great job already!


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 31, 2022)

@Mike Hughey I'm curious, is there currently any way to see the overall Kinch Score rankings (as in all-time rankings, not just for the week)? I've been trying really hard to get my Kinch Score up to 50 (currently at 49.24) and I'd be curious to see how it ranks. If this would be too much work to implement please don't worry about it! I really appreciate all the work you've put into the site, as always


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 31, 2022)

DGCubes said:


> @Mike Hughey I'm curious, is there currently any way to see the overall Kinch Score rankings (as in all-time rankings, not just for the week)? I've been trying really hard to get my Kinch Score up to 50 (currently at 49.24) and I'd be curious to see how it ranks. If this would be too much work to implement please don't worry about it! I really appreciate all the work you've put into the site, as always


I believe somewhere in the past 23 pages in this thread I have already mentioned that I would like to do this, but it would take some work and I haven't had time to do it yet. Someday I would like to add it to the overall rankings page, but I currently don't anticipate doing work like that anytime soon, sorry. Someday, hopefully!


----------



## One Wheel (Sep 1, 2022)

I'd like to make an early nomination to add gigaminx to the weekly competition next year. Probably not Ao5; Mo3 or even single would be sufficient. It's a great puzzle, no parity, just a tedious grinding simple solve and we've got decent hardware available now with even better teased!


----------



## Abram Grimsley (Sep 1, 2022)

Or a tower cube like 3x3x4? It is fun to solve. (Though there is parity )


----------



## One Wheel (Sep 1, 2022)

Abram Grimsley said:


> Or a tower cube like 3x3x4? It is fun to solve. (Though there is parity )


I got a 3x3x6 with my gigaminx (spend an extra $20 to save $7 on shipping, because I can solve a Rubik's cube so I'm good at math ) and I've been enjoying solving it. I'm not sure I would enjoy speedsolving it. There are a lot of cuboid possibilities, and even different ways of constructing cuboids that result in different bandaging and possible moves. Furthermore, we already have a shape-mod of a cuboid in Square-1.


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 1, 2022)

I've always been a big proponent for 3x3x5 - the combination of shapeshifting and cuboid tricks makes for a really unique solve.

Gigaminx feels too big for me but I'd probably still give it a vote if it was being considered, I just like new events


----------



## Silky (Sep 1, 2022)

DGCubes said:


> I've always been a big proponent for 3x3x5 - the combination of shapeshifting and cuboid tricks makes for a really unique solve.
> 
> Gigaminx feels too big for me but I'd probably still give it a vote if it was being considered, I just like new events


3x3x5 can be made into a non-shapeshifting puzzle. Can be seen here


----------



## One Wheel (Sep 1, 2022)

DGCubes said:


> Gigaminx feels too big for me but I'd probably still give it a vote if it was being considered, I just like new events


Gigaminx feels to me like it takes maybe 2-3 times as long as curvy copter to scramble using the CSTimer scrambler. I set a PB today of 22:29.xx, sub-20 is within reach for me. I'm sure with improved hardware the 6:02.75 WR is well within reach for multiple fast solvers.


----------



## UncleFrank (Sep 1, 2022)

Mike Hughey said:


> This is a nice idea, and I actually already played with that a couple of years ago. If you notice, you can already try to drag the tile, but when you release it, it doesn't actually do anything. I actually have special code right now just for my personal account that orders the events by putting the official WCA events first, then listing the others in the order of their popularity (number of competitors) from the previous week. It's interesting to watch what events are most/least popular each week.
> 
> The catch here is that I'd probably want something like the layouts stored on the server, rather than in local storage, so they would persist if you move to a different machine, which requires a little more work. (For that matter, it might be nice if the regular settings worked that way too, but there are potential problems with that, like that you might want different settings for mobile vs. non-mobile, and using local storage for that as I do today is actually a little better for mobile vs. non-mobile.)


Instead of a drag and drop to sort events, would it be possible to have an option in Settings where each person could rank the events to their liking, 1 thru 30+ however many events there are, and then the list of events each person sees is auto sorted based on their own settings. If no ranking number is chosen then it's in alpha-numeric order at the end of the list. I would even say to add a ranking of 0 (zero) to not show an event at all. Or even if you can't sort them, at least have an option in the settings to choose which events to not show at all.


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 4, 2022)

Mike Hughey said:


> I believe somewhere in the past 23 pages in this thread I have already mentioned that I would like to do this, but it would take some work and I haven't had time to do it yet. Someday I would like to add it to the overall rankings page, but I currently don't anticipate doing work like that anytime soon, sorry. Someday, hopefully!



Last night I threw together a quick Python script to get the Kinch rankings myself! Sadly, the code takes a few hours to run because it's manually fetching every competitor's profile and scraping the Kinch scores from that. Here's the top 1000 as of ~9 hours ago, very happy to see myself in the top 10!



Spoiler: Top 1000





```
1            Aedan Bryant    54.65
    2            Sean Hartman    54.06
    3            Tommy Cherry    53.64
    4          Graham Siggins    51.57
    5          Alexander Botz    51.43
    6              Ryan Pilat    51.33
    7            Walker Welch    50.60
    8           Shivam Bansal    49.64
    9           Jacob Ambrose    49.44
   10          Daniel Goodman    49.34
   11             Zeke Mackay    48.68
   12             Ng Jia Quan    47.83
   13              Katie Hull    47.39
   14            Jack Pfeifer    47.09
   15             Kyra Joiner    46.87
   16         Braden Richards    46.46
   17               Bryan Eng    46.35
   18            Luke Garrett    46.19
   19             Jinseo Hong    45.88
   20          Guido Dipietro    45.75
   21                Lim Hung    45.48
   22                 Eli Jay    45.31
   23               Ash Black    45.00
   24             Daniel Long    44.55
   25               Max Siauw    44.55
   26              Joel Cetra    43.91
   27           Daniel Mullen    43.17
   28         Sameer Aggarwal    43.03
   29          Malte Ihlefeld    42.88
   30              Ishaan Lal    42.71
   31               Noah Swor    42.64
   32               Max Xiong    42.60
   33               Vicenzo-1    42.52
   34             Cale Schoon    41.86
   35            Owen Chester    41.81
   36             Sukant Koul    41.68
   37                 AndyMok    41.23
   38           Theo Goluboff    41.17
   39            Balder Henke    40.77
   40    Abhijeet Ghodgaonkar    39.71
   41             Bence Barát    39.66
   42         Logan2017DAYR01    39.50
   43              Milo Black    39.29
   44             Dhruv Arora    39.11
   45          Brayden Wroten    38.84
   46         Raymos Castillo    38.66
   47       Titus Sutterfield    38.44
   48         Tommy Kiprillis    38.27
   49           Carter Kucala    38.17
   50          Raymond Goslow    37.72
   51        Magdalena Pabisz    37.43
   52             Kit Clement    37.23
   53        Jakub Grzybowski    37.20
   54         Wilhelm Kilders    37.16
   55    Alvin Cheng Hiu Yeung   37.04
   56              Remo Pihel    37.03
   57            Kerry Creech    36.86
   58           parker trager    36.82
   59          Jacob Chambers    36.75
   60           Nikhil Soares    36.68
   61         Tristan Steeves    36.63
   62               alyzsnyzs    36.44
   63    Asia Konvittayayotin    36.42
   64            Tristan Chua    36.32
   65            Dylan Cossin    36.29
   66          Micah Morrison    36.18
   67          Janos Bereczki    35.94
   68       Timo Norrkniivilä    35.73
   69           Vishwa Sankar    35.70
   70            Harry Savage    35.56
   71                 Ryan Wu    35.34
   72           Kari Hyttinen    35.32
   73             Tyler Hicks    35.19
   74                    Tues    35.16
   75    João Vinicius de Andrade Santos         35.12
   76             darrensaito    35.11
   77              Liam Wadek    35.09
   78          Stone Amsbaugh    34.86
   79            Mitchell Hum    34.75
   80            Mihnea Pantu    34.51
   81          MichaelNielsen    34.48
   82    Vyacheslav Kochergin    34.14
   83          Cyril Barigand    34.11
   84            Jason Harley    34.07
   85              Heewon Seo    34.05
   86             Ethan Davis    33.90
   87           Elias Fischer    33.86
   88             Rafał Sądek    33.71
   89        Nathanael Morgan    33.70
   90              Paris Dorn    33.64
   91        Nikolay Vasilyev    33.62
   92        DistanceRunner25    33.52
   93                Kai Roff    33.47
   94                Jocubing    33.42
   95             Fedor Abaev    33.41
   96             Justin Park    33.38
   97             Jason White    33.36
   98                  xyzzy     33.17
   99                 KrokosB    33.13
  100          Aidan McKenzie    33.03
  101            Dawid Wójcik    33.00
  102               Max Jiang    32.90
  103    Vicenzo Guerino Cecchini        32.89
  104          Corey Sakowski    32.72
  105              Shaun Mack    32.71
  106              Alwin Rölz    32.46
  107           Fabian Loehle    32.36
  108            Kari Guthrie    32.32
  109        Michał Krasowski    32.31
  110         Gabriel Marczak    32.27
  111                WizardCM    32.24
  112            Luke Tycksen    32.22
  113    Chris Van Der Brink     32.12
  114            Adriel Wiebe    31.93
  115          Khairur Rachim    31.86
  116             Jacob Nokes    31.78
  117           Michael (謝富亦)         31.73
  118       Matthew Prestwich    31.72
  119          Dalton Padgett    31.62
  120      Hargun Singh Tikku    31.61
  121           Zachary White    31.60
  122           Brian Johnson    31.59
  123           Brayden Adams    31.56
  124          William Klauer    31.51
  125            Dwyane Ramos    31.38
  126               Hayden Ng    31.27
  127             Niclas Mach    31.22
  128         Martin Fronescu    31.15
  129             Niclas Mach    31.14
  130         Erik Akkersdijk    31.12
  131          Ryan Eckersley    31.04
  132            Jack Pfeifer    31.02
  133           Suen Ming Chi    30.88
  134             Arnav Arora    30.66
  135               JO Cubing    30.51
  136          Mattheo de Wit    30.49
  137               Fred Lang    30.44
  138    Charles Jerome (Forum)          30.42
  139            Dylan Swarts    30.38
  140         Mark Boyanowski    30.36
  141         Laura Holzhauer    30.35
  142              Roan Paone    30.28
  143            Helmer Ewert    30.25
  144          Kevin Matthews    30.20
  145            Will Newhoff    30.17
  146               OJ Cubing    30.16
  147             Mike Hughey    29.97
  148         Brendyn Dunagan    29.95
  149         Vlad Hordiienko    29.90
  150               Cade Beck    29.83
  151            Zachary Ochs    29.73
  152         Christopher Chi    29.71
  153             Jacob Nokes    29.58
  154        Jakob Gunnarsson    29.50
  155    Andreas Lambropoulos    29.46
  156              Advay Sant    29.35
  157             Carter Bitz    29.32
  158             Nevins Chan    29.32
  159      Ainesh Sevellaraja    29.24
  160             Evan Wright    29.22
  161            Jan Staubach    29.13
  162                 abhijat    29.09
  163    Vincent Hartanto Utomo          28.90
  164          Feliks Zemdegs    28.89
  165      Kymberlyn Calderon    28.87
  166      Mason Langenderfer    28.73
  167          Simon Westlund    28.72
  168              Marcus Siu    28.70
  169                  Evan B    28.69
  170                 Tobi P.    28.68
  171              wuque man     28.48
  172         Christian König    28.46
  173           Brian Degiuli    28.44
  174              Joshua Eom    28.44
  175       any name you wish    28.42
  176          Kael Hitchcock    28.41
  177                   Jammy    28.39
  178         Zachary Trudell    28.39
  179      Christophe Cabrera    28.37
  180            Zayn Khanani    28.37
  181            Alaik Bhatia    28.34
  182          Fabio Schwandt    28.30
  183          Ricardo Zapata    28.30
  184            James Molloy    28.16
  185       Konstantin Jaehne    27.99
  186            Tomasz Cepil    27.94
  187            jacob.cubing    27.92
  188                Glincons    27.91
  189              Clément B.    27.90
  190            David Pearce    27.86
  191        Michael Muething    27.76
  192            Eric Lentzon    27.74
  193            Adam Gradess    27.70
  194              Enoch Gray    27.67
  195          Antto Pitkänen    27.65
  196           logofetesulo1    27.65
  197              Vincent JK    27.63
  198          Travis Burkett    27.53
  199               Lil Woaji    27.52
  200             Miles Lipka    27.28
  201         óskar pétursson    27.26
  202          Varun Mohanraj    27.21
  203               Isaac Lai    27.20
  204          Calvin Nielson    27.17
  205              Tom Nelson    27.17
  206                Max Chan    27.16
  207             Yen-An Chen    27.07
  208                  m24816    27.02
  209           Yuki Yamamoto    27.02
  210          cyril barigand    26.79
  211        Emanuel Rheinert    26.53
  212            Simon Kellum    26.49
  213      TheReasonableCuber    26.46
  214          Keenan Johnson    26.44
  215            John Brechon    26.36
  216             Linus Fresz    26.15
  217           Cheng-Ru Yang    26.11
  218      Benjamin Grzesiak     25.94
  219       Natanael Lundberg    25.89
  220             Luan Araújo    25.83
  221       SebastianCarrillo    25.82
  222      Cyprian Kalbarczyk    25.81
  223                     Neb    25.80
  224            Samuel Baird    25.80
  225          Stanley Chapel    25.79
  226         Marco Vorländer    25.78
  227          Kael Hitchcock    25.76
  228          Rémi Esturoune    25.76
  229     Christopher Cabrera    25.74
  230             Will Callan    25.68
  231         Bradley Sampson    25.65
  232          Arden Jacobson    25.60
  233        Kacper Jędrzejuk    25.35
  234            Lucas Wesche    25.35
  235     Kacper Paweł Dworak    25.34
  236                 leudcfa    25.33
  237           Miles Walcott    25.33
  238               Riley Woo    25.31
  239         Daniel Sheppard    25.28
  240               Amy Smith    25.26
  241            Katie Davies    25.24
  242           leo lindqvist    25.20
  243           Carter Thomas    25.17
  244            Jake Buckley    25.16
  245           David Epstein    25.15
  246          Coleman Vaughn    25.10
  247                Jihu Mun    25.10
  248    YoshimuraRoyLee_Official        25.08
  249         Fabian Settelen    25.02
  250           Nathaniel Gee    25.02
  251            jakub drobny    24.89
  252           Aryan Chhabra    24.86
  253       MaksymilianMisiak    24.85
  254                Max Chan    24.84
  255           Matteo Dummar    24.81
  256     oliver sitja sichel    24.80
  257                Mantas U    24.66
  258                Li Xiang    24.57
  259           Eddy Deturche    24.53
  260             Austin Reed    24.50
  261         Jacob Littleton    24.47
  262                Eva Kato    24.42
  263                cuber-26    24.33
  264            Aneurin Hunt    24.29
  265           SeungBeom Cho    24.22
  266             Chris Mills    24.18
  267               Mats Valk    24.17
  268             Oliver Fisk    24.16
  269           Justin Barker    24.13
  270          Antoine Cantin    24.12
  271    trying-to-speedcube. (Forum)    24.10
  272          therubikscombo    24.08
  273        Gregory Alekseev    24.04
  274            Luke Brannon    24.00
  275        Allen Gustrowsky    23.97
  276            Hannah Minas    23.94
  277              colegemuth    23.74
  278           James Golding    23.64
  279              David Reid    23.60
  280           Tyler Howlett    23.60
  281        Lachlan Stephens    23.56
  282             ethan pride    23.52
  283                   Fisko    23.52
  284             Zuhair Khan    23.52
  285            Aaron Paskow    23.49
  286               jtcubezyt    23.49
  287         Thomas Anderson    23.39
  288            Joshua Weigt    23.34
  289             Nicole Wang    23.34
  290     Samuel Eklund-Hanna    23.34
  291         Ibrahim Khanani    23.33
  292           Peter Preston    23.29
  293               Milan Das    23.26
  294              Andrew Tan    23.19
  295               Hanns Hub    23.11
  296     Aleksandar Dukleski    23.04
  297              Ethan Woll    22.98
  298              Ian Southa    22.96
  299             Ian Cawthon    22.94
  300         Cringycuber2711    22.88
  301        Harishan Ramanan    22.80
  302              NoahCubing    22.80
  303             Owen Brooks    22.80
  304              Clay Moore    22.77
  305               Nico Foot    22.77
  306               Oxzowachi    22.75
  307    Christopher Fandrich    22.73
  308             Henry Lipka    22.71
  309           Ordway Persyn    22.69
  310                Joonas S    22.57
  311             Owen Brooks    22.54
  312                   Bashy    22.49
  313          Ethan Horspool    22.48
  314             Smrz Dancel    22.48
  315             Kyler Smith    22.47
  316           Carlos Méndez    22.46
  317             Chad Batten    22.31
  318    Yes, We Can! (Forum)    22.29
  319       Beatriz Bernardes    22.28
  320            Ben Christie    22.20
  321            Anders Olsen    22.17
  322         Daniel Karnaukh    22.07
  323             David Woner    22.05
  324           Mantra Shukla    22.05
  325            Islam Kitiev    22.02
  326           Jasper Murray    21.95
  327          Jeremy Collins    21.95
  328           BenChristman1    21.94
  329       Andrew Karbusicky    21.93
  330              Harry Owen    21.92
  331              Shaun Mack    21.91
  332          Ville Seppänen    21.90
  333    Christopher Connolly    21.86
  334           Morten Arborg    21.81
  335            Shane Grogan    21.80
  336          Hassan Khanani    21.76
  337             Boris McCoy    21.73
  338                  Zagros    21.72
  339              Junwen Yao    21.69
  340        Connor Yungbluth    21.68
  341                 Max Sun    21.62
  342            Riley Norrid    21.61
  343             João Santos    21.48
  344           Sydney Weaver    21.48
  345              Ben Adcock    21.39
  346            Noah Paredes    21.35
  347       Daniel Wannamaker    21.32
  348               RiinaChan    21.28
  349        Johnathon Gaynor    21.27
  350            taine cassar    21.24
  351             Carter Bitz    21.23
  352       Competition Cuber    21.20
  353             Sam Spendla    21.18
  354    Alberto Pérez de Rada Fiol      21.16
  355          Ilie Nagrineac    21.11
  356               Dennis Hu    21.09
  357            Keng Foo Teh    21.09
  358          Koen van Aller    21.07
  359              Dylan Chan    21.03
  360             Spare Spear    20.94
  361           Jami Viljanen    20.91
  362      Pauline Clémenceau    20.90
  363           Fabian Common    20.85
  364    The Rubik Mai (Forum)   20.80
  365                   Gnome    20.80
  366               Ben Baron    20.78
  367              BigTriboli    20.69
  368         Harsha Paladugu    20.69
  369              Gavin Moon    20.62
  370       Louis de Mendonça    20.61
  371              Liam Combs    20.52
  372      Bernhard Brodowsky    20.50
  373              Ben Stokes    20.47
  374               bbulbs135    20.46
  375        Cameron Stollery    20.46
  376            Christo Cerv    20.42
  377            Chunyu Zhang    20.41
  378               Alex Yang    20.39
  379     Oscar Roth Andersen    20.38
  380           Daniel Tidsey    20.37
  381            Glomnipotent    20.31
  382                Evan Liu    20.30
  383           Ethan Misteri    20.28
  384            chicagocuber    20.27
  385              Mun Hin Ng    20.27
  386          Volcaniccubing    20.25
  387             Victor Tang    20.19
  388       Homeschool Cubing    20.15
  389               dario1514    20.14
  390               skewber10    20.10
  391            Yunqi Ouyang    20.09
  392         Anders Berggren    20.06
  393           Camerone Chin    20.05
  394            Conor Cronin    20.05
  395        Bogdan Grigoruta    19.86
  396           Michael Young    19.85
  397           Pranav Prabhu    19.85
  398    Mo2 Cubing (2019BRUC01)         19.81
  399            Jeann Valdez    19.80
  400          Zachary Miller    19.80
  401        Volodymyr Hnidko    19.77
  402            Darii Cairec    19.75
  403          Axel Lönnstedt    19.71
  404               Shirosuki    19.70
  405          Trevor Mahoney    19.65
  406         Lewis Patterson    19.63
  407                     GLV    19.57
  408          Kevin Costello    19.54
  409         Joshua Costello    19.43
  410                 Max Sun    19.43
  411             Noah Porter    19.43
  412            Turcanu Vlad    19.41
  413     Stephen Adhisaputra    19.29
  414      Theodor Nordstrand    19.27
  415           Jared Stinson    19.26
  416        Amelie Dieterich    19.24
  417           Mitchell Lane    19.24
  418          Caíque crispim    19.23
  419               Mats Valk    19.22
  420           carter Schrum    19.21
  421              Kaur Tuule    19.20
  422                 AvGalen    19.19
  423         Patryk Cendrzak    19.18
  424             JohnDaCuber    19.16
  425          Sophia Schmoll    19.14
  426     Vincentiu Tarsoaga     19.14
  427           Carlos Méndez    19.13
  428                 ProStar    19.11
  429             Owen Hjerpe    19.08
  430                  proper    19.08
  431             Mark Ostrom    19.07
  432          Dominic Morton    19.06
  433        Michael DeLaRosa    19.04
  434            Tim Lawrance    19.02
  435    jihan khalilurrahman    19.01
  436            Annika Stein    19.00
  437            Nathan Deyak    18.98
  438       Christopher Baird    18.95
  439              NevEr_QeyX    18.87
  440     Krish Shah-Nathwani    18.83
  441         Michael Stocker    18.83
  442             Color Cuber    18.79
  443    Riley Christopherson    18.73
  444          Anthony Tindal    18.69
  445            Steven Weber    18.66
  446       Philippe Schwartz    18.63
  447            Jakob Kogler    18.62
  448    Katharina Schlomberg    18.61
  449       Alexandre Carlier    18.60
  450            Bill Hammill    18.60
  451            monstercuber    18.58
  452              Mr. Rubric    18.54
  453     Henrik Buus Aagaard    18.50
  454               Reed Tran    18.48
  455         kake123 (Forum)    18.45
  456             Redicubeman    18.43
  457          Cubing Forever    18.43
  458          Nicos Ahlgrimm    18.40
  459              Sean Moran    18.38
  460           Louis Cormier    18.35
  461                   edsch    18.34
  462           George Pelham    18.33
  463             Nazib Nawar    18.28
  464         sameer Sethuram    18.27
  465            Hunter Cuber    18.25
  466         Anton Smolyanyy    18.24
  467        bryson azzopardi    18.23
  468           Jonah Jarvis     18.23
  469           Carlos Méndez    18.22
  470        Damai Pavian Zen    18.20
  471            Tim Reynolds    18.19
  472            owendonnelly    18.18
  473               Sora Sato    18.18
  474           Willi Mickein    18.17
  475          AnsonL (Forum)    18.14
  476               Nat Seeto    18.14
  477               Dan Cohen    18.12
  478              Lee Yu Zhe    18.10
  479       PratikKhannaSkewb    18.09
  480         Mikołaj Salamon    18.07
  481            Chris Wright    18.01
  482            Nick Nijssen    17.99
  483    Hyprul 9-ty2 (Forum)    17.98
  484                Jaime CG    17.97
  485              Kevin Hays    17.95
  486             Isaac Latta    17.94
  487               Pedro Gil    17.92
  488            Jakub Dłużak    17.91
  489       TrueCuberOfficial    17.91
  490            Nadav Rosett    17.90
  491    Riley Christopherson    17.90
  492           Justin Thomas    17.88
  493        Michael Gottlieb    17.87
  494        James Markey Jr.    17.85
  495         Raiyan Abdulrub    17.85
  496          Nils Schweizer    17.84
  497             Cody_Caston    17.81
  498          Andrew Lofgren    17.79
  499              Kian Barry    17.78
  500        Kenneth Svendson    17.73
  501        Sébastien Auroux    17.73
  502         yoni strassberg    17.72
  503             Jake Hanson    17.71
  504         baseballjello67    17.71
  505         Alistair Miller    17.67
  506         Brigham Atwater    17.67
  507            Jackey Zheng    17.65
  508          William Wright    17.62
  509          Cameron Miller    17.60
  510                Parker Z    17.56
  511       Christopher Olson    17.55
  512            Nathan Popov    17.53
  513              Will Cerne    17.53
  514    Sumanth Chandrupatla    17.49
  515         Benjamin Hoppes    17.47
  516        Danila Ryabinin     17.44
  517        Christian Naguio    17.40
  518           Jules Rohault    17.40
  519        Cameron Blumenow    17.38
  520                Parker Z    17.36
  521        Francisco Moraes    17.29
  522               DNF_Cuber    17.26
  523             Paul Taylor    17.23
  524              Zach Clark    17.23
  525        Adam Chodyniecki    17.22
  526       theZcuber (Forum)    17.20
  527              Shuto Ueno    17.15
  528                FDCubing    17.14
  529             V Achyuthan    17.13
  530    Triangles_are_cubers    17.09
  531           William Fritz    17.09
  532           Calum Visagie    17.07
  533                jorge cm    17.07
  534            Cheunghao Tu    17.06
  535         bennett stouder    17.05
  536          Andre jonathan    17.04
  537          George Scholey    17.04
  538            John_NOTgood    17.03
  539             Tyler Fresh    17.03
  540              Leo Annett    17.02
  541                kaden D.    16.98
  542              Joey Gouly    16.97
  543           Adrian Guzman    16.96
  544           David Golisch    16.94
  545           Andri Maulana    16.92
  546             Zane Carney    16.90
  547                   Ty Y.    16.88
  548                Lin Lai     16.87
  549                 didiask    16.86
  550    Wojciech Szatanowski    16.86
  551           andi gröbmayr    16.82
  552     Benjamin Gottschalk    16.82
  553            Nikodem Rudy    16.82
  554              Scruggsy13    16.82
  555                  Sam N.    16.80
  556       Aron Puddy-Mathew    16.78
  557              Bruno Lima    16.76
  558    Govend Dimitrios Avgerinos Djangoi      16.74
  559             Poorcuber09    16.74
  560            Jacob Levine    16.72
  561           Brandon Mikel    16.71
  562           Franklin Pham    16.70
  563            Brad Hoffman    16.69
  564            daejeong kim    16.68
  565                aricuber    16.67
  566     Ahsanul Insan Hamid    16.61
  567                 Der Der    16.57
  568              Chris Wall    16.54
  569    Rúnar Gauti Gunnarsson          16.53
  570       Boby Okta Arianda    16.51
  571          Kevin Gerhardt    16.49
  572       Parker Drumheller    16.48
  573          Hendrik Wenzel    16.45
  574       Shonathon Collins    16.41
  575     Christopher Cabrera    16.40
  576             Youngjin Ko    16.40
  577              rdurette10    16.39
  578             Ianis Chele    16.38
  579        Arnau Tous Mateu    16.37
  580              Linus Buck    16.35
  581                  d4m1no    16.34
  582            David Gisler    16.33
  583            Connor Lyons    16.32
  584           Dhafin Rayhan    16.32
  585            Gil Kochbeck    16.31
  586     Bartłomiej Owczarek    16.29
  587        Thomas Schukraft    16.28
  588             Caleb Weigt    16.27
  589        Platon Drancchuk    16.27
  590               Max Xiong    16.24
  591           Zayd Chaudhry    16.21
  592         Matthew Leavitt    16.18
  593             ElyasCubing    16.17
  594           UnknownCanvas    16.17
  595         Micah Wingfield    16.16
  596         Brayden Gilland    16.15
  597         cuboy63 (Forum)    16.15
  598                 yghklvn    16.06
  599           Alison Meador    16.04
  600           Acchyut Jolly    16.03
  601      BraydenAdamsSolves    15.99
  602               Hayden Ng    15.99
  603              Matt Hudon    15.98
  604            Jack Bohning    15.96
  605            John Benwell    15.90
  606          Benjamin Warry    15.86
  607         Callum Goodyear    15.85
  608          Benjamin Agnew    15.84
  609        Grzegorz Chudzik    15.81
  610              Maxim Ilin    15.81
  611              vilkkuti25    15.81
  612           Alex Niedland    15.80
  613              Ryan Breen    15.80
  614             Brandon Lin    15.79
  615              Luke Dufty    15.79
  616           Jason Ostdiek    15.78
  617            Axel Sanchez    15.76
  618           Corner Cutter    15.76
  619         cubingintherain    15.75
  620             yuxuan chen    15.73
  621         Eduardo Mazuera    15.71
  622               Nipun Das    15.68
  623             Cooper Dean    15.67
  624             Jack Cowart    15.65
  625         Linus Schukraft    15.65
  626         Micah Wingfield    15.64
  627      Jonathan Cookmeyer    15.63
  628     EmperorZant (Forum)    15.62
  629           Dylan Pollard    15.58
  630           Emile Compion    15.58
  631            jakub drobny    15.58
  632                  Bilbo7    15.57
  633            Derrick Eide    15.57
  634             Evan Wright    15.52
  635               ARSCubing    15.51
  636               Daniel Wu    15.51
  637              Luca Böhme    15.42
  638           Brian Johnson    15.41
  639               CubableYT    15.41
  640    Zakaria Achmad Rizki    15.39
  641              Ben Coppin    15.36
  642                   Brady    15.35
  643           Peter Nielsen    15.35
  644           mazei (Forum)    15.34
  645             eff (Forum)    15.33
  646      Vincentiu Tarsoaga    15.25
  647       Grzegorz Pacewicz    15.24
  648            Joel Demars     15.23
  649           Brandon Manke    15.22
  650           Marcos Masini    15.22
  651              Ryan Kindt    15.21
  652           Andrew Tyberg    15.20
  653             ReaganCubes    15.20
  654           Verena Hüttig    15.20
  655         Jaden Burkhardt    15.17
  656         Tomoaki Okayama    15.15
  657            Ben Tibbetts    15.10
  658       Nico German Cuber    15.09
  659             Benjamin Bø    15.08
  660     Adrien Auvray Matyn    15.07
  661           Daniël Kassab    15.07
  662             Karina Beck    15.05
  663         Kazuaki Matsuda    15.05
  664            Naren Ramesh    15.05
  665         Dominic Heising    15.04
  666           Mats Bergsten    15.04
  667    Maksymilian Piskorowski         15.03
  668      Brandon McClelland    15.02
  669               Rin Trace    14.97
  670                  Tao Yu    14.97
  671          Fletcher Berry    14.96
  672              Rami Sbahi    14.94
  673              roymok1213    14.93
  674            Joseph Tudor    14.92
  675              palanthrum    14.91
  676         flee135 (Forum)    14.89
  677                Lilas ma    14.89
  678              Mask Cuber    14.88
  679           Marike Faught    14.87
  680     Nicolas Birkenstock    14.87
  681          dueone (Forum)    14.86
  682         Christopher Lai    14.84
  683        Gustav Wälivaara    14.81
  684            carlosvilla9    14.80
  685               megacubes    14.78
  686                   RahmB    14.78
  687            Daniel Evans    14.77
  688                 Calcube    14.76
  689            Isaiah Lanan    14.73
  690                 goidlon    14.73
  691          Destin Shulfer    14.69
  692              Ilya Titov    14.68
  693                  Ich_73    14.66
  694     fdh dnfed the solve    14.64
  695                  kumato    14.63
  696           Lennon Hughes    14.63
  697          Destin Shulfer    14.60
  698             teehee_elan    14.55
  699        JianhanC (Forum)    14.52
  700      Jacob Oliver Bruun    14.52
  701     Mantas Urbanavicius    14.50
  702                Eric Cui    14.49
  703       Reinier Schippers    14.49
  704      Christopher Morris    14.47
  705               ThatLucas    14.47
  706            Kyle Gyawali    14.46
  707                 edd_dib    14.43
  708            Jacob Burney    14.43
  709       Christian Sachgau    14.42
  710       MTGjumper (Forum)    14.36
  711           Slash (Forum)    14.35
  712          gaspard LELEUX    14.35
  713            Carter Cubes    14.34
  714               anak alim    14.30
  715            James Hamory    14.30
  716         dylpickle123780    14.24
  717           Conor Boucher    14.21
  718            Oliver Pällo    14.21
  719                FlatMars    14.20
  720          Justin Tarnoff    14.19
  721                 theit07    14.16
  722                360cubed    14.15
  723              Dylan Chan    14.14
  724          Donovan Furman    14.13
  725          Stefan Stoiber    14.12
  726    TipsterTrickster (Forum)        14.09
  727                   Jam88    14.09
  728             Heath Flick    14.07
  729             oliverpallo    14.07
  730            Berd (Forum)    14.06
  731      hamfaceman (Forum)    14.06
  732         Hamish Monckton    14.06
  733            James Molloy    14.06
  734         Elliott Perkins    14.05
  735                    OwlC    14.05
  736              Das Cubing    14.04
  737           Lorenzo Mauro    14.04
  738       Tristan Paulussen    14.04
  739               yijunleow    14.02
  740         Wesley McCorkel    14.01
  741               Conner D.    13.99
  742            Ant Irizarry    13.98
  743                 Cuber2s    13.95
  744           Elvin Thorsen    13.93
  745          Mia Sponseller    13.92
  746    joshsailscga (Forum)    13.91
  747         Harry Loiterton    13.91
  748            Tim Rinehart    13.91
  749           Samuel Kuchar    13.89
  750              Dylan Chan    13.86
  751         Zackary Edwards    13.86
  752        Alexander Helbok    13.85
  753     Steven Wintringham     13.85
  754             Andrew Rizo    13.84
  755              sideedmain    13.84
  756             Finn Ickler    13.82
  757           Derick Miller    13.81
  758             mihok lucas    13.81
  759      Hong_Zhang (Forum)    13.79
  760              Tan Yu Bin    13.78
  761           Timothy Mello    13.78
  762                 E-Cuber    13.76
  763                   AnnaW    13.75
  764            Sarah Strong    13.75
  765                 Neil Wu    13.72
  766            Brouxt Force    13.71
  767              Ryan Jones    13.71
  768              Max Murphy    13.70
  769             Robert Paus    13.70
  770               Aamirhaha    13.69
  771           Darii Caireac    13.68
  772          Morten (Forum)    13.67
  773           Roland Frisch    13.67
  774          BigBrainBoi989    13.66
  775              Leia Jiang    13.61
  776           John Rodocker    13.54
  777              Melda Eksi    13.54
  778             Nazib Nawar    13.51
  779                 Waffles    13.51
  780               Neel Gore    13.50
  781             Alex McCord    13.49
  782             Chris Yoder    13.47
  783              2022duyn02    13.46
  784          Mateusz Kozioł    13.46
  785            Shane Grogan    13.46
  786                Rasmus H    13.45
  787                  Ben Yu    13.42
  788               Yeguk Kim    13.40
  789         Piotr Olszewski    13.38
  790       CBcuber86 (Forum)    13.36
  791             KatieDavies    13.32
  792               Pseudonym    13.32
  793               Zack Webb    13.32
  794              Ken Brunet    13.28
  795    cuberswoop (Dat guy)    13.27
  796            RyaD (Forum)    13.27
  797               Tim Major    13.26
  798          anamazingcuber    13.25
  799         Stefan Lidstrom    13.22
  800            Willem Klose    13.21
  801                 Trent K    13.20
  802           Joshua Marais    13.19
  803         oliver sherlock    13.19
  804              Andrey Che    13.17
  805            Mako (Forum)    13.17
  806            Jack Moseley    13.17
  807            seungju choi    13.17
  808            Isaiah Scott    13.16
  809            James Ludlow    13.14
  810                jc_rubik    13.14
  811                  Nayano    13.13
  812             Phil Thomas    13.13
  813            Tripp Peters    13.13
  814           BrianNguyen47    13.11
  815                  GC1998    13.11
  816            Gabriel Burd    13.10
  817          Brady Lawrence    13.09
  818             Jonas Rongé    13.08
  819             Nitstar6174    13.06
  820            Taosif Sahil    13.05
  821                  u Cube    13.05
  822           Zach Zwerling    12.96
  823         aarush vasanadu    12.93
  824            Safwan Uddin    12.93
  825          Utkarsh Ashar     12.93
  826        KwS Pall (Forum)    12.90
  827          Joergenomunism    12.90
  828             Evan Wright    12.88
  829          Mikołaj Molski    12.86
  830    Etim Okpoyo (Timona)    12.83
  831           pyr14 (Forum)    12.83
  832        Giovanni Centili    12.82
  833    pierrotlenageur (Forum)         12.80
  834           Hannes Müller    12.79
  835            Jaco Momberg    12.78
  836           Rodson Lingad    12.78
  837              Alex Mertz    12.77
  838      Elliott Kobelansky    12.77
  839                 Sjviray    12.77
  840    Giorgi Tarielashvili    12.76
  841           SpartanSailor    12.76
  842    Tyler Buel (CubingTybu)         12.76
  843               glincons1    12.75
  844          Inek Guntalvus    12.75
  845           Javier Cheong    12.74
  846                 xcalius    12.71
  847          Hendry Cahyadi    12.69
  848           Rafał Stottko    12.68
  849              Advait Pai    12.64
  850            Gabriel Burd    12.63
  851             Will Stokoe    12.63
  852         Spencer Kenison    12.62
  853            Brock Hamann    12.61
  854             Jiseok Chae    12.60
  855              Naman Jain    12.60
  856                 Uva Fan    12.60
  857              c00bmaster    12.56
  858            Viktor Pearl    12.55
  859               Ben Moore    12.54
  860          Little Sunrise    12.54
  861             Jacob Lange    12.48
  862            Mayron BLAIN    12.45
  863           Revaldo Hapaa    12.45
  864           Yudo Rusyanto    12.45
  865                   D. Z.    12.44
  866             Shaky Hands    12.44
  867             Matyas Kuti    12.42
  868               Nick Rech    12.42
  869            RubricCubric    12.42
  870           Dario Narbone    12.41
  871            Nathan Lewis    12.41
  872            Amelia Cheng    12.37
  873           Vincent Trang    12.35
  874                lfds sdf    12.30
  875        Rudolfs Vinkalns    12.29
  876         Petri Krzywacki    12.28
  877            Alex Paschal    12.26
  878             John Hinton    12.26
  879           blai solernou    12.25
  880       JunwenYao (Forum)    12.24
  881           Ken Gene Quah    12.24
  882       cubedude7 (Forum)    12.22
  883                 Tyler H    12.22
  884                   Kered    12.19
  885       ZB_FTW!!! (Forum)    12.18
  886           Adrian Dębski    12.16
  887          Dene Beardsley    12.16
  888                  myoder    12.16
  889          the dnf master    12.14
  890           Tristan Yoder    12.13
  891            Nikhil Mande    12.12
  892              Dylan Rhee    12.11
  893             DanikaCuber    12.09
  894                 Imsoosm    12.08
  895            Robert Alden    12.08
  896           Deni Mintsaev    12.04
  897    oskarasbrink (Forum)    12.04
  898    Ilham Ridhwan Kharisma Yudha    12.04
  899       Frederik Rollmann    12.03
  900         I am not a noob    12.03
  901         Olexandr Seniuk    12.02
  902            Amos Johnson    11.97
  903     Daniel Gracia Ortiz    11.97
  904          Dylan Johnston    11.96
  905          Jesper Schmidt    11.96
  906            Brian Nguyen    11.95
  907           Daryl Ariawan    11.95
  908                 Cuber L    11.94
  909                   Fn Ln    11.93
  910           nigelthecuber    11.93
  911          Cadariu Dragos    11.92
  912            Thomas Avery    11.92
  913             Nicole Wang    11.91
  914        InfinityCuber324    11.90
  915      TheCubingAddict980    11.90
  916          Hampus Hansson    11.89
  917             Jaemin Jeon    11.88
  918          Antoine Gérard    11.87
  919           Ashley Foster    11.86
  920        Owen Kwasniewski    11.86
  921         Alfie Mackenzie    11.83
  922              Jmun Cuber    11.83
  923          matthew wilbur    11.83
  924                    Glyr    11.82
  925              Noah Segal    11.82
  926              Aadil- ali    11.79
  927          Michael Conard    11.79
  928       Alexander Carlson    11.78
  929         @uguste (Forum)    11.76
  930             Takuto Suga    11.73
  931    JonnyWhoopes (Forum)    11.71
  932        ottozing (Forum)    11.71
  933              Wilfrid PY    11.71
  934        Casper Appelberg    11.70
  935               DUDECUBER    11.67
  936          Anthony Tindal    11.66
  937    jamesdeanludlow (Forum)         11.65
  938      Avshalom Sharavani    11.63
  939               TCF Cuber    11.63
  940          Abram Grimsley    11.62
  941    KboyForeverB (Forum)    11.62
  942            Rodney Swaab    11.61
  943           Patrick Dwyer    11.60
  944             Dylan Teboe    11.59
  945       Olivier van Luijk    11.59
  946               Som Jones    11.58
  947     Tolga Kaan Kantarcı    11.57
  948        Gustav Wälivaara    11.56
  949            Mackenzie Dy    11.56
  950              YellowEnte    11.56
  951           Stini (Forum)    11.55
  952           jonathan fast    11.55
  953             Alex Asberu    11.53
  954          Paarth Chhabra    11.52
  955              Bowen Deng    11.49
  956          Brennan Arnold    11.49
  957            Basil Herold    11.47
  958           Daniel Mullen    11.46
  959             MaxwellCobb    11.46
  960                Swamp347    11.46
  961              Eli Chapin    11.44
  962    KellanTheCubingCoder    11.44
  963          Brendan Bakker    11.43
  964    That70sShowDude (Forum)         11.43
  965             Abhi Govind    11.41
  966            Ben Whitmore    11.40
  967      Bhargav Narasimhan    11.39
  968        Benjamin Willame    11.37
  969         KardTrickKid_YT    11.37
  970          Richie Delgado    11.37
  971                  riffch    11.37
  972            Daniel Bajer    11.36
  973       Andrew Clippinger    11.35
  974           Ellis (Forum)    11.35
  975                CamErone    11.32
  976          Chris Hardwick    11.28
  977                 sband17    11.26
  978               Jay Cubes    11.24
  979           Simon Pfahler    11.24
  980        Zeke Flint (정성민)         11.21
  981           Lennon Dorsey    11.19
  982             Logan White    11.18
  983               Roy Tamir    11.18
  984           JoaquinRuenes    11.17
  985              Cube Stack    11.16
  986             Yuval Porat    11.14
  987               Kevin Min    11.13
  988      James Hake (Forum)    11.10
  989           Brayden Adams    11.08
  990        Joshua MacKenzie    11.05
  991           Piotrek Pojda    11.04
  992         Andrew Peterson    11.02
  993                  Jack _    11.02
  994     Jonathan Culbertson    11.01
  995             James Chang    10.99
  996            Petru Ciubuc    10.96
  997           Caleb Arnette    10.94
  998         Patrick Fischer    10.94
  999          Yu Byeong-Seon    10.92
 1000                     hyn    10.91
```




I don't want to run the code again to avoid putting strain on the server - that said @Mike Hughey if you're planning on making the database export available sometime soon, I'd be more than happy to make an easier-to-run version that can be calculated at any time! Better yet, if you're open to sharing the source code with me I could try to add the feature to the site itself! (No pressure of course, only if you're comfortable sharing)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 5, 2022)

Wow, I can't believe I'm this high:
147 Mike Hughey 29.97

I think I should probably explain my situation - hopefully it will make it easier for everyone to understand where I am:

The last time I updated the GitHub that holds the site code was a couple of years ago. Since then I believe I have made some minor but nonetheless important changes. Those changes are only on my personal machine and I need to make sure they are synced up to the GitHub before I could safely let others work on the code. I don't believe there are a lot of changes, but obviously I'd rather make sure my code is in sync with the repository before allowing others to work on it.

Also with the most recent changes I introduced a change that accidentally exposed some personal information to the database export, which is why that was taken down. It would probably only take a couple of hours to fix that, but then I would need to get the code changes up to GitHub.

In short, it's not easy right now for me to allow someone else to offer changes, but it might only take a weekend of effort to make it reasonable again. But unfortunately, until I can find time to do it, it's really not practical to let someone else make changes.

I think it's clear now that my primary priority list the next time I do something should be as follows:
1. Get the database export working again.
2. Get GitHub fully updated with all the latest changes.

If I can do those two things, then we can start with other work more easily.

I guess I will try to do that sometime between now and November. That way I will be ready to entertain a poll for new events. I will try to get that much done by then.

Once the database export is available, DGCubes, I will let you know, whereupon you can use the database export to keep up a recent list. And after that, either I can point you to the code and let you look at integrating your changes, or I can make an attempt at it; I already have much of the work done in order to do the Kinch weekly scores, so I'm sure it wouldn't be hard.

But in the meantime, thanks for making a current list!


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 5, 2022)

Mike Hughey said:


> Wow, I can't believe I'm this high:
> 147 Mike Hughey 29.97
> 
> I think I should probably explain my situation - hopefully it will make it easier for everyone to understand where I am:
> ...



Thanks so much for the detailed response, and of course for all the work you do for the website! It's really a great thing for the community and the fact that it's all volunteer work really speaks to your dedication. Really happy to see that priority list too, but of course take all the time you need


----------



## Abram Grimsley (Sep 12, 2022)

@Mike Hughey or @DGCubes , I was wondering, is it legal to use the Yuxin 8-petal cube in place of a redi cube? (Since it is basically the same puzzle with magnets and a change in shape).if so, could I use it this week? If not, just tell me. Thanks .


----------



## c00bmaster (Sep 28, 2022)

is streaming your solves for the weekly comp allowed? I assume probably, but just thinking about the possibility of someone watching just to see what other people do with the scrambles, but of course if someone is going to cheat there are much more straightforward ways to do so anyway


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 28, 2022)

c00bmaster said:


> is streaming your solves for the weekly comp allowed? I assume probably, but just thinking about the possibility of someone watching just to see what other people do with the scrambles, but of course if someone is going to cheat there are much more straightforward ways to do so anyway


I doubt anyone would have a problem with that. Graham Siggins does the weekly comp on stream pretty regularly.


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 28, 2022)

Abram Grimsley said:


> @Mike Hughey or @DGCubes , I was wondering, is it legal to use the Yuxin 8-petal cube in place of a redi cube? (Since it is basically the same puzzle with magnets and a change in shape).if so, could I use it this week? If not, just tell me. Thanks .



Sorry for the late reply, but I use the 8-petal all the time! I don't think there's any issue with it since it functions the same as a Redi Cube.


----------



## Abram Grimsley (Sep 28, 2022)

DGCubes said:


> Sorry for the late reply, but I use the 8-petal all the time! I don't think there's any issue with it since it functions the same as a Redi Cube.


Thanks! With it, this week I got my first sub-20 average on the weekly comp!


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 29, 2022)

c00bmaster said:


> is streaming your solves for the weekly comp allowed? I assume probably, but just thinking about the possibility of someone watching just to see what other people do with the scrambles, but of course if someone is going to cheat there are much more straightforward ways to do so anyway


You nailed it yourself:
>of course if someone is going to cheat there are much more straightforward ways to do so anyway

They could even just type in a random seemingly-plausible time, not even bothering to do the solves, and there's that. Nobody would know, really.

(A more subtle kind of "cheating" would be seeing someone else talk about easy scrambles this week (just for example; I haven't seen this week's scrambles) and then choosing to do the scrambles only just this week. Be honest; don't do the scrambles if you have any prior knowledge about them. On the flip side, also refrain from discussing scrambles until the comp is over!)


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 27, 2022)

Is there any chance of adding new events at the first of the year? If not I understand, I'd just love to see Gigaminx added. Maybe just a single scramble or Mo3, but I would probably find time to do an Ao5 at least a couple of times if that was the decision.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 27, 2022)

I am sorry. I know I mentioned I would open the possibility of adding events this year, but I was simply too busy to get it done safely. So there will be no new events this year.

I will again consider adding a new event in 2024 through a forum poll. Hopefully a year from now I will actually have time for it. I will probably restrict new events in the future to just one event maximum per year; in the past it seems that adding more than one event per year has been unwise.

Again, I am sorry for not polling to add an event this year. I do hope next year will be better.


----------



## White KB (Dec 28, 2022)

Mike Hughey said:


> I am sorry. I know I mentioned I would open the possibility of adding events this year, but I was simply too busy to get it done safely. So there will be no new events this year.
> 
> I will again consider adding a new event in 2024 through a forum poll. Hopefully a year from now I will actually have time for it. I will probably restrict new events in the future to just one event maximum per year; in the past it seems that adding more than one event per year has been unwise.
> 
> Again, I am sorry for not polling to add an event this year. I do hope next year will be better.


Hey that's cool. I only just got all the puzzles I need to compete in every event for Christmas this year (since previously I was missing 6) so I am totally cool with no new events... (please)

In a year I will be ready though lol


----------



## thomas.sch (Jan 1, 2023)

One Wheel said:


> I'd just love to see Gigaminx added.


I also love the Gigaminx since the Yuxin stickerless is available. I think there are 2 sides of the story for new events and the removal of events.

One side: if only few take part each week it is ok as long as the effort for adding a scrambler and to add the event to the database is not too big. The rest should work without further work for years. Also the amount of extra data (the result) for such an event would be very small.

But the other side is the weekly race about the score points and each new event gives new points!

Maybe it would be a suggetion for the future to have events with no score points for the "Weekly Overall Score Ranking"? Something like "Real Side Events". I also thought this when there were discussions to remove events, eg. Curvy Copter (I competite with only 1 to 3 others per week in this event). A solution could be to set the scores for this event to ZERO instead of removing it. So there would be no impact for the Overall Score Ranking.


----------

