c4countdown

Matt Morrison wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:File under "Why hadn't you done this before, you lazy bastard?"

Potential add-on: sortable columns. Numbers doesn't change that much but conundrums count varies quite a bit.

Read the Nearby places list.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:File under "Why hadn't you done this before, you lazy bastard?"

Potential add-on: sortable columns. Numbers doesn't change that much but conundrums count varies quite a bit.

Read the Nearby places list.

Not the first time I've said "I really should check this before I make a fool of myself" whilst I'm posting but not bothered.
To be fair, could be useful having it all on the one page with sortable columns, finding correlations or something, I dunno. [/dig out of hole mode]

By popular demand.

Charlie Reams wrote:By popular demand.

25 Tie-Breakers!!

Although I think I'm more suprised that it once took Innis 5 Tie-Breakers to win a game.

Charlie Reams wrote:By popular demand.

Thats one record page I am not itching to get onto.

Duel now has a live leaderboard, and a few related tweaks.

Charlie Reams wrote: New: Auto-tournament system.

I think I love you. Is this a on-the-fly tournament director, or something for tournaments run over a long period of time?

Andrew Feist wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: New: Auto-tournament system.

I think I love you. Is this a on-the-fly tournament director, or something for tournaments run over a long period of time?

Both.

Continuing to pick these off: Conundrum stats bonanza!

Charlie Reams wrote:Continuing to pick these off: Conundrum stats bonanza!

BUBBLEGUM? I think I'm misunderstanding something, but...

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:Continuing to pick these off: Conundrum stats bonanza!

BUBBLEGUM? I think I'm misunderstanding something, but...

Aye, it doesn't make sense for me either. Says I've failed four times on AUTHORIAL, yet the list tells me I've got it successfully three times.

There is definitely a mistake. It says I've missed DARTBOARD 7 times. Obviously being a dart player I thought this sounds ridiculous so I checked it out. I've actually got it 7 times and it's only ever been missed 7 times by different people - not me.

Kirk Bevins wrote:There is definitely a mistake. It says I've missed DARTBOARD 7 times. Obviously being a dart player I thought this sounds ridiculous so I checked it out. I've actually got it 7 times and it's only ever been missed 7 times by different people - not me.

I doubt you've missed a dartboard more than 7 times in your life!

Kirk Bevins wrote:checked it out.

The spirit of Whiteley lives on.

Ian Volante wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:checked it out.

The spirit of Whiteley lives on.

I don't understand this but I now realised "checking out" is also a darts term. A subtle piece of word punnery?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:checked it out.

The spirit of Whiteley lives on.

I don't understand this but I now realised "checking out" is also a darts term. A subtle piece of word punnery?

Bullseye!

This post makes me feel slightly Larsenous.

Ian Volante wrote:This post makes me feel slightly Larsenous.

What is the punishment for Larseny these days?

New stuff!!

Also working on fixing the old new stuff.

The fastest conundrums are a fab addition to Superstats.

One question though - do the fastest conundrum stats include all our successfully solved conundrums since the beginning of aptotime, or is it just over the last 30 days ?

I ask, because I certainly had a very quick Junior Conundrum a long time ago, and it doesn't appear in my fastest conundrum list.

Matt Bayfield wrote: I ask, because I certainly had a very quick Junior Conundrum a long time ago, and it doesn't appear in my fastest conundrum list.

Conundrums faster than 215ms don't count, because that's human reaction time. For example the one you linked is 156ms which means you buzzed before you even "saw" the shuffle, let alone solving it, or there was a bug in the timing, and in either case it's not really worthy of a fastest times page. I should probably mention that on the page, though.

Charlie Reams wrote: Conundrums faster than 215ms don't count, because that's human reaction time. For example the one you linked is 156ms which means you buzzed before you even "saw" the shuffle, let alone solving it, or there was a bug in the timing, and in either case it's not really worthy of a fastest times page. I should probably mention that on the page, though.

Sweet.

Would anyone be interested in a resurrection of the global fastest conundrums page?

Charlie Reams wrote:Would anyone be interested in a resurrection of the global fastest conundrums page?

Me - even the ones faster than 215 milliseconds.

Charlie Reams wrote:Would anyone be interested in a resurrection of the global fastest conundrums page?

Kirk.

Charlie Reams wrote:Conundrums faster than 215ms don't count, because that's human reaction time. For example the one you linked is 156ms which means you buzzed before you even "saw" the shuffle, let alone solving it, or there was a bug in the timing, and in either case it's not really worthy of a fastest times page. I should probably mention that on the page, though.

Charlie, that's fine - thanks for clarifying. A note would be helpful to avoid anyone else asking you the same question.

Your wishes come true at zombo.com. I mean, uh, apterous.org.

I like to read the cells verbatim, e.g. the "Inexplicable Chris Davies" and "Bastardising Innis Carson". Quite apt, I think.

Charlie Reams wrote:Your wishes come true at zombo.com. I mean, uh, apterous.org.

I like to read the cells verbatim, e.g. the "Inexplicable Chris Davies" and "Bastardising Innis Carson". Quite apt, I think.

Or even Poppycock Chris Davies.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Bayfield wrote: I ask, because I certainly had a very quick Junior Conundrum a long time ago, and it doesn't appear in my fastest conundrum list.

Conundrums faster than 215ms don't count, because that's human reaction time. For example the one you linked is 156ms which means you buzzed before you even "saw" the shuffle, let alone solving it, or there was a bug in the timing, and in either case it's not really worthy of a fastest times page. I should probably mention that on the page, though.

I always use the Wikipedia to find a definitive answer to something. Anyway, it says "mean" - i.e. people can be faster. OK, so you'd have to add on the solving time, but any figure you pick ends up being arbitrary.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I always use the Wikipedia to find a definitive answer to something.

Read the article. Wikipedia is citing a scientific literature review and summarising various experiments which of course showed some variation, and had a number of confounding factors including (curiously) gender, which obviously I don't correct for. Given that, 215ms is fairly representative.

Gevin Chipper wrote:Anyway, it says "mean" - i.e. people can be faster.

Yes, people can be faster at responding to a stimulus. That basically means pressing a button when a light comes on. No one can see and solve a conundrum in that time.

Gevin Chipper wrote: OK, so you'd have to add on the solving time, but any figure you pick ends up being arbitrary.

Yes, the figure is somewhat arbitrary because guess what, they are no scientific papers on how quickly someone can solve a Countdown conundrum. I had to pick some value so I made the most of the available data, and I deliberately picked an underestimate. If you browse the page you can see that it was reasonably (although not completely) successful at eliminating spurious guesses.

If you have a better idea for solving this problem then let me know, but my money's on you just trying to be a point-scoring smart-arse, which I suggest you leave to me. I'm much better at it.

Charlie Reams wrote:If you have a better idea for solving this problem then let me know, but my money's on you just trying to be a point-scoring smart-arse, which I suggest you leave to me. I'm much better at it.

There's only one way to get as good as you, and that's to practise.

Charlie Reams wrote:Oooh, pretty.

Splendid! Instead of having one star for each variant, would having the numbers of stars equal to the level reached make this prettier or more messy? I'm not sure. Anyway, it's cool!

I like the new obscurity ratings. However, it gives ORDINATE and QUIXOTIC the same obscurity rating (34%), which leads me to think that maybe omelette games shoulnd't be used in calculating the obscurity of words. (if thats how quixotic got such a common rating)

JackHurst wrote:(if thats how quixotic got such a common rating)

It's not. The estimates are very... estimaty.

Game of the Week voting is now open!

A page I never thought I'd be making; as requested by Kirky B.

Charlie Reams wrote:A page I never thought I'd be making; as requested by Kirky B.

That's a brilliant idea!