Sorry if that sounded a bit harsh and impersonal, but we responded to hundreds of clarification requests during the contest. You were probably the 20th person asking about that test case. The first time we got that question, we took the time to verify that our answer was indeed correct. After that, we tried to get through the repeated questions as quickly as possible so that we could focus on contestants who had legitimate problems (login issues, server errors, submission cancellation requests, etc.)
It is much easier to be fair if we give the same exact response to the same question asked by different contestants. We could have answered "It should be 4", "No, 5 load tests are not required. It is possible to do it in 4", or "No, the answer is 4 because the first step is to load test with value 253." This would be much worse because now we are inadvertently giving some contestants an advantage over the others. And since we have multiple judges answering questions simultaneously, the easiest way to stay fair is to use the same response. That said, we can probably make that response sound a bit friendlier. :) igor On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Atanas Banov <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the Round 1C analysis it says >> >> Load Testing turned out to be the most unusual problem. We received dozens >> of requests for additional hints and explanations of sample test cases. It >> was a challenge for the judges to explain the problem as clearly as possible >> while remaining fair to all contestants. If our responses seemed harsh and >> unhelpful at times, please know that we tried our best to remain as fair as >> possible. > > Let me share my experience and confirm that it was "a challenge" with which > not all responders did well. > I asked "Shouldn't the result for "1 1000 2" be 5 and not 4?" and received > response "Please read the problem statement". > Here is what my beef with such response is: It's about as helpful as > responding me "Mooo" or "Oink" or "FU". I can read, I have read the problem > statement. I had doubts if the result in one of the examples is correct. OK, > silly me for doubting you oh gracious! But your answer does not help. > What would be a helpful answer "while remaining fair to all contestants"? > Well how about "No, it should be 4" or "The result should be 4" or "There is > no error in the example"? This would be "as fair as possible" - there are no > hints and no explanation even. Yet I wouldn't have to muse what did the > Delphic oracle mean by "Please read the problem statement"! > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "google-codejam" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-codejam" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en.
