Tower Monarch wrote:Wow, this seems like it could be really useful. Any suggestions on what difficulty rankings should mean? (i.e., is there some kind of scale we can apply to ACF Fall and Penn Bowl alike?)
This is a feature which I believe Matt Weiner suggested to me at one point, and I didn't have the time to implement it until now. I should explain that the difficulty and quality rankings are, as you can see, on a 6-point scale. The inspiration is Jonathan Magin's difficulty scale, which I suggest using to rate questions (I will put up a link at some point that helps explain this scale, but basically 1 is easiest and 6 is hardest). Likewise for the quality: 1 is very bad, 6 is superlative. Using your example, I would say ACF Fall should probably end up with a score of between 1 and 2 and Penn Bowl should be in the vicinity of 3. The nice thing about this is that once a lot of people sign up and start rating things, the aggregate numbers should provide a nice way of quantifying how hard this or that tournament was.
edit: by the way, if you are not logged in, the page should still display the difficulty and quality ratings of the question as well as the category, if those values exist. You just won't be able to modify them.