Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20141122091332

Recently there has been a huge controversy on the difficulty of this level. Let me clarify some things and we could discuss.

First, let me try to repeat the difficulty how-to system. First of all a change should be proposed and get everybody to discuss. Then, if more than 70% of the comments are agreeing with the idea, commit the change. Otherwise, hold a poll. For crushingcandies.com one, it is used for grading new levels or levels with little discussion. Also, at least three people should show the stance in order to show participation.

Then, the comments should not be restricted to be only the ones under a proposal. This is completely biased. For example in level 347, check the comment written by 3litecandycrusher in July 1. 10 supported the upgrade while 3 opposed or showed neutral stance with 70% of support. By just looking at this comment, it makes a valid reason for the upgrade of this level. In the end, together with the poll and the comments outside this comment chain, level 347 finally rests at very hard.

Some people ask why there is a "weird" 70% marking. If we restrict it to 50%, 66% or 75%, it could only show a marginal ratio in half, third or quarter. Insanely hard should be graded when there is a 70% marking because it is the highest difficulty of the wiki and it should be a majority in order to have this difficulty. Usually this will lead to conflicts since marking a level with a highest difficulty would seem critical to users if it is overrated. If we can achieve a 70% marking, the conflicts with affiliation to difficulty would decrease. I'm also using the calculation of error as an analogy to show why 70% is better than half, third or quarter. When you calculate the maximum possible error, you won't use exact figures but rather extended figures. This is because the measurement is approximated. Same with difficulty, 70% is only a lower limit for insanely hard in order to have fewer arguments. Remember, there are a lot of voters and we should not restrict it to a half, two-thirds or three-quarters. For 50%, it is simply too low. In the world, 50% of opposition and support is powerful on both sides. When you see Hong Kong and Taiwan, about 50% of people support a movement and vice versa. 50% will cause a lot of conflicts. Even a 66% would not be considered majority. 70% is much more safe. For 75%, I'm sure it is too high as some insanely hard levels in the poll have less than 75% in insanely hard and a clear stance in insanely hard. For instance, level 323. This would also cause conflicts. However, if you might, you may discuss the mark again.

There's also a history of 70% related to the difficulty conflicts of the end of last year. Once we decided to take the median of the poll and found out that levels with as low as 40% of votes of insanely hard in the poll could be insanely hard. As you know, it would be completely ridiculous to use median to grade insanely hard levels since it will cause a lot of conflicts. In the end, we decided to use 70% mark since it would make much less conflicts.

And then some people question about the poll. Poll is used when a difficulty could not be decided in comments alone. This applies to controversial levels like level 152, level 485 and level 455. They are not the ones struggling with insanely hard difficulty, but other difficulties. A poll is also made significant since the disabling of anon-editing. It becomes the only place for anon-users to vote. Poll can express the opinions of users. Even though it is not voted by many people, comments do also show hesitating stances.

But then some asked to discuss it again in comments. Well may I ask, how can you reach a consensus when the comments previously have very ambiguous views? For example, in level 181, neither can any proposal reach a consensus since it has polarized views when you just include other comments. I don't think we could reach a consensus alone with comments. Also, it would make the poll useless and completely trash the significance of the poll. Like when you choose a president, will you discuss again whether which candidate should be the president after all the referendum is done?

Also some want me to define insanely hard again. Insanely hard is originally created for levels which needs a lot of attempts to finish it, often with the use of boosters. In Difficulty page, an insanely hard level would roughly take 100 attempts to complete. This is not fictional, because I took more than 150 attempts for level 152, more than 100 attempts for level 440, even they don't get upgraded. I'm not showing these levels should be upgraded due to my personal experience but rather showing more than 100 attempts of completing a level is possible, including the attempts you quit in order to get a lucky board. This shows an insanely hard level should be for those which are almost impossible to be completed and will likely require the use of boosters. I've observed the meaning of insanely hard has made insanely hard a much "easier" level in the recent weeks, in which 40 attempts or higher would be a level insanely hard, thus creating a lot of insanely hard levels. I've proposed a "nearly impossible" difficulty, but then the proposal is vetoed. Insanely hard level is the highest level of difficulty and therefore should be chosen. '''I would also like to propose a split difficulty for very hard levels. Very hard- and very hard+, since a lot of very hard levels have difficulty difference itself. However, it will make the difficulty completely unbalanced to the hard side.'''

This also brings to the Hardest Level in Reality/Dreamworld poll. In the early stages of the poll, all insanely hard levels are included in the poll. Until about August and September, some insanely hard levels do not exist in the poll. This makes very hard levels and insanely hard levels unfair. For insanely hard levels, it is unfair for some of them not to be included in the poll while some can. For very hard levels, it is unfair for them why they have to be in the poll when some insanely hard levels don't have to. Level 70 has constantly be in the poll without many occasions of being in the elimination list, while level 361 is an insanely hard level with many opposes of inclusion in the poll. It sounds totally ridiculous. There is a time which we force eliminated the Dreamworld of level 24. Although this act does not have strong criticism, it is dangerous and we don't know how the public may feel about this kind of force elimination. Since elimination of some very hard levels is not possible, I begin to try to force downgrade some insanely hard levels but end up can't with strong voices. The meaning of insanely hard should be paraphrased and edited in order to prevent any case of the above happening again.

There is also a time whether we should disable the difficulty. Strong voices also resulted at last, though this proposal is supported at first. However, the main problem of doing that is that we rely too much on the difficulty. We usually evaluate whether we may pass the level easily or whether we think the difficulty is rated appropriately or not. Difficulty although is subjective, it is chosen as how most people think. Please also discuss whether we should disable difficulty in order to minimize conflicts about the topic.

Another problem with difficulty rating is that we lost a party. Since the anon-editing feature is disabled, much fewer edits are observed. I could see no relation to Candy Crush Soda Saga but I would shift the blame to the decision of disabling the anon-editing. You may think that anon-users would create a new account. I would say "NO". The feature scares them away. Some are too lazy to create or some do not even know how to create one. Some don't know what username should be put in. This also explains a relatively lower view count. This feature just eradicated a party of giving comments on the difficulty. Although the main purpose is to alleviate the problem of vandalism, I think we have given enough time for reflection and it's time to bring it back. We may not tell if we would spark more conflicts or resolve more conflicts of bringing back anon-editing, but the thing we know is that difficulty rating becomes more biased than before. Most levels don't have polls and anon-users cannot express their opinions. Discuss also whether we should bring the anon-editing back.

I hope I have explained much what I have to say for now. I know the one who grade the difficulty would be highly savaged, but without anyone grading the difficulty, the difficulty thing is useless. 