About new incoming features

Post here if you don't find any other place for your post. But please, stay on-topic: algorithms, programming or something related to this web site and its services.

Moderator: Board moderators

fpnc
System administrator
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

About new incoming features

Post by fpnc » Sat Sep 07, 2002 10:34 pm

Post here your comments to the post New changes in their ways. Please do not ask for the field algorithm to return, as we are not going to do it. Thank you.
Best regards,

Fernando N

Adrian Kuegel
Guru
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Germany

Post by Adrian Kuegel » Sat Sep 07, 2002 10:52 pm

I wanted to ask why you removed the authors names completely from the status. It seems to be also possible to show only the ID with the option A, and those who still want the authors name can use the option T. Because I think it is sometimes quite interesting to see who submits a problem, and I can remember names better than numbers :-)

fpnc
System administrator
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

Post by fpnc » Sat Sep 07, 2002 11:28 pm

fpnc wrote:Why? Because we've found that some users are changing their names in order to put some words that we find... out of place. So we've replaced it with the User ID, so you can know whether a submission is yours or not, and you'll read no disgusting "names".
Best regards,

Fernando N

Adrian Kuegel
Guru
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Germany

Post by Adrian Kuegel » Sat Sep 07, 2002 11:40 pm

Ok, but I think it is better if everybody can decide himself if he want to read the names. To read disgusting names is his risk if he uses the option T, besides I can't think why disgusting names are worth your work on this. People who want to annoy others can just be ignored.

fpnc
System administrator
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

Post by fpnc » Sun Sep 08, 2002 12:33 am

Adrian Kuegel wrote:Ok, but I think it is better if everybody can decide himself if he want to read the names. To read disgusting names is his risk if he uses the option T, besides I can't think why disgusting names are worth your work on this. People who want to annoy others can just be ignored.
Granted. Right now, by default you're not going to see names but IDs, and you can see names using option T.
Best regards,

Fernando N

Ivan Golubev
Experienced poster
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Saint Petersburg, Russia

Post by Ivan Golubev » Sun Sep 08, 2002 12:47 am

At first I want to say that it's only my personal opinion and I don't want to offence/annoy anybody. I respect your job/site and I really like(d) it...
fpnc wrote:1) Say good-bye to the "algorithm" field - it's gone. And it is not going to return. We realized that it is 1% useful - 95% empty - 4% used to bother people. We think that there are other ways to provide that information - for instance, this board and the chat facility. Technical reasons also recommend us to remove this field. Maybe we'll add a fixed range of algorithms so you can choose one of them for each submission, maybe not. Right now it'll disappear. I repeat, we do think that this field can be replaced with this board and/or the chat. I hope that you will continue using this system after this removal...
I can't realize how you get these 4%. Yes, this field using (ok, now we can say, used earlier) for general comments not for "algorithm" comments but it was extremely useful in many other cases. As I wrote before I found only three accounts who posts annoying comments...
fpnc wrote:2) In the status page, the user name isn't there any longer. Go here http://acm.uva.es/cgi-bin/OnlineJudge?Status:Valladolid if you don't know what I am talking about. Why? Because we've found that some users are changing their names in order to put some words that we find... out of place. So we've replaced it with the User ID, so you can know whether a submission is yours or not, and you'll read no disgusting "names".
In this case why you haven't remove names from ranklists?.. Change all names into numbers and everything will be looks fine...

...I'm totally agree with Adrian that it's better if everybody can decide by their own how ranklist/judge status needs looks like.
fpnc wrote:3) Support for FreePascal is almost here. We're going to replace GPC with FPC as the second is more everything than the first. I need to verify that FPC can compile almost 100% of GPC submissions already sent, so rejudging them won't make them turn into CE or WA. But the change is planned to be so smooth that you won't notice any change - language will continue to be named "Pascal". I'll let you know when the change is done. I hope this will make our Pascal-life more comfortable.
If 4% was enough to remove algorithm field may be only ~10% of people who using Pascal is also a reason to remove Pascal support at all?
fpnc wrote:4) We're going to generate some XML's files for statistics so you can get the info you want better than parsing the HTMLs as some of you are doing now. In the meanwhile, I'm going to add some metadata in HTML comments (i.e., <!-- -->) so parsing them will be easier than parsing the HTML code itself. I'll give more details when done.
The most pleasant thing... actually the only pleasant thing :-(
fpnc wrote:5) Submit-o-matic is going to give you the submission # so you'll be able to track the submissions easier.
Actually I haven't seen any difficulties to track my submissions when used submit-o-matic... At least when judge status showed author names not just IDs...
fpnc wrote:6) We're going to upgrade the compilers, specially the java compiler so the java support will be increased.
There only 0.5% of people who using JAVA, so support for this language really can be removed at all (according to item #1).

And one more time -- it's only my personal opinion and I don't want to offence anybody. But (personally) I don't like these changes.

Adrian Kuegel
Guru
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Germany

Post by Adrian Kuegel » Sun Sep 08, 2002 12:48 am

Thank you very much :-)
It is great that one can configure the status like that, everybody gets what he wants.

fpnc
System administrator
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

Post by fpnc » Sun Sep 08, 2002 1:14 am

Ivan Golubev wrote:I respect your job/site and I really like(d) it
Sorry to see that "d". This site is grown too fast and we have to make some changes if we want to keep it alive.
Ivan Golubev wrote:If 4% was enough to remove algorithm field may be only ~10% of people who using Pascal is also a reason to remove Pascal support at all?
The big difference we find is that Pascal support does not annoy anyone - except those who tries to use it and cannot because it is buggy -, and algorithm field has been found to be (almost always) empty or non-sense, **and** we have a good tool to ask for help - this board. Be sure that without this board we won't remove the field. Also, I can argue some reasons for this field to be gone. For example, and this is not my thought - I've read it somewhere else: let's suppose a problem is very easy to solve once you know a formula, but difficult to reach that conclussion. If I put as algorithm "Use result=x^2+y^2" and I reach a good place in the ranklist, everyone will solve without thinking - the primary goal of this site has gone (remember why we don't publish the inputs/outputs). If you need help for a particular problem, go to this board, look for a thread or create one, and be helped by request - not by looking at the ranklist.
Ivan Golubev wrote:There only 0.5% of people who using JAVA, so support for this language really can be removed at all (according to item #1).
First, a lot of people would use JAVA if we used the right version and configuration - we've received a lot of complaints about our java version. And the same last paragraph applies here.

Also, it is very annoying to receive a lot of emails telling us whether Taiwan is or isn't a province of China and telling us they're going to tell their government because of such offence. It is very annoying to receive some emails complaining about people who registered twice - or a hundred of times. Emails complaining about using algorithm field for political or personal matters. Other emails are like "THE JUDGE DOESN'T WORK. FIX IT!!!!". People submitting the same problem once and another. I'm tired of those emails. People ask to remove that "offensive" field, we think about whether it is useful or not, we find it removable - because it has a perfect replacement here in the board - and we remove it. No more emails, we are happier, we work happier, we improve this system happier. Simple, isn't it?
Ivan Golubev wrote:And one more time -- it's only my personal opinion and I don't want to offence anybody. But (personally) I don't like these changes.
No offence here. I just try to show you why we are doing this. I'd prefer people not trying to hack this site, but they try. I'd prefer people not trying to annoy other people, but they do. I'd prefer not to receive such emails, but I do.

Anyway, you didn't like "these changes" but I think you dislike only #1, because #2 has been fixed, #3 & #6 are unworthy for you but unharmful, and #4 is good... am I right? :-?
Best regards,

Fernando N

Ivan Golubev
Experienced poster
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Saint Petersburg, Russia

Post by Ivan Golubev » Sun Sep 08, 2002 12:07 pm

fpnc wrote:For example, and this is not my thought - I've read it somewhere else: let's suppose a problem is very easy to solve once you know a formula, but difficult to reach that conclussion. If I put as algorithm "Use result=x^2+y^2" and I reach a good place in the ranklist, everyone will solve without thinking - the primary goal of this site has gone (remember why we don't publish the inputs/ outputs).
It's still possible to do this via this board. And actually this board is already overloaded with source code which you can submit without any thinking about problem. And I don't know what's worse.
fpnc wrote:Also, it is very annoying to receive a lot of emails telling us whether Taiwan is or isn't a province of China and telling us they're going to tell their government because of such offence.
I think it starts not from "algorithm" field values but from your definition of Taiwan! Look at the countries list, there still exist "TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA". So I suspect you'll still receive many e-mails about this thing.
fpnc wrote: I just try to show you why we are doing this. I'd prefer people not trying to hack this site, but they try. I'd prefer people not trying to annoy other people, but they do. I'd prefer not to receive such emails, but I do.
From Murphy's Laws, Mr. Cole's Axiom: "The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing". ;-) We can do nothing with it and there always will be a lot of brainless people who want to hack/annoy/spam/etc.
fpnc wrote:Anyway, you didn't like "these changes" but I think you dislike only #1, because #2 has been fixed, #3 & #6 are unworthy for you but unharmful, and #4 is good... am I right?
Yes, you're right ;-) But unfortunately #4 is only in your plans and #1 is already done, so summary looks negative for me.


Actually I'll prefer to see some improvements on measuring program's running time/used memory than improved Pascal/Java support. It's a bit annoying to see how run-time floats in a range 0.030 - 0.060 when submitting the same code twice. And these 64Kb as memory usage also isn't good. I think if you'll be able to fix this it'll make happy a lot of people not only me :-)

fpnc
System administrator
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

Post by fpnc » Sun Sep 08, 2002 1:07 pm

Ivan Golubev wrote:It's still possible to do this via this board. And actually this board is already overloaded with source code which you can submit without any thinking about problem. And I don't know what's worse.
You can choose to search the board and read the topic in which the source code is written. But almost everyone uses the stats of a certain problem and in this case, you are going to see the algorithm field (unless you put your hand in the middle of the screen). From this point of view, the board better than the algorithm field.
Ivan Golubev wrote:I think it starts not from "algorithm" field values but from your definition of Taiwan! Look at the countries list, there still exist "TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA". So I suspect you'll still receive many e-mails about this thing.
ISO 3166 - "ISO 3166 is this commonly accepted International Standard and the ISO 3166/MA has been updating it since 1974": "TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA (TW)". Our source of information about countries is ISO 3166, so we follow that document. If anyone has a better idea, let me know.
Ivan Golubev wrote:It's a bit annoying to see how run-time floats in a range 0.030 - 0.060 when submitting the same code twice. And these 64Kb as memory usage also isn't good. I think if you'll be able to fix this it'll make happy a lot of people not only me :-)
We know. I'm not the writter of the system but I'm more or less "in charge" now, so I'm studying the way these things are done. In the particular case of running time, we use wait3() to get information such as ru_utime, which gives "time spent executing user instructions" and ru_stime "time spent in operating system code on behalf of processes", so it is Linux who gives us that information. I do not know right now how can we change it so it can give more accurate information. I have to study deeper the source code to be able to change these things, and until then the system should continue working, so we're doing our best here.
Best regards,

Fernando N

Ivan Golubev
Experienced poster
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Saint Petersburg, Russia

Post by Ivan Golubev » Sun Sep 08, 2002 2:56 pm

fpnc wrote:ISO 3166 - "ISO 3166 is this commonly accepted International Standard and the ISO 3166/MA has been updating it since 1974": "TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA (TW)". Our source of information about countries is ISO 3166, so we follow that document. If anyone has a better idea, let me know.
I don't want to fall into politics (especially when my knowledge about Taiwan/China situation is nearly nothing) but it just unlogical -- if it's a province why it listed as a country, if it's a country why to specify something more?.. Actually I can't remember any other sites where this definition (with 'province') was used, just a 'TAIWAN' is enough in all cases to specify what we're mean.
fpnc wrote: In the particular case of running time, we use wait3() to get information such as ru_utime, which gives "time spent executing user instructions" and ru_stime "time spent in operating system code on behalf of processes", so it is Linux who gives us that information. I do not know right now how can we change it so it can give more accurate information.
I'm not so familiar with Linux but I think time measuring can be improved with simple modifing of standard libraries (at least for C/C++, but I suspect it also can be done for Pascal).

You're just need to insert some code into initialization routine, i.e. before calling main() function. After executing main() control returns again to standard routines, so we can start timer/stop timer with high resolution within the executable program. Also, after main() we can pause program for a small amount of time before exiting (say, 0.3 sec) to make sure that system detected 'used memory' value properly.

Caesum
Experienced poster
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri May 03, 2002 12:14 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Caesum » Sun Sep 08, 2002 3:48 pm

:(

So when you say that you are changing names into numbers will this be in all of the ranklists too ? A set of numbers..... nice :-?

fpnc
System administrator
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 2:00 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

Post by fpnc » Sun Sep 08, 2002 6:38 pm

Caesum wrote:So when you say that you are changing names into numbers will this be in all of the ranklists too ?
Right now everything will be hold as is - Real Time System Status shows numbers unless you use "T" option, and the other ranklists will show the name if they show it now. It may be changed in the future, however.
Best regards,

Fernando N

ithamar
Learning poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 11:58 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by ithamar » Mon Sep 09, 2002 1:56 am

Hi guys,

First of, I want to say that "I personally" like ALL the changes you've made
to the site (The only one that i dislike was already fixed with the suggestion of Adrian).

I know that different cultures tend to care very little about calling each
other names or treating themselves in an offensive manner. Sharing some common cultural background with spaniards, I not only understand
your decisions, but I also admire you for handling the matter so responsibly... I know other cultures would just look away when they see wrong... I am happy that some people still dont.
Ivan Golubev wrote:
fpnc wrote: If 4% was enough to remove algorithm field may be only ~10% of people who using Pascal is also a reason to remove Pascal support at all?
The big difference we find is that Pascal support does not annoy anyone - except those who tries to use it and cannot because it is buggy
Ivan Golubev wrote: Actually I'll prefer to see some improvements on measuring program's running time/used memory than improved Pascal/Java support.
I couldnt find it any more unconsiderate of people complaining about their C or C++ program being added a 0.000000000000000003 nanoseconds when people who want to use Java have to almost make their programs using C syntax because of the very little support...Yet again such is the nature of culture diversity... I understand it, it just troubles
me that maybe not only the normalized intelligence of the world is decreasing... but also the normalized consideration... some people think they are alone in this world...


that's all of my rant. No offense. But hey, have you tried looking at the
world through someone else's eyes?? that would REALLY elevate the normalized INTELLIGENCE of the world.
Last edited by ithamar on Mon Sep 09, 2002 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Those Who Don't Know History are doomed to repeat it

ithamar
Learning poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 11:58 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by ithamar » Mon Sep 09, 2002 7:30 am

I have seen that 3 of the 6 changes have are already take place.

I would like that you let me know when are you going to upgrade the compliers. Besides i would like to know exactly which compilers are you installing.

About the Java Support i also would like to know which classes and packages are supported with the new compiler that were not supported with the old one.

I think that now that you are going to upgrade the system you should think in standarize all the languages. I am not a guru in C or C++ but i believe that gcc, and g++ support ansi-C and STL, so there is no problem with thoses languages. With pascal you are upgrading from gpc to freepascal (about this i dont say nothing because i dont know nothing) but i suposse the change is for the best :) . Now in Java is the time to use THE STANDART java provided by SUN freely. I think that if you take another implementation NOT STANDART like gcj the problems that are happening now is going to be repeated in the future.


I would like to know what do you think about this. Or it is too problematic to use jdk with the Online Jude?
Those Who Don't Know History are doomed to repeat it

Post Reply

Return to “Other words”