I've read the forum and am wondering if lowest moves and fastest times should receive equal weighting. Would that be the fairest?

There is a ranking for "most popular" with how many friends you have yet some top ranked "popular" names do not even play anymore. I mean nothing for months at a time. Is it still relevant?

I like both the low and fast moves features. I'm not very good at either - I rarely earn stars, but doing a little better in one or the other on a given day is fun and encouraging. I tend to do better with the fastest times; and I don't cheat (not sure how that can possibly be done - we need to admire others' abilities, not cut them down - for instance; I admire people who earn stars even if I never do...LOL).

@qhermit I posted a comment on the original explanation of the scoring system to bring it up to the first page and maybe it will give you an idea on making a new one. Adam reversed the scores giving the fastest player the slowest players score and the same with moves so the fastest and lowest moves got the highest scores. I was thinking another way is you could inverse the scores and put a multiplier on it of something like 100 for time and 1000 for moves. You asked how much to "charge balls" and I don't know what you mean.

Oh and thank you for taking the time to update the site. I think a mobile app would be great. Then I could not get work done when I'm at work too.

PaBaldy made an important point yesterday (Feb. 6). He reminded the players that for some, the lowest moves are a group effort, i.e., we are given clues that get us to lowest moves. This being the case, it becomes difficult to justify the weighting of lowest moves greater than fastest times. Conversely, fastest times should not be weighted greater than lowest moves.

I have read all the great comments left by the players in the Solitaire Craving Community. All have validity with the subject at hand. I, for one ,enjoy the challenge of achieving low moves, while , also , trying to get a decent time. Both require skill. I think to achieve low moves is more challenging than the speed aspect of it. Where it becomes an issue of a defining move to achieve lowest moves, lowest speed can be achieved at any stage of development. From what I have heard, it is easier to achieve lowest speed with more moves than less moves because of the way the cards play. Again, for me, I choose to work on my speed after order of play has been established, so that I do not have learn order twice over. Both aspects should be scored, but maybe with more weight on lowest moves. Granted , it seems like it is a group effort to help each with clues; but at that point it is up to the achiever to give out clues if he or she so desires. That's part of what makes this gaming site fun and enjoyable, the interaction that creates a common interwoven thread if you will . Sure, anyone could play a game without any interaction. This site has accomplished for what would be a game you would play by yourself in solitude, to one that can be played with others at an online format. Thinking about the SC Community..... all of us with diverse backgrounds, from the youngest to those that are seasoned by time ,playing the same game many times over on a given day and scoring and acquiring a rank, yet dwelling in different regions of the world. Phenomenal !

The weighting of lowest moves has been more then just a matter of making them count more. It depends on on how moves and times are calculated. The main reason moves was doubled originally was actually to even the weight because times have a much larger variance then moves do even though Adam had figured the average moves and times are about the same. Even in my suggestion of inverted scores weighting moves 10x more then times doesn't give moves 10x the weight because times can go much lower usually then moves. And yes clues are given that even the playing field but finding lowest moves using clues isn't all that easy. I think though qhermit might be looking for just a straight score by rank. ie 1st place gets so many points. I'd be for a ranking up to 100, where 1st gets 100, 2nd get 99 and so on, and everyone ranked 100 or more get a point for completion. Rankings in cases of ties for moves would be based on times. So if 15 people got lowest moves they would be ranked 1-15 in order of the fastest to the slowest. As I'm thinking of this maybe scores should be ranked only up to 50 would make it more competitive. That is unless there are people who get ranked in times or moves higher then 50th that want to compete.

Yea, I noticed what Yuri said. I am no teckno expert, but I am sure that would be so much easier on the server as well as something tangible that we could wrap our heads around for scoring. With your suggestion, Sir Fizz, this way speed and low moves play a part, which gives an incentive for both maybe ? This would be an objective way to to set it up. Do you think that 50 might be a bit low considering how many do play, and there are 7402 in community last time I checked. I haven,t looked at individual games to see how many did play. That would give you a good measurement to set the bar. However, just a thought, how would that work for those that don't get low moves and concentrate more on speed ? Maybe a straight rank for speed and a straight rank for lowest moves, I think Yuri suggested, yet also having come into play what you suggested when there is tie for rank. Hmmm. just thinking. Your suggestion would most likely be simpler.

I was thinking of adding the scores for one rank but I am not opposed to separate ranks. I was thinking 50 would be good so you don't lose as much ground if you are ranked higher then 50. It would make it more competitive to get into the top 50. I think there are generally about 150 to 200 that play on any given game and I suspect that at least half of those just play to complete. Now if the game goes mobile then we may see an increase in players.

I am happy with the present scoring system. If it changes, I would keep seperate daily rankings for moves and times, as at present, but suggest possibly also having those as monthly rankings, together with a combined one that uses both, as at present i.e. three sets of monthly rankings. All the data is needed for the current system, so it is just accumulating and presenting it differently. Please keep rankings up to at least 100. I started playing in July and have watched myself get into the top 100 and have gradually (slowly) worked my way up from the 90s to the 60s. It gives me an incentive to persevere at games to try to get a few more points and there are not many points difference between players. I don't see much point in the 'most popular' rankings myself.

veronicarose thanks for the response. I believe yurri wants to redo the scoring because he can't use the present source code to create a mobile app. Since no one really knows how our current scoring system works he's looking for a new one he can write. I was trying to think of as simple of one as possible. And as far as the rankings go, what I'm suggesting everyone would be ranked. It just the top 50 would get extra points. I checked you scores from yesterday and you were in the top 50 in both time and moves. I'm for your idea of separate rankings too but I think it would be up to yurri as to how many different rankings he wants to create.

I'm considering suggesting some bonus points for reaching lowest moves first. The only problem with this is that it gives an advantage to those who play early. Any thoughts.

With the new scoring plan (50 pts for first place, 49 for second etc), if 15 people tie for first place, those 15 people with the same number of moves will have scores ranging from 35 to 50. That doesn't seem fair to me. I agree with Koko that those who have the lowest score should all have the same score and not just the first person to get that score because we are all playing at different times. Giving a bonus to those who finish first would give an edge to people who live in certain locales. Koko also mentioned "lowest time or score at the end of the day," but for now the scores continue to change for a month. Would that continue?

Mind you this is all in flux and as far as I know he hasn't even started writing it. Yes Susie the changes would be affected by what new scores are posted for the 30 days. The proposal now is that the tie for moves would be broken by time. In other words if 15 people are tied for first. The fastest would get the 50 points, the 2nd fastest would get 49, and 15th fastest would get the 35 points. My feeling is that's not a huge spread and points are accumulated for 30 days. so maybe you're in 15th place today and tomorrow you are 5th. Although if you're tied then people are more likely to try and improve the times more. --- One of the reasons for the tie breaker is for simplification. If you have 15 people tied for 1st place what score do you give them. They all get 50? does 16th place get 34?

Dale brought up about Layla plays late. With her ability to get fast times the proposed system puts her at an advantage because she'll get the most points for moves. This is for me more reason for a bonus for the person who is first and using a flat score for ties instead of a tiebreaker.