I have been talking to yurri about the scoring system but now he has asked me about what should earn a star, how many stars, and when do you lose them. I had not thought about possible changes, so I am asking what do you think. When Adam introduced stars I believe they were only given to whoever got to lowest moves first and for fastest times and then I think he added for comment that was rated "helpful" the most. Plus stars accumulated. If accumulating stars is possible, I would keep them for only 30 days along with the scores. Any thoughts?

Could there be some designation for the player who gets low score first (double stars)? Or are double stars still being used for low score/fastest time? And then everyone else who gets low score would still get a star.

Why are you considering changing the scoring system from what it currently is? It definitely shouldn't be only the first for time or moves. It should be the same score for anyone who gets the same lowest time or moves primarily because when the game is posted some are getting up for the day and others are just going to sleep. This gives everyone the same opportunity to get an equal score for the same effort. If this is frowned upon because someone can read the clues then don't post the clues if you want to be the only one with the lowest score.

Yurri doesn't have the source code and doesn't know how the current system works, so he can't change the game to be usable on ipads and mobile. Susan, that's definitely a suggestion I'd make. Maybe you keep the double star for lowest and fastest and then if you're first to lowest moves you could get triple stars. I was thinking of even giving some bonus points for first to reach lowest moves. It would give those who play early an advantage but maybe that's not a big deal.

@Koko, for some reason all of your post didn't show up at first. What Susan is talking about is stars not scoring but I am pondering the possibility of a bonus point or two as well. Whether you give clues or not when someone reaches lowest moves first it sets the bar for everyone else because there's definitely a difference playing knowing the game can go lower as to wondering if it can. Consider today, you were leading at 134, would you have looked for 133 or how hard would you have looked for it if it hadn't been found.

Like I said Fizz, I don't think it's fair for the first of either to get bonus points as not everyone in this world is on the same time!!! Why can't everyone have equal opportunity here? Are some just greedy?

Whoa!!! It's a game and it's competition. No one's getting paid here except Yurri. People have made a similar argument about fastest times because those who have better computer systems have an edge. You're never going to have absolute equal opportunity. But like I said it's just a game, it's free, and there's community. We can give each other a pat on the back or a hooray for doing something. Besides there's been discussion in the past about how the person who gets lowest moves first doesn't benefit from that even though there's considerable evidence that it benefits others.

Ok, this is getting a bit much I think. It does not seem to be a bad scoring system as is. To me, if you do not play everyday, you go down in rank. And who gets lowest moves first and gets an extra star is not right for those that play late, except as in the case of Layla LOL who so many times comes on late and gets low moves. She manages to stay number 1 because she is CONSISTENT with low moves and time. If you do not play you drop. And the fun of the game is when someone does come along and gets low moves and then everyone thinks and plays hard to get the lowest also. Lets not lose the fun of the game and get too technical ! And you give clues because you like to help others and we all enjoy your clues Fizzbut because we always have to think a little more. Keeps us all young!

I'm still looking for suggestions about stars please.

like it was originally, lowest score, fastest score, most helpful and I like a bonus star for who solves a very hard game first...not just any game. But no points for it..just a star.

I like that one, but it might be too hard to differentiate between a very hard game and regular hard game. So I would suggest any game that's rated hard. Or I was thinking it would be cool if we had some way of giving a star to someone if they pulled something exceptional. And @donna thanks for somehow placing this in my lap. lol. Your daddy didn't raise no dummy.

my pleasure Bruce... when Susan suggested it I sort of figured, why bother...this is just to get an idea of what people find most important in rankings... but then I knew when it got more involved I wouldn't have a clue and wasn't part of the original conversation so I just suggested it to Yuri and he ran with it. I am sure he noticed how on the ball you are with the game anyway and welcomed it. Yeah I like the exceptional star. I always think of the person who comes through when we all think it's impossible and it isn't. And often that person isn't one who ends up with low score and it always strikes me as not being quite right. But not sure how you would regulate that. You would probably know.

O.K., Fizz, how about this? Can things be set up so that those getting low score are listed in the order that they achieve that? Then, automatically, the one who got it first -- would be first ! I always thought it was not exactly fair that a player who had gotten the low score first ended up being number seven or twelve in a list of fifteen or twenty with low score. Also, for some reason, certain players *always* end up at the top (if they get low score) even if it is at the end of the day. Layla and Pearl come to mind. (Nothing against Layla and Pearl ! ) Someone could get low score in the afternoon and their avatar and name would show up as number five, for example, and someone else getting low score after that might get inserted as number three. Is that not a question of programming? Is that doable? Otherwise, I think three stars would be in order for the person who gets low score first, so that if they are tenth in a list of twenty, at least they would stand out.

Ok this is hard to discuss because where someone is ranked will be a factor of their score unless we give everyone who is tied for the same position the same score with no tie breakers. I think that's the way we are leaning. As far as stars go, should I say we are agreed that the person who gets lowest score first gets an extra star?

Are stars really SO important? Is this elementary school? Just a doable puzzle a day is sufficient.

I think people whose screen name starts with a "K" should get a star (hee hee)

along with people with Superkids, kim. and Joseph, I have very fond memories of elementary school.

Dale had a good point about us staying young. So , I like the stars. Besides incentive to score along with rank, stars create another incentive to not only solve the puzzle but get lowest moves, which is sometimes very difficult. The Olympic athletes get medals, why can't we get stars ? We can't forget about those who achieve lowest times as well. Getting a star for being the one who discovers the lowest moves for that game, isn't a bad idea either. The graphs already acknowledge who gets lowest moves and times. I would like to see the graphs stay as well. They are nice visuals to go along with the solitaire challenge.

I've asked Yuriy to keep the graphs (and stars for lowest moves, times, first on moves, most helpful, and extra star for getting lowest moves and time on the same try)

Nice. That should cover it.