Difference between revisions of "Talk:Who's Cuter"

From Pin Eight
Jump to: navigation, search
m (The build with CHN: should have previewed more)
(The build with CHN: sorry, I didn't see that that was a "rhetorical" question)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 36: Line 36:
 
:::Why didn't it reach 100% during the test? When the program starts, the data comes sorted to roughly my own tastes; you're re-sorting them to match yours. And in a merge sort, the bottom half (stuff that I consider ugly) and the top half (stuff that I consider cute) are sorted separately, and then the two halves are merged. So if the incoming data is nearly sorted to begin with, the last pass will stop early.
 
:::Why didn't it reach 100% during the test? When the program starts, the data comes sorted to roughly my own tastes; you're re-sorting them to match yours. And in a merge sort, the bottom half (stuff that I consider ugly) and the top half (stuff that I consider cute) are sorted separately, and then the two halves are merged. So if the incoming data is nearly sorted to begin with, the last pass will stop early.
 
:::Why is it so easy to manipulate? For much the same reason: the ordering from ugly to cute is precisely the order in which characters are selected in the last pass. Notice how much of the last pass is down presses because you share my most of my tastes: ugly half as ugly and cute half as cute. And it feels easier to manipulate for much the same reason: the ordering from ugly to cute is precisely the order of the not-displayed characters in the last pass. I can randomize this a bit by shuffling the rankings before the test begins. Is this needed? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] 19:04, 19 November 2011 (MST)
 
:::Why is it so easy to manipulate? For much the same reason: the ordering from ugly to cute is precisely the order in which characters are selected in the last pass. Notice how much of the last pass is down presses because you share my most of my tastes: ugly half as ugly and cute half as cute. And it feels easier to manipulate for much the same reason: the ordering from ugly to cute is precisely the order of the not-displayed characters in the last pass. I can randomize this a bit by shuffling the rankings before the test begins. Is this needed? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] 19:04, 19 November 2011 (MST)
 +
::::I was unaware that the program did not already pre-shuffle the items before the test questions; sorry for not reading your source code. I would strongly prefer for this to be implemented. In this case, please disregard my suggestion for two or three extraneous swaps. [[User:Eighty5cacao|Eighty5cacao]] 19:20, 19 November 2011 (MST)

Revision as of 02:21, 20 November 2011

Refusing to pick either

My conservative aunt tried this once. When faced with Al Gore vs. Marilyn Manson: "I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid; I'm not picking either one." Plus she didn't know when it would end. The progress bar thing I agree with, but I guess it might happen occasionally when both are so disgusting that the player refuses to pick either. --Tepples 17:12, 6 November 2011 (MST)

Fixed

Split from here

I can confirm that the new build fixes the flickering issue I reported in the old build. Eighty5cacao 13:25, 7 November 2011 (MST)

Thanks for testing. I've got a new build out at the same URL with a few more changes: switched to merge sort for 15-20% fewer pairs, added a progress bar, and experimented with a clearer art style. --Tepples 13:52, 7 November 2011 (MST)

The only person

Am I really the only person ever to send you results from Who's Cuter? Or did I misunderstand the article?

Notwithstanding emails that may have been lost by Spamcop or other providers, my hypothesis for the poor response rate is that many people downloaded the ROM image from less-legal sites which do not supply the documentation from your official distribution package. (It doesn't help that Cowering misspelled your surname as "Yeppick" or "Terrick," either.) Since they're unlikely familiar with your other works, they wouldn't know how to contact you.

Hence my next enhancement request: Consider displaying some form of contact information at the end of the results, or failing that, on the title screen. Eighty5cacao 23:19, 8 November 2011 (MST)

Yes, you're the only person who has sent results. But a problem just as big as the contact information is how to copy the rankings out of the NES and into the e-mail client. I don't think people are going to want to have to copy out a 32-character password, and UNROM doesn't normally have a .sav file unless one adds the circuit from Family BASIC. As for the "Yeppick" problem, Nova continues to tease me about it. This is part of why I settled on one font used in every recent NES release of mine save LJ65. I think the name "Damian Yerrick" on the title screen is written clearly enough; would you agree? --Tepples 11:10, 9 November 2011 (MST)
To clarify: As of GoodNES 3.10 (IIRC), "Terrick" applies to Who's Cuter. "Yeppick" was the misspelling Cowering used for your Nibbles homebrew. I seem to recall the latter stemming from a misreading of a font resembling half-uncial script, but upon reading that Wikipedia article, I'm not sure that half-uncial is the right term.
I agree that the current fonts are satisfactorily legible. Eighty5cacao 11:59, 9 November 2011 (MST)
Insular is probably the closest description of the style of type used in my project template from the Nibbles era. I abandoned Nibbles when I found that Super NeSnake 2 was doing the same thing but better. --Tepples 12:07, 9 November 2011 (MST)

Back to the first question: So if I am the only person to send you results, then who are the people who mixed up Hanson and Manson? Were you referring to tests that you witnessed personally? Eighty5cacao 12:40, 9 November 2011 (MST)

Yes, there were some in-person tests. I'm working on a few changes to the build process, specifically the compression, before I put up another test ROM. --Tepples 14:09, 9 November 2011 (MST)

The build with CHN

I've got a new build introducing three new technologies codenamed CHN, PB8, and VWF.

  • CHN: Don't store identical tiles of a portrait twice. It's like CHARlie and CHR2NAM, except with a clever way of storing runs of unique tiles and runs of repeated tiles.
  • PB8: Compress a portrait one tile at a time; later this will let me decompress one portrait while the other is displayed, taking full advantage of merge sort's tendency to repeat cards.
  • VWF: Draw the name of a character in small text next to the portrait.

Anyone want to give it a try? --Tepples 20:46, 16 November 2011 (MST)

Ok. Expect results around the middle of this coming Saturday. Eighty5cacao 22:15, 16 November 2011 (MST)
Cross-posted from User:Eighty5cacao/misc/Who's Cuter results#19 November 2011: Possible bug: In the "now the whole lineup" section of the results display (i.e., the graphical display after the text), the progress meter is visible showing 95%. (The exact number may vary between tests, but I was too lazy to repeat the test just for this.) Logically, it should either display 100% or not display at all. Eighty5cacao 13:29, 19 November 2011 (MST)
You're right that I should hide percentage during lineup review; thanks for this suggestion.
Why didn't it reach 100% during the test? When the program starts, the data comes sorted to roughly my own tastes; you're re-sorting them to match yours. And in a merge sort, the bottom half (stuff that I consider ugly) and the top half (stuff that I consider cute) are sorted separately, and then the two halves are merged. So if the incoming data is nearly sorted to begin with, the last pass will stop early.
Why is it so easy to manipulate? For much the same reason: the ordering from ugly to cute is precisely the order in which characters are selected in the last pass. Notice how much of the last pass is down presses because you share my most of my tastes: ugly half as ugly and cute half as cute. And it feels easier to manipulate for much the same reason: the ordering from ugly to cute is precisely the order of the not-displayed characters in the last pass. I can randomize this a bit by shuffling the rankings before the test begins. Is this needed? --Tepples 19:04, 19 November 2011 (MST)
I was unaware that the program did not already pre-shuffle the items before the test questions; sorry for not reading your source code. I would strongly prefer for this to be implemented. In this case, please disregard my suggestion for two or three extraneous swaps. Eighty5cacao 19:20, 19 November 2011 (MST)