This comment has very negative rating despite being so true

It is true but what this statement is about? It has been like this for all the rounds I've answered clars to. The quantity changes from time to time, the percentage never. No matter how well your statement are written, there will always be people too lazy to try to comprehend them.

In this round we had 30-40 unanswered questions during an hour

Wtf? Is it really ok? Is it us being too pedantic about it? Like for about the same participation rate we've never had over like 10 questions unanswered. And the round with these 10 has two or three somewhat unclear problem statements. Maybe you are too afraid of using basic Yes/No/No comments?

And if we can't understand your question, we spend several minutes on answering. Please. Please. PLEASE. Spend 2-3 minutes trying to answer your question yourself. Use samples. Reread the statement. This is a skill, you have to improve it. Read my blog.

Can't agree more! Like I would write it in each of the statements several times for anyone to understand.

Waiting for the round to end to tell authors of their problem being incorrect is questionable, but your point is valid enough. I would prefer for someone to tell me about it, like, obviously, such a clar from a high-rated participant would be of greater priority. Some green guy with a similar question would look annoying to me, but the red one wouldn't for sure.

I also think that CF should abandon the practice of answering every clarification if possible. It will decrease the number of clarifications and decrease the time to answer one clarification. If I can answer "Read the problem statement", that should be the answer. If I can answer "No comments", that should be the answer.

Is there such a practice?)

And the last paragraph. Why would their opinions even bother you? Why don't you just ignore the retards and answer in comments only to people who are genuinely interested in your answer?

UPD: Also, guys. If you tried for long enough to understand the problem and still unable to, at least try to state your question as if jury has three buttons "Yes", "No" and "No comments". It helps us so much.

Clarification questions should only be asked by user above certain rating.

Ad last few paragraphs: I think you need to build up your smug anime girls folder. If you say tone doesn't matter, you must be prepared for shitposting.

I just read Div 2 C from your round. I understood it without any clarifications, the statement doesn't have any mistakes. BUT it is long and contain plenty of conditions which you should keep in memory simultaneously while reading and understanding it.

What's why so many greens complain: they doesn't have so much memory. I'm not green, but still had to spend some seconds to make everything clear for me: which rooks should be connected with which and which should not.

So, to all problemsetters: you should try to reduce the number of expressions and conditions in the statement as much as possible. It increases the readability of problems. Even if the statement is 100% correct, it still can be disgusting to read and understand. It's sometimes better to create a new problem than to use the one with long statement full of conditions.

Being mentioned in the shame list, I feel like I should respond. First of all, I certainly do know what "if and only if" means. I've asked the question because I've got confused about the wording of it. The difference is dismissively small, but still. Maybe, the lack of thorough explanation of even simple things like that (e.g. subsequence vs substring/subarray in most of problems mentioning them) made me unsure whether it means what it reads. That being said, I do agree that I should've read through the statement a couple of times more before asking.

To adequate people in this community: I'm tired of speaking truth. This not your truth? Explain me why am I not right, change my point of view. You think that I'm right in some cases? Speak it up. These animals can attack lone people, but if they will see that I'm not alone, they could think for once. You think that I have no right to insult people, but the idea is correct? Downvote me, say that wording is bad, but express that you agree with meaning.

Contribution is too precious for people to publicly agree with you. Obviously you should know that when you say something true, but in a non polite way there will be people saying something like this (nothing personal). And then a lot of people who see the comment chain after that will simply agree with the upvoted comment. Someone who cares about his contribution and agrees with you won't reply to the conversation as he obviously will get downvotes. So I think this is the reason you are mainly getting downvotes on your comments.

Also for a similar reason you can see the same joke (for example the "stop preparing problems" one). New users (and not only) want contribution, so why not write the same thing and get upvotes? Seems like a good idea. Most of the times those are retard so idk why you would care.

Generally most of the times the stuff you are saying makes sense and is true. The wording is awful tho. But still it's true.

So I just wanted to say that there are a lot of people I know (me included) who do agree with the things you are saying. So you aren't alone I guess.

I would say that you shouldn't care about those stupid people, and also that you should be more polite and respectful to people like misof, but your butthurt comments and posts are very funny, so please stay this way.

Well, I don't exactly agree with some parts of this blog, and I don't like the part about sharing usernames of people asking particular questions, but it looks like a typical Um_nik — it is funny to read, and I like how you are bringing up topics which other people are afraid to touch :) I'm not going to ask you to be more polite, because I know that it is not going to help :D

I also have something to add / to complain about.

I don't know if there is a single "right" way to do competitive programming and single right approach to things like clarifications. I am used to the idea that for any question there are only 3 possible answers:

• Yes.
• No.
• No comments (please read problem statement).

And out of those 3, last option is the right answer in like 90 to 99 percent of the cases. If you have to reply with something different from one of the answers above, it usually implies some serious issues with contest preparation. Even if you have to reply with Yes or No — it also often implies that something isn't OK with problem statement, like it being ambiguous. "No comments" block covers everything from "It is written in problem statement" to_ "Figuring this out is a part of the problem solving process"_. OK, I can also extend the list above with something like "We don't understand your question, please clarify/rephrase it" for cases of people having hard time with foreign language in international competition, to distinguish it from "We do understand your question and we are sure that it is stupid/poorly stated/bad/wrong" ("No comments"). 4 default templates, should be enough for pretty much anything that doesn't involve making global announcements in the middle of the competition.

You got backlog of questions during contest? Were there so many of them? (I have no clue because I never moderated contest at CF, so indeed it is possible that you have hundreds of questions to answer — then I understand it). Was it because some questions took too long to understand? In case it was because it took too long to answer — it is also your fault. And you are also contributing to the problem that you described. Seriously — most of the questions that you mentioned are just "No comments", which means spending several seconds to read the question (especially if you got similar questions earlier already) and a few more seconds to reply. By replying to them in more detail you are only contributing to the issue, sending a message that if somebody is lazy to read problem statement or lazy to think — they may ask organizers for handling that part and giving additional advantage to such contestants, making things unfair.

I'm quite sure that I also asked a lot of stupid questions during various programming competitions. I'm also sure that some of them have been asked when I already had red rating — it isn't just a beginner's thing. I should say that I'm getting much, much more questions in my head while participating in competitions — but I'm not asking most of them because it is almost always clear that either my question is stupid and I would get "No comments" or by the time I reached this problem there are other contestants who also discovered it and there is going to be some announcement very soon, so it is not worth spending both my time and time of organizers.

Back to the part about "right" way: there are (multiple) places and (multiple) sites and (multiple) contest organizers who have different views. They handle questions and clarifications in a different way, and because of that a lot of contestants also have different understanding of how it should work; moreover, their understanding is even somewhat correct — because indeed it matches with how stuff works in specific situations. So if you think that my or your perception (which seem to be somewhat similar) are right, and that different way to handle questions/answers/comments isn't OK — you should first of all blame organizers/authors contributing to it, and not "stupid lazy contestants". Seriously — reading problems carefully and using your brain is hard. At least that's how it works for me :) I can understand how those people may get that sort of questions, because I've been in such situations as well.

So how to handle clarifications? There are (multiple) platforms where moderators are answering questions already answered in problem statement, or they provide additional sample cases by request, or they provide answers to samples not given in problem statement; there are (multiple) platforms where questions are asked somewhere at the site without any proper moderation — in comments, or at some forum, or in problem discussion — and answered right there, often by other contestants who think it is perfectly fine to interact in such way during a competition; there are (multiple) platforms where it goes as far as people describing their approaches in comments/questions and asking if they are correct, or being like "I got WA with this, please give me a test".

Back when I was problem tester at HackerEarth, I moderated some of the competitions there. I should say that I was much more "friendly" than I'd like to be and still provided much more non-trivial replies than I'd do if it was contest like Petrozavodsk — keeping in mind that things work completely different at HackerEarth. Still I was replying with much more "Please read problem statement" comments than people expected. And I was getting replies back; I was getting harsh or rude comments; I was even getting people reaching me out elsewhere (like CF messages or some social network) just to tell me that I'm asshole, bastard, jerk etc., and I shouldn't take contestants like trash by replying with "No comments — please read problem statement".

And it is not like HackerEarth is a single site which stands out. Yes, at the very beginning you may have wrong idea about how all this stuff works. But figuring this out usually takes much less time than developing your skills to the level of beating Um_nik in competitions. When people are getting this kind of replies, and when nobody cares if they help each other, or when organizers don't mind helping them by providing them with pieces of information which is not provided to other contestants — people think it is OK.

When you know that you are likely going to get "No comments", which will not help you much, and you have a choice of either spending 1 minute on reading statement and thinking or spending that 1 minute on asking stupid question without getting anything out of it — such knowledge significantly increases quality of questions which make it through "Should I actually ask it?"

"Next there are people who disliked the consequences of my words, even my comment is correct". Maybe you meant "even if my comment is correct", else it would make no sense. When i said that the statement looks like is is done with google translate i wasn't irrational. :P....

Going after Mike is a bad thing my buddy, STOP IT ! U are also going after the entire codeforces, hope you thought about this before posting....

tragic arrogance

btw in the our world every game entertainment is oriented for noobs and casuals. cf doesn't need grandmasters. cf needs green participants who are ready to donate for mike because they think cf helps them somehow.

So I decided to look at the statement of the problem the fuss is about and I agree that the statement of problem the Div2C is very bad (probably formally correct (though it depends on your definition of "formally correct"), but still very bad).

Major complaints:

"Let's call the set of rooks on the board connected if from any rook we can get to any other rook in this set moving only through cells with rooks from this set."

For someone who does not know how the chess rook moves, it looks like the set of rooks being connected means it being 4-connected (or, less probably, 8-connected). For someone who knows how the rook moves, it simply looks confusing.

"Assume that rooks can jump over other rooks."

This part is even more confusing if you don't know how the rook moves. Also it sounds more like a start of proof by contradiction than like a part of some rule description.

"In other words a rook can go to any cell which shares vertical and to any cell which shares horizontal." There are two problems with this sentence:

1) It contiains all relevant information from its paragraph (the first sentence is simply confusing and the second is technically unnecessary, but probably should have been placed after this sentence to clarify up that the movement of the rook is interpreted in an unusual way).

2) "Shares vertical/horizontal" with what? Okay, I understand that with the rook, but still...

"It is guaranteed that the solution exists."

1) Typical question: is this guaranteed in jury tests or it is guaranteed for any possible test?

2) The use of preposition "the" heavily implies that the solution is unique.

Minor complaints:

"He also knows exactly m pairs of colors which harmonize with each other."

1) The fact that he knows these m pairs does not imply that there are not any other harmonizing pairs (though the input format clarifies the question and otherwise the problem would not make any sense).

"For any two different colors a b union of set of rooks of color a and set of rooks of color b is connected if and only if this two colors harmonize with each other."

1) "and" is missed here

2) "the union"

"coordinates of the next rook."

Next after what? Especially if you are printing the first rook in block.

"All rooks must be on different cells."

Are numbers 2, 2 and 3 different? Most people would probably agree that the answer is "no", but adding just one word "pairwise" reduces confusion heavily.

Also, there are some typos/misspelings. For example, "place this k rooks" (it should be "these" instead of "this").

The last point of mine is kind of strange, but i think that while using the word "harmonize" to describe some non-transitive relation is acceptable (but don't use "equivalent" to do that, please; even "similar" is already beyond the limits of what I would consider allowed), it is much better to use some more neutral word. In general, it makes much more sense to expect the word "harmonizing" to denote an equivalence relation than, say, "permissable".

Despite all these shortcomings, I understood the statement from the first try. However, I see how someone could be completely overwhelmed by the inherit confusingness of the statement.

I understood the question and liked the problem itself. But in my opinion this paragraph was very confusing:

Let's call the set of rooks on the board connected if from any rook we can get to any other rook in this set moving only through cells with rooks from this set. Assume that rooks can jump over other rooks, in other words a rook can go to any cell which shares vertical and to any cell which shares horizontal.

What is this supposed to mean?

1. If I want to move from grid (x, y) to (x, y + k), does it require that there are rooks in all squares in between those two squares? (_moving only through cells with rooks from this set_). or

2. If I want to move from grid (x, y) to (x, y + k) does it require only 2 rooks in this positions? or

3. I can move from (x, y) to any other square which is in the same horizontal or vertical line without the requirement of a 2nd rook? (_a rook can go to any cell which shares vertical and to any cell which shares horizontal)

You are good person, but you shouldn't be that aggressive, if you speak with people kindly, people will also reply in a kind matter :)

This is probably not ethical as a problemsetter to do it

Yes, this very post looks too aggressive to me.

Regarding the statement issue, it turns out, that the number of clarifications is the direct result of your work as an author. I have seen rounds with few hundred clarifications and rounds with 50 clarifications. There are some tricks how to make statement easier, like include an example in the middle of the statement, kick some legends out, and so on. It is the job of the problem writer (and coordinator) to make sure that statements are easy to read.

I haven't been participating in your round, but I've just look it over a bit. To me, the big problem is in D2A problem, its model is complicated enough to take few minutes just to understand it even for experienced participants, so it is not surprising that many beginners didn't managed to do it (in this case maybe you should have just replaced the problem?)

funny huh! come on dude we are not all fucking grandmasters like you so calm down, first I don't think you can share people's questions, I think MikeMirzayanov may have an opinion about it, second if you see that those questions are fucking stupid and the statement is clear enough just response "read the problem statement" no need for this silly posts kiddo.

I think you could write better sentences even in this articles without the sensational wording and the non-essential parts you think. There is no justification to say "please separate the wording problem and meaning" if you know how people understand your words well in advance. While we have to try to understand your opinions, as a writer, you could be better if you try to make your sentences simpler not only giving 100% "logically" correct sentences and critisism for people who don't understand them.

Personal opinion is here: Now that codeforces is the biggest international competition website. It's open to everyone regardless of his/her age, language ability, mathematical background, or even algorithm background. It's easy to happen that different people have different common senses. Clarification is a right of participants to calibrate it and contest organizers should pretend to think there is no stupid questions, but only answrable questions or not.

My proposal is just to make a more clear guideline about what kind of questions must/mustn't/should/shouldn't be answered via clar.

The problem quality does not depend on people's opinion. Round 446 was ours and it was pure shit except for 1 or 2 peoblems but people loved it so much!!

I remember someguy sent a message to me and thanked us for the awsome problems and I saw his color changed to red because of us :D

While participating in this contest, I also had a lot of questions. Most of them sounded like "why I am so stupid?", however, I also had questions like "is the harmony operation transitive?". I don't know why the statement sounded like we had to think about transitivity, maybe because, we, stupid people, try to make things easier (in case the harmony operation in transitive, the problem is just to find the connected components, which is a pretty standard thing to do, even for stupid people like me). But I didn't asked this question, because from past contests I learned that I should test my theories with sample tests, and in this case it helped.

So, to sum up to those guys who asked "stupid" questions, don't worry, you're not stupid, you just have to learn that "problem statement" doesn't mean only the history about an array gifted to Limak, but it also means some sample tests which can help you a lot.

Well, this is my first time asking questions in a CF round.

Now, I really think if so many people asked these many questions that the setter had to write a blog over it justifies that some statements were not clear enough.

Atleast there could be explanation of the picture of sample test case in div2. C

Anyways, the problems were of qood quality and was a very much balanced round and I seriously look forward to such rounds in the future.

I would also like to add, that for a lot of users, English is not our first language. As a matter of fact, until late in the round, I was quite certain that a rook was a knight, and that is why 'jumping' seemed strange to me and that is why I asked these 'silly' questions. I believe that an explanation of what a rook is would strongly reduce the number of questions. I know one was given, but when you I thought thst that was jumping over other pieces for some reason, and that is why it seemed strange to me.

Hey. First of all, I am very sorry that you reacted so sharply to the feedback from the community. In my opinion, competitors are often very intolerant to the organizers and do not always appreciate the effort invested. I have received rude messages hundreds of times. Some were justified in some way, some were not. I believe that I would be wrong to conclude about the whole community on the basis of this type of feedback. I will be sorry if you leave the community or your problems no longer appear on the rounds.

On the other hand, I sincerely believe that the participants need to be tolerant of the authors of the problems, not to allow rudeness and think what you write. All writers put considerable effort, trying to make a good round. I did not see a writer who tried to make a bad round. We all make mistakes or wrong decisions sometimes. A community that mainly exists at the expense of enthusiasts needs the support of each other by its members.

Speaking generally about problem statements. I believe that it is a joint task of the writers and the coordinator to write a understandable, comfortable and moderately detailed statements. Such that participants could concentrate on the solution without any guesses what writers mean. Most participants take part in contests to have fun and it is right to try to minimize a stress of reading problem statements.

In the round 518, the statements were not perfect. This may have been due to a lack of experience with the coordinator and excessive expectations of the writers. I'm sure that very soon 300iq will adapt himself to make the statements much clearer. He knows how to learn very quickly, I am really happy that he coordinates the rounds.

This round has 315 questions. For example, the next round (Educational 53) has only 75 (25 of them by the single troll person, so actual number of questions is ~50). Two previous rounds have less than 110 questions each. You wrote "90% of questions we get were caused by participants not able to read statements and understand basic mathematical constructions." I don't agree. I think this is an exaggeration. Also both the writers and many participants are not native English-speakers. Some questions were about wording. Some parts could become much clearer with a little more details, or examples.

I do not think that we are doing something wrong, always trying to make the statements unambiguous, easy to understand, regardless of the participant level, math background and English skills. Our community is really international and contains a lot of young schoolchildren. Almost always, if a participant asked a question, it means he did not understand or did not notice something in statements. Everybody can make a mistake. (There was a mistake in a validator in the round, right?) Making problems clearer you reduce a chance of misreading. If the round is prepared carefully, then the number of questions rarely exceeds ~100-150. Most of them are easy to answer, and together a writer and a coordinator can handle them without stress.

I'm a little upset and not sure I completely understand you in the phrase "I understand that for you quantity is more important than quality." Can you explain what you mean?

I wanted to write super-harsh blog but then I decided to split it into educational part and whining part.

Come on, you can put it straight that you simply wanted to get more contribution by having two blogs instead of one :P

I've read the statement of 1068C - Colored Rooks, and the English is bad. Just a few examples,

• 'Harmonize' is not a good word to use, my first reaction was, "how is the harmonization property defined?" It would be better to just say "the two colors go well with each other". What I mean is this sounds like "two numbers commute with each other", instead of "two numbers look good together". On the other hand, the word in the Russian statement (сочетаются) is perfectly fine. So really, this is a translation problem.
• Grammar, "Ivan also enjoy s playing chess", "Let's call a set of rooks on the board", " the number of colors and the number of pairs".
• "we can get to any other rook in this set moving only through cells with rooks from this set" — who are "we"? How do "we" move? When we pass an empty cell, do we also "move through" this cell? (the answer is no, but it was confusing for me).
• "For any two different colors a, b union of set of rooks of color a and set of rooks of color b is connected if and only if this two colors harmonize with each other." — here you could just say "For any two different colors, the set of all cells containing rooks of these colors is connected if and only if ..."

I see two problems here: first, the author tried to overformalize the statement at the cost of readability. Second, again, the English is bad. Judging by Um_nik's comments, there was no English translator? I don't blame Um_nik, it should be the translator's (or statement tester's) job. I think, since CF is so international, there should be more effort put into translating the problems into English.

I completely agree with your point. I’ve encountered the same problem plenty of times.

Just a simple example: 912B - New Year's Eve. It’s clearly stated (and written in bold!) that you can take no more than k. Despite the definition being absolutely obvious, I’ve received a fair six tens of clarifications upon whether it’s necessary to take exactly k. Extremely annoying.

Apart from that, I find your behaviour purely abominable.
Was it worth mentioning all those poor guys who dared bother the allmightly Um_nik with their ignorant misunderstanding? They’re mostly young and inexperienced. Is this a valid reason for calling them animals?
From my point of view, it’s only you to be ashamed after all.

I think that after creating so average round you have no moral right to blame somebody else

Most important is improvement and learning something from criticism... rather blaming whole community,...btw we all respect you a lot Um_nik...didn't expect such egoistic post from you :(...

If you are not good in English, it's completely fine. Even if you make a contest without native speaker it's still fine because you have a lot to offer. But if you are not proficient in English (or setting a contest together with someone who is), you shouldn't be setting tasks with that amount of text... And yes, of course you're more important to this community than me or any other green/cyan guy/girl but that doesn't mean you're flawless. By the way, speaking of bullying, see how much negative contribution will this post get even though, my comment has no correlation with problem solving skill.

Being mentioned. Can't stop myself but write. See my profile, its like an ant in the side of giant elephant like yours. So, is it wise to hart by such a little one? I cant suggest you, cause of being so small. So far i can remember it is the second time ask for the cleraficatio till i joined here. But can't imagine the fact that an issue can be grown up. I invented today that i should concentrate on learning english much rather solving problem for sometimes. Cause its become hard for sometime to cope with. I dont know english much and you can't belief the people around me just know nothing or little in english. Even you can find many mistake in my writing. So, i think its a much language matter than understanding problem for a very first time. As, where i can't complete reading a single problem and other get one accepted. So, i think you can understand my view of point. Things thats seems stupid to you can be much significant for others. But as you mentioned me and others which really heart me. Not fact, i think you got much thausands time bigger as i understand from your post. The only think i want to say- Don't mind to anyones says. They are not going to understand from your view (things may be really wrong although you think right). Things always change with perspective. So, i am really sorry at my side and last just want to quote — "Things not better to find the way to avoiding the mistakes, its really pleasure to take the responsibilities and find the way of how the mistakes can be resolved. Happiness is not that your own, happiness is that you can spread".

Being one of the persons named, I would just like to apologize. I guess I got confused about the notion of taking a union of the set of rooks. It was my mistake, and I am sorry. Overall, it was an enjoyable round, and I want to thank you for the effort you put in to set the problems.

Maybe it's meaningful.

I read the statement and I understood from first try (I did not even need to look at the sample input).

I agree that the usage of English is not very good. This is not Um_nik's fault, but CF's fault. Previously there was some professional translator at CF to make sure problems are properly translated. I'm not sure whether CF still have one?

The statement is very precise and logical. No stupid extra stories. The statement is quite complicated because the problem is complicated. I think as a problem setter Um_nik tried his best. It is quite unfair to compare the number of clarification with other rounds, because the complexity of the problem is different.

I am happy that Um_nik broke a border that was forbidden. I believe any other guy who would write such blog will get -inf downvotes or maybe get banned from the community.

I took a look at the problem mentioned that it had a really bad statement (for me I would say that it's just normal). In any case, don't expect the problem setter to score 5000 on TOEFL and write a Shakespearean problem statement. A lot of people among the top 100 users don't speak English. (probably almost all can understand, but writing and speaking are on another level so don't expect people to waste their time sharping their english for you if it's not really important for them). This should be Codeforces responsibility to make sure that every statement is well described and well-fit for the problem with no unnecessary and confusing details (hiring some russian TOEFL 5000 guy).

He mentioned also a good fact, the spamming of beginner users. That's something that has been bothering me for a long time. I really understand that as a beginner it's hard sometimes to understand the problem statement, but some reactions are really horrible. A lot of question arises because the reader decides to skip some english word thinking it's not important and writes a 10-15 words question that the answer lies in that word (for ex "if and only if", and i believe there are a lot of other examples), and I am dis-regarding really stupid clarifications. People who ask such question many times should be banned from asking clarifications temporarily (maybe 2-3 rounds and this process maybe monitored and approved by coordinator). and I believe if this was applied, the number of such clarifications will drop insanely. Because I suppose problem-setters and testers have other work other than answering clarifications. As I know, they spend quite a good time sometimes looking at solutions, sometimes looking at hacks..etc (so they have other work to do).

One other side of this matter I would really like to share, the tutorials and announcements blogs. These blogs usually contain a lot of gems. Almost for every problem in 3 or 4 some guy solve it with a really cool solution better than the author's solution and much more cleaner. We lose the opportunity to take a look at such solutions just because most of the times these blogs are full of "why my solution doesn't work?", "how to solve div2b" and such comments turning the blog into a spam mine. Somebody will tell me that useful comments are usually highly upvoted and you can check them easily (not all people would really like to check for and read most comments (at least for me)). and also the amazing feedback from people like "quit problem-setting" and some really disrespectful stuff. For me, I spend quite "a lot of time" to come up with some good problem, just because I am not skilled at this (I believe it needs a certain type of training or maybe a mega-mind that I don't have). So hypothetically if somebody write on a problem I wrote that it sucks or tell me such stuff I would react with something much more aggressive than Um_nik words (or at least, he should expect harsh reply). You must respect other people effort, especially if the person you are talking to is much better (or a legendary-guy).

For example let's suppose that I wrote "quit problemsetting please asap" as a comment or an awful round. My comment will get +200 from some people who didn't like div2A because it has 2D-arrays and that's not their taste. Then, Um_nik totally has the right to reply with "get red please, yellow loser" and then the same people will downvote him for being arrogant. Feedback in general should be critique and constructive not throwing random bullshit (always expect a reply of the same quality as your comment).

The community has grown really large, and the flow should be controlled somehow or at least organized.Especially the social side of CF. It has been the same for a long time without any big improvement and I think a change will be a must at some point of time.

As um_nik said, it seems the quantity for CF is more important than quality. I would like to share an opinion about this.

I really feel that CF is overlooking the quality in the last few months. For me personally, I quit participating in Div2 contests just because the problems are just repeated and put into the contest to fill the space. (I can recall this one:1042D as I participated not long ago, I remember I had this conversation with a friend and if somebody want I can recall a lot of other problems. A lot of stuff I also want to discuss (rated educational rounds, rating change formula...etc). I still want to make my comment not so long so people read (for now actually I think they might not read it).

Anyway, I love this community and I hope it continues with success. BUT, the heads should always remember that a lot of startups were left alone just because at some point of time they had a huge fanbase so they thought that they are perfect and after a while they found themselves alone. I would like to recall Nokia's CEO quote when they announced that the company is sold “we didn’t do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost”.

Как многим известно, история идет по кругу.

Однажды вечерком Алексей Данилюк решил посидеть в интернете и почитать комментарии на Codeforces. Читает он степенно, скролля свой анонс, как вдруг видит комментаторов, обсуждающих задачи с его раунда. — А что, пидо.асы, — говорит Алексей, — понравились вам задачи? — Да пошел ты, Умник, на.уй, — ответствуют комментаторы. — Задачи несодержательные, ограничения блевотные, и дело даже не в факапе на четверть контеста, вот тут целый тред можешь почитать. Алексея чуть инфаркт не хватил. — Вы что, комментаторы?! — говорит он. — Вы мне, Великому Ум_нику, бывшему топ1 кодфорсов, серебру финала, топ1 ксакадемии, топ2 хешкода, топовому коачу, официальному лицу, служителю Господа нашего и Пастырю людскому, говорите «пошёл на.уй»? ДА ПОШЛИ ВЫ САМИ НА.УЙ

(с) Memes about competitive programming 30.05.2018

Um_nik you should have simply said cry about it .