Hey all,
I shortened the deadline considerably this time around and the response was very promising. I find the longer deadlines leaves people a little idle about actually doing anything.
What do you feel works best? Smaller pressured windows, or longer drawn out challenges that you can dabble with?
I prefer the former, simply because it means we have to think about it and get it done.
Also regarding content so far: Easy? Difficult? Interesting?
I would continue with the shorter deadlines. These challenges aren’t meant for building full-fledged tools with slick interfaces but for capturing a good brainfart. You don’t need a lot of time to do that. Off course nobody works fulltime on these challenges untill the deadline. And if you don’t succeed this challenge: there’s always the next one. When there’s a long deadline you give more people a chance to enter. On the other hand, short deadlines might mean more challenges. So you can wait for a challenge which fits your knowledge and qualities. And finally: since you’re the challenger you can do as you please! Short or long deadline, easy or tough topic, what-ever-you-feel-like.
Keep the content diverse to serve different levels of scripters. The last challenge about improving an existing tool is a good example. Experienced scripters will automatically script more difficult stuff, novices will do other things within their own range. Keep the topics open to trigger some creativity i’d say.
Klaas
What about to create two types of challenges?
For instance, short version for 10 days and longer version for one month with more complicated task.
How about for next challenge we make it a Particle Flow Script Challenge? I’m just starting to get into Scripting in particle Flow and would like to see what other people are doing with it.