Talk:Puzzle standing

From YPPedia

Bleh. That wikipedia link which supposedly takes people to an explanation of chess ratings is less than helpful--the average user is just going to want a quick summary, not the life story of Mr. Elo. --Eurydice 15:04, 12 September 2005 (PDT)

Theories on Ults (or lack thereof)

Would it be appropiate to add a "Theory on why Ults sometimes don't appear for a puzzle" section to this page? Probably with a body like the following:

"Some puzzles (In particular puzzles where most regular participants do fairly well, such as Distilling) are notorious for not having any ult-level players. A common theory for this is that ult lists are defined relative to the average score."

"As an example of this, we'll consider the fictional puzzle of Reticulation. To achieve Distinguished Reticulation, a player would need to score 80% of the oceanwide average. To achieve Renowned, they would need 160%, and to achieve Ultimate, they would need to have 200% of the oceanwide average."

"If a great number of players do very well at Reticulation, the oceanwide average rises, and so does the 200% necessary for Ultimate status. This may make it more exclusive, or it may even make it mathematically impossible to achieve. If Reticulation is scored on a scale from 1-300, and the oceanwide average was 175 points, a player would need to score 350 points on the puzzle to be Ultimate, which just plain can't be done!"

"Again, this remains entirely a theory, but may serve to explain the curious absence of Ultimates from certain puzzles."

I'm asking first, because it may be better-suited to a seperate article. While it does make technical sense and certainly can be used to answer the "why can't I get an ult?" question, it hasn't been confirmed nor denied by OOO, so remains purely speculation. --Teeg 19:18, 11 February 2006 (PST)

The following [post] by Liz may sched some light on the matter. --Alfwyn 17 Jan 2008