![\"\"](\"https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-forum-message-attachments/o/inbox%2F18876844%2F25f7d38f542c0baf6ad471fc80356aca%2FScreenshot%202025-08-29%20092605.png?generation=1756434419317735&alt=media\")
An account reached Notebooks Expert only 4 days after being created (maybe 3 days or less, since I only discovered it today). What a phenomenon. https://www.kaggle.com/code/jade290395
\n
An account reached Notebooks Expert only 4 days after being created (maybe 3 days or less, since I only discovered it today). What a phenomenon. https://www.kaggle.com/code/jade290395
\n
I had a silver medal (rank 41) removed in the competition https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/birdclef-2025 just because I accidentally reused a notebook that I had shared with my partner in the BirdCLEF-2024 competition. In 2025 competition, I competed solo and no longer had any exchanges with my former partner. However, I still had my medal removed due to using a notebook with a private share (even though this notebook was created and privately shared a year ago). It's astonishing that real cheaters do not get their medals removed, while an ordinary user has their hard-earned achievement taken away without a chance to complain.
\n![\"\"](\"https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-forum-message-attachments/o/inbox%2F2832287%2F68d7c16cff20b9ce2b1b7ceb95b1ad45%2FScreenshot%202025-08-29%20at%2011.40.44.png?generation=1756442486194816&alt=media\")
I think your behavior itself is against the rules.
\nOf course, cheaters are also terrible.
If you were in my situation, you would find the rule quite ambiguous and unreasonable. The marked notebook was created from bird2024, which means it was made a year before bird2025 took place. Regarding the use of competition data, in my case, notebook B is the one flagged for private sharing (B does not use the 2025 competition data), while notebook A uses the 2025 competition data and notebook B. This means that B does not mount the 2025 competition data for use. ![\"\"](\"https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-forum-message-attachments/o/inbox%2F2832287%2F7d90b72c8413a3083347751ff1f902a4%2FScreenshot%202025-08-29%20at%2013.37.32.png?generation=1756449893103370&alt=media\")
What do you think if I create a notebook and then privately share it with someone else without their knowledge or attention? They would have their competition medal removed.
", "rawMarkdown": "What do you think if I create a notebook and then privately share it with someone else without their knowledge or attention? They would have their competition medal removed.", "votes": 1 } ] } ] }, { "id": 3277984, "postDate": "2025-08-29T03:18:08.157Z", "content": "This phenomenon has plagued Kaggle for years.
\nAs stated here
\nhttps://www.kaggle.com/discussions/product-feedback/599787#3276995
\n![\"\"](\"https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-forum-message-attachments/o/inbox%2F1842206%2F26cbaf295605c8cb5653f2317b456f23%2FScreenshot%20from%202025-08-29%2011-10-35.png?generation=1756437056581163&alt=media\")
There are voting-ring channels in Discord and Telegram with hundreds (or even thousands) of members whose main purpose is to mutually-upvote each other's works so that they reach higher ranks in the shortest amt of time. Either this account most likely is a member of a voting-ring of sorts or the owner of this account babysits multiple accounts that upvotes each other account.
\nThis is also the reason why people dont really take Kaggle rankings seriously anymore outside those that are ranked in competitions tier. Except for a few that are obviously sharing valuable content here in Kaggle.
", "rawMarkdown": "This phenomenon has plagued Kaggle for years.\n\nAs stated here\n\n----\n\nhttps://www.kaggle.com/discussions/product-feedback/599787#3276995\n\n\n\n----\n\nThere are voting-ring channels in Discord and Telegram with hundreds (or even thousands) of members whose main purpose is to mutually-upvote each other's works so that they reach higher ranks in the shortest amt of time. Either this account most likely is a member of a voting-ring of sorts or the owner of this account babysits multiple accounts that upvotes each other account.\n\nThis is also the reason why people dont really take Kaggle rankings seriously anymore outside those that are ranked in competitions tier. Except for a few that are obviously sharing valuable content here in Kaggle.", "votes": 6, "replies": [ { "id": 3277988, "postDate": "2025-08-29T03:26:35.223Z", "content": "Thank you for clarifying. I had thought of earning some medals here to enhance my resume, but it now seems rather pointless. 🤣 However, some accounts, like this one, are created only to earn medals from the beginning without any contributions. I'm not sure if Kaggle has a solution for this.
", "rawMarkdown": "Thank you for clarifying. I had thought of earning some medals here to enhance my resume, but it now seems rather pointless. 🤣 However, some accounts, like this one, are created only to earn medals from the beginning without any contributions. I'm not sure if Kaggle has a solution for this.", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 3277999, "postDate": "2025-08-29T04:04:12.587Z", "content": "\n\nbut it now seems rather pointless.
\n
Please dont be discouraged, treat the upvotes and promotion(s) in rankings and tiers as a \"BONUS\" of your learning and upskilling efforts rather than the end-goal of having a Kaggle account. I've been stuck as a Kaggle \"Master\" for years, and I dont really mind if hundreds of other new accounts have become Master and GM before me.
\nAbout this problem (among many others), the discord and TG channels are outside of Kaggle's authority, and people are not really reporting it. As long as no one is reporting and dropping names and usernames, nothing will happen. So it will boil down to the community self-policing and helping Kaggle mods and staff if they want to.
", "rawMarkdown": "> but it now seems rather pointless. \n\nPlease dont be discouraged, treat the upvotes and promotion(s) in rankings and tiers as a \"BONUS\" of your learning and upskilling efforts rather than the end-goal of having a Kaggle account. I've been stuck as a Kaggle \"Master\" for years, and I dont really mind if hundreds of other new accounts have become Master and GM before me.\n\nAbout this problem (among many others), the discord and TG channels are outside of Kaggle's authority, and people are not really reporting it. As long as no one is reporting and dropping names and usernames, nothing will happen. So it will boil down to the community self-policing and helping Kaggle mods and staff if they want to.", "votes": 5 }, { "id": 3278004, "postDate": "2025-08-29T04:15:04.120Z", "content": "Thank you for your advice, I really appreciate it.
", "rawMarkdown": "Thank you for your advice, I really appreciate it.", "votes": 1 }, { "id": 3278005, "postDate": "2025-08-29T04:16:33.357Z", "content": "Welcome. have fun with your learning and upskilling and looking forward to you sharing more of your content and ideas!
", "rawMarkdown": "Welcome. have fun with your learning and upskilling and looking forward to you sharing more of your content and ideas!", "votes": 1 } ] } ] }, { "id": 3278328, "postDate": "2025-08-29T15:54:48.897Z", "content": "As a bottom of the barrel competitor and contributor, does it suck to see people copy/paste and get higher leaderboard scores/upvotes? Yes. At the same time though, I don't think any of these people are ever going to win a competition or bank at job at OpenAI because of it. At worst, will probably become some minor data science influencer on the web.
\nPersonally I just try to focus on learning for these things. Like here, I had no clue what a squeeze/excite block was and now I wrote one from scratch for this competition. Just try your best, enjoy it, learn, and you'll probably get further than these people….same goes for people vibe coding all over the place and posting on social media.
", "rawMarkdown": "As a bottom of the barrel competitor and contributor, does it suck to see people copy/paste and get higher leaderboard scores/upvotes? Yes. At the same time though, I don't think any of these people are ever going to win a competition or bank at job at OpenAI because of it. At worst, will probably become some minor data science influencer on the web.\n\nPersonally I just try to focus on learning for these things. Like here, I had no clue what a squeeze/excite block was and now I wrote one from scratch for this competition. Just try your best, enjoy it, learn, and you'll probably get further than these people....same goes for people vibe coding all over the place and posting on social media.", "votes": 3 }, { "id": 3278043, "postDate": "2025-08-29T06:18:25.930Z", "content": "It's still worth it, because notebook and discussion rankings provide quite limited help during job interviews.
\nIn terms of their presentation and profile icons.
\nI think we should differentiate between notebooks, discussions, and competitions.
I have also felt frustrated about this.😂
", "rawMarkdown": "I have also felt frustrated about this.😂", "votes": 3, "replies": [ { "id": 3278032, "postDate": "2025-08-29T06:05:41.337Z", "content": "I guess there's a group of bot accounts behind this. They're trying to downvote my post too 🤣🤣. These malicious bot accounts are really taking over the platform.
", "rawMarkdown": "I guess there's a group of bot accounts behind this. They're trying to downvote my post too 🤣🤣. These malicious bot accounts are really taking over the platform.", "votes": 1, "replies": [ { "id": 3278090, "postDate": "2025-08-29T07:47:19.190Z", "content": "something is terrible
", "rawMarkdown": "something is terrible", "votes": 1 } ] } ] }, { "id": 3278014, "postDate": "2025-08-29T04:47:17.757Z", "content": "The easiest way to become an “expert” is to copy a high-scoring public kernel, change ensemble weight, and make it public again. Most Kagglers first filter notebooks by the highest public score, so these copy-paste notebooks get a lot of visibility. Many notebooks that offer deep insights have very few upvotes, while those that simply tweak ensemble weights to achieve a slightly higher leaderboard score get many upvotes—which is rather ridiculous. I always really appreciate people who share truly deep and impressive EDA and give them upvote
", "rawMarkdown": "The easiest way to become an “expert” is to copy a high-scoring public kernel, change ensemble weight, and make it public again. Most Kagglers first filter notebooks by the highest public score, so these copy-paste notebooks get a lot of visibility. Many notebooks that offer deep insights have very few upvotes, while those that simply tweak ensemble weights to achieve a slightly higher leaderboard score get many upvotes—which is rather ridiculous. I always really appreciate people who share truly deep and impressive EDA and give them upvote", "votes": 4, "replies": [ { "id": 3278019, "postDate": "2025-08-29T05:06:51.327Z", "content": "@tom99763
\nThe blind blending problem needs to be addressed - it is surfacing across all competitions and is not the best situation for respective leaderboards!
It does feel that the notebook ranking has lost all meaning @ravi20076. I might still share what I think has value, but I will probably focus only on the competition ranking.
", "rawMarkdown": "It does feel that the notebook ranking has lost all meaning @ravi20076. I might still share what I think has value, but I will probably focus only on the competition ranking. ", "votes": 1 }, { "id": 3278077, "postDate": "2025-08-29T07:20:53.333Z", "content": "I think the new rules and the complete removal of the discussion rankings and alienation of all Kaggler category voters is not working as intended. I agree that notebook rankings have no meaning after the change.
\nA few of my recent kernels have 150+ votes and just received a gold medal. Another one has 60+ votes and a bronze medal against it. This does not make 100% sense to me - this ranking and medal attribution is totally broken!
\nConsider a new Kaggler category user - he/ she is at an advantage. He/ she could fork any kernel and gain advantage, change a few parameters and resubmit. If the kernel scores well and better than the original work, then this new version will receive attention and forks. If experts+ category Kagglers fork the kernel, then the said copier gains votes that help him/ her progress. What about the original work then?
\nIn my opinion, removing medals from all tiers except competitions is a good way to put a lid on the broken progression outside of competitions @wguesdon
", "rawMarkdown": "I think the new rules and the complete removal of the discussion rankings and alienation of all *Kaggler* category voters is not working as intended. I agree that notebook rankings have no meaning after the change. \n\nA few of my recent kernels have 150+ votes and just received a gold medal. Another one has 60+ votes and a bronze medal against it. This does not make 100% sense to me - this ranking and medal attribution is totally broken!\n\nConsider a new Kaggler category user - he/ she is at an advantage. He/ she could fork any kernel and gain advantage, change a few parameters and resubmit. If the kernel scores well and better than the original work, then this new version will receive attention and forks. If experts+ category Kagglers fork the kernel, then the said copier gains votes that help him/ her progress. What about the original work then? \n\nIn my opinion, removing medals from all tiers except competitions is a good way to put a lid on the broken progression outside of competitions @wguesdon ", "votes": 1 }, { "id": 3278086, "postDate": "2025-08-29T07:41:07.727Z", "content": "I feel that the only people unlikely to be cheaters are those who got at least one solo competition medal. For notebooks in the competition, votes should only be counted from users who have at least one solo competition medal.
", "rawMarkdown": "I feel that the only people unlikely to be cheaters are those who got at least **one solo competition medal**. **For notebooks in the competition**, votes should only be counted from users who have at least one solo competition medal.", "votes": 3 }, { "id": 3278093, "postDate": "2025-08-29T07:52:37.803Z", "rawMarkdown": "", "isDeleted": true }, { "id": 3278094, "postDate": "2025-08-29T07:54:19.733Z", "content": "You are right, I published a new notebook that raised the LB benchmark score by 0.006, while another person simply copied my notebook, changed a random seed number, and increased the score by 0.001, yet he received a gold medal while I only got a silver medal. I posted a discussion about whether this phenomenon is reasonable. It was a huge blow to me as a newbie who is just getting into Kaggle and sharing my solutions for the first time. Although with help from some people, I managed to get back the gold medal, I might not be willing to share my solutions for a long time.
\nAlthough he may not have done it intentionally, I think if you just changed a random seed, should you wait 1-2 days to let the original contributor receive the medal they deserve before publishing your notebook?
But I don't think the notebook's award should be canceled. From my own experience, some good notebooks have provided me with a lot of help. I believe what we should do is to put a stop to bad behavior rather than completely deny any notebook.
", "rawMarkdown": "But I don't think the notebook's award should be canceled. From my own experience, some good notebooks have provided me with a lot of help. I believe what we should do is to put a stop to bad behavior rather than completely deny any notebook." }, { "id": 3278096, "postDate": "2025-08-29T08:04:45.030Z", "content": "Suppose I publish a paper, and someone else builds upon my paper to improve and create a new SOTA, receiving many citations, while I only get one citation. In that case, no one would want to write papers anymore. 😂
", "rawMarkdown": "Suppose I publish a paper, and someone else builds upon my paper to improve and create a new SOTA, receiving many citations, while I only get one citation. In that case, no one would want to write papers anymore. 😂", "votes": 1 }, { "id": 3278108, "postDate": "2025-08-29T08:31:15.630Z", "content": "Exactly this. People might lose the incentive to share early for this reason. People doing ensemble where the only contribution is tuning weights to the public LB or changing the random seeds get more votes than the original model training notebooks. This seems a bit silly.
\nFor example, what happens if someone doing only blind blends or just changing random seeds in many competitions manages to get, let's say, top 10 or even top 1 in the notebook ranking system? They would not break any Kaggle rules by doing so, but that would seem disappointing. I would prefer the top notebook spots to be for people who share good quality content, helping many to learn.
", "rawMarkdown": "Exactly this. People might lose the incentive to share early for this reason. People doing ensemble where the only contribution is tuning weights to the public LB or changing the random seeds get more votes than the original model training notebooks. This seems a bit silly. \n\nFor example, what happens if someone doing only blind blends or just changing random seeds in many competitions manages to get, let's say, top 10 or even top 1 in the notebook ranking system? They would not break any Kaggle rules by doing so, but that would seem disappointing. I would prefer the top notebook spots to be for people who share good quality content, helping many to learn. " }, { "id": 3278163, "postDate": "2025-08-29T11:01:22.113Z", "content": "@kerta27 it is better to remove medals from this tier rather than having such conditions 😀
", "rawMarkdown": "@kerta27 it is better to remove medals from this tier rather than having such conditions 😀", "votes": 2 } ] } ] }, { "id": 3278579, "postDate": "2025-08-30T04:31:27.397Z", "content": "At the end of the day, the leaderboard doesn’t define your worth — what truly matters are the skills, knowledge, and experience you gain while striving to climb it.
", "rawMarkdown": "\nAt the end of the day, the leaderboard doesn’t define your worth — what truly matters are the skills, knowledge, and experience you gain while striving to climb it.", "votes": 2 }, { "id": 3278454, "postDate": "2025-08-29T18:11:10.163Z", "content": "Update: Some of the notebook gold medals from the account I reported in my post have been removed. Thank you to the Kaggle staff.
", "rawMarkdown": "Update: Some of the notebook gold medals from the account I reported in my post have been removed. Thank you to the Kaggle staff.", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 3278467, "postDate": "2025-08-29T18:49:10.257Z", "content": "Maybe it hasn't been deleted yet. The author can only make the notebooks private, so that people will pay attention to and vote for the other low-voted notebooks. He/she will turn it public again when everybody forgets about it.
\nI'm using a part of her/his code, which is now private, so I'm worried my code might be considered a private share.
I had a silver medal (rank 41) removed in the competition https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/birdclef-2025 just because I accidentally reused a notebook that I had shared with my partner in the BirdCLEF-2024 competition. In 2025 competition, I competed solo and no longer had any exchanges with my former partner. However, I still had my medal removed due to using a notebook with a private share (even though this notebook was created and privately shared a year ago). It's astonishing that real cheaters do not get their medals removed, while an ordinary user has their hard-earned achievement taken away without a chance to complain.
\n
I think your behavior itself is against the rules.
\nOf course, cheaters are also terrible.
If you were in my situation, you would find the rule quite ambiguous and unreasonable. The marked notebook was created from bird2024, which means it was made a year before bird2025 took place. Regarding the use of competition data, in my case, notebook B is the one flagged for private sharing (B does not use the 2025 competition data), while notebook A uses the 2025 competition data and notebook B. This means that B does not mount the 2025 competition data for use.
What do you think if I create a notebook and then privately share it with someone else without their knowledge or attention? They would have their competition medal removed.
", "votes": 1, "replies": [] } ] } ] }, { "id": 3277984, "author_name": "BwandoWando", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T03:18:08.157000", "content": "This phenomenon has plagued Kaggle for years.
\nAs stated here
\nhttps://www.kaggle.com/discussions/product-feedback/599787#3276995
\n
There are voting-ring channels in Discord and Telegram with hundreds (or even thousands) of members whose main purpose is to mutually-upvote each other's works so that they reach higher ranks in the shortest amt of time. Either this account most likely is a member of a voting-ring of sorts or the owner of this account babysits multiple accounts that upvotes each other account.
\nThis is also the reason why people dont really take Kaggle rankings seriously anymore outside those that are ranked in competitions tier. Except for a few that are obviously sharing valuable content here in Kaggle.
", "votes": 6, "replies": [ { "id": 3277988, "author_name": "Tong Rua", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T03:26:35.223000", "content": "Thank you for clarifying. I had thought of earning some medals here to enhance my resume, but it now seems rather pointless. 🤣 However, some accounts, like this one, are created only to earn medals from the beginning without any contributions. I'm not sure if Kaggle has a solution for this.
", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 3277999, "author_name": "BwandoWando", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T04:04:12.587000", "content": "\n\nbut it now seems rather pointless.
\n
Please dont be discouraged, treat the upvotes and promotion(s) in rankings and tiers as a \"BONUS\" of your learning and upskilling efforts rather than the end-goal of having a Kaggle account. I've been stuck as a Kaggle \"Master\" for years, and I dont really mind if hundreds of other new accounts have become Master and GM before me.
\nAbout this problem (among many others), the discord and TG channels are outside of Kaggle's authority, and people are not really reporting it. As long as no one is reporting and dropping names and usernames, nothing will happen. So it will boil down to the community self-policing and helping Kaggle mods and staff if they want to.
", "votes": 5, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278004, "author_name": "Tong Rua", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T04:15:04.120000", "content": "Thank you for your advice, I really appreciate it.
", "votes": 1, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278005, "author_name": "BwandoWando", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T04:16:33.357000", "content": "Welcome. have fun with your learning and upskilling and looking forward to you sharing more of your content and ideas!
", "votes": 1, "replies": [] } ] } ] }, { "id": 3278328, "author_name": "Matt S.", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T15:54:48.897000", "content": "As a bottom of the barrel competitor and contributor, does it suck to see people copy/paste and get higher leaderboard scores/upvotes? Yes. At the same time though, I don't think any of these people are ever going to win a competition or bank at job at OpenAI because of it. At worst, will probably become some minor data science influencer on the web.
\nPersonally I just try to focus on learning for these things. Like here, I had no clue what a squeeze/excite block was and now I wrote one from scratch for this competition. Just try your best, enjoy it, learn, and you'll probably get further than these people….same goes for people vibe coding all over the place and posting on social media.
", "votes": 3, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278043, "author_name": "AAA", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T06:18:25.930000", "content": "It's still worth it, because notebook and discussion rankings provide quite limited help during job interviews.
\nIn terms of their presentation and profile icons.
\nI think we should differentiate between notebooks, discussions, and competitions.
I have also felt frustrated about this.😂
", "votes": 3, "replies": [ { "id": 3278032, "author_name": "Tong Rua", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T06:05:41.337000", "content": "I guess there's a group of bot accounts behind this. They're trying to downvote my post too 🤣🤣. These malicious bot accounts are really taking over the platform.
", "votes": 1, "replies": [ { "id": 3278090, "author_name": "DaoHe Liu", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T07:47:19.190000", "content": "something is terrible
", "votes": 1, "replies": [] } ] } ] }, { "id": 3278014, "author_name": "Tom", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T04:47:17.757000", "content": "The easiest way to become an “expert” is to copy a high-scoring public kernel, change ensemble weight, and make it public again. Most Kagglers first filter notebooks by the highest public score, so these copy-paste notebooks get a lot of visibility. Many notebooks that offer deep insights have very few upvotes, while those that simply tweak ensemble weights to achieve a slightly higher leaderboard score get many upvotes—which is rather ridiculous. I always really appreciate people who share truly deep and impressive EDA and give them upvote
", "votes": 4, "replies": [ { "id": 3278019, "author_name": "Ravi Ramakrishnan", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T05:06:51.327000", "content": "@tom99763
\nThe blind blending problem needs to be addressed - it is surfacing across all competitions and is not the best situation for respective leaderboards!
It does feel that the notebook ranking has lost all meaning @ravi20076. I might still share what I think has value, but I will probably focus only on the competition ranking.
", "votes": 1, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278077, "author_name": "Ravi Ramakrishnan", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T07:20:53.333000", "content": "I think the new rules and the complete removal of the discussion rankings and alienation of all Kaggler category voters is not working as intended. I agree that notebook rankings have no meaning after the change.
\nA few of my recent kernels have 150+ votes and just received a gold medal. Another one has 60+ votes and a bronze medal against it. This does not make 100% sense to me - this ranking and medal attribution is totally broken!
\nConsider a new Kaggler category user - he/ she is at an advantage. He/ she could fork any kernel and gain advantage, change a few parameters and resubmit. If the kernel scores well and better than the original work, then this new version will receive attention and forks. If experts+ category Kagglers fork the kernel, then the said copier gains votes that help him/ her progress. What about the original work then?
\nIn my opinion, removing medals from all tiers except competitions is a good way to put a lid on the broken progression outside of competitions @wguesdon
", "votes": 1, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278086, "author_name": "MT.L", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T07:41:07.727000", "content": "I feel that the only people unlikely to be cheaters are those who got at least one solo competition medal. For notebooks in the competition, votes should only be counted from users who have at least one solo competition medal.
", "votes": 3, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278093, "author_name": "", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T07:52:37.803000", "content": "", "votes": 0, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278094, "author_name": "DaoHe Liu", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T07:54:19.733000", "content": "You are right, I published a new notebook that raised the LB benchmark score by 0.006, while another person simply copied my notebook, changed a random seed number, and increased the score by 0.001, yet he received a gold medal while I only got a silver medal. I posted a discussion about whether this phenomenon is reasonable. It was a huge blow to me as a newbie who is just getting into Kaggle and sharing my solutions for the first time. Although with help from some people, I managed to get back the gold medal, I might not be willing to share my solutions for a long time.
\nAlthough he may not have done it intentionally, I think if you just changed a random seed, should you wait 1-2 days to let the original contributor receive the medal they deserve before publishing your notebook?
But I don't think the notebook's award should be canceled. From my own experience, some good notebooks have provided me with a lot of help. I believe what we should do is to put a stop to bad behavior rather than completely deny any notebook.
", "votes": 0, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278096, "author_name": "Quan Vu", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T08:04:45.030000", "content": "Suppose I publish a paper, and someone else builds upon my paper to improve and create a new SOTA, receiving many citations, while I only get one citation. In that case, no one would want to write papers anymore. 😂
", "votes": 1, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278108, "author_name": "Will", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T08:31:15.630000", "content": "Exactly this. People might lose the incentive to share early for this reason. People doing ensemble where the only contribution is tuning weights to the public LB or changing the random seeds get more votes than the original model training notebooks. This seems a bit silly.
\nFor example, what happens if someone doing only blind blends or just changing random seeds in many competitions manages to get, let's say, top 10 or even top 1 in the notebook ranking system? They would not break any Kaggle rules by doing so, but that would seem disappointing. I would prefer the top notebook spots to be for people who share good quality content, helping many to learn.
", "votes": 0, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278163, "author_name": "Ravi Ramakrishnan", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T11:01:22.113000", "content": "@kerta27 it is better to remove medals from this tier rather than having such conditions 😀
", "votes": 2, "replies": [] } ] } ] }, { "id": 3278579, "author_name": "Pranshul Joshi", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-30T04:31:27.397000", "content": "At the end of the day, the leaderboard doesn’t define your worth — what truly matters are the skills, knowledge, and experience you gain while striving to climb it.
", "votes": 2, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3278454, "author_name": "AAA", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T18:11:10.163000", "content": "Update: Some of the notebook gold medals from the account I reported in my post have been removed. Thank you to the Kaggle staff.
", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 3278467, "author_name": "MT.L", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2025-08-29T18:49:10.257000", "content": "Maybe it hasn't been deleted yet. The author can only make the notebooks private, so that people will pay attention to and vote for the other low-voted notebooks. He/she will turn it public again when everybody forgets about it.
\nI'm using a part of her/his code, which is now private, so I'm worried my code might be considered a private share.