As a new comer to this platform, I am a bit disappointed with the way things are. There is so much confusion even for the experienced participants here, whereas this should not be the case and rules should be crystal clear. To give you an example as to what happened with me, I got very interested in the fact that this is a great competition with such a good aim and I thought it'd be great to take part and learn. But I got confused by the two-stage thing, I thought I could modify code till the very end of the second stage. Why ? Because, there is nothing linking to the 'FAQ' (where the rules for code modification are actually written) in the competition's official rules as far as I could see. Until I specifically asked the question in the forum and a good fellow gave me the link to the FAQ, I was unaware of it. I thought I read all the rules, be it Kaggle's own or the Organizer's, but the said FAQ wasn't conspicuous as much as it should have been. I still wonder as to how are we supposed to be legally bound by this FAQ when it is not specifically mentioned in the rules tab of the competition, shouldn't it be shown much more prominently and a link included inside the rules tab if it's so important and binding ?
\n\nMoreover, the FAQ itself is not adequate. It lacks the explanation for all the permutations and combinations of the interpretations that are possible. So, it becomes all the more important that such rules are included in the competition's rules tab making it very clear to everyone as to what exactly is allowed or not allowed in each of the stages. Personally, I do not think that just the word \"finalized\" is enough and properly explains the code modification rules, there is ambiguity and it can be interpreted in different ways.
\n\nAlthough I'd have loved to test my idea here in a live competition, I am not disappointed just for my own case. I'll take this as part of the learning experience. But, suppose there is even a minor possibility (for which I am getting sort of an inkling from the forum discussions) that the best brains to solve such an important problem might be out of the running or are not sure about what to do just because of the rules being not clear enough, wouldn't that be really disappointing ? Just to be clear though, I do understand that the organizers might have some things that they don't want to divulge beforehand for the competition to be fair or for getting a result as per their expectation, that's their right and totally okay. So I am talking about the general rules that can be and should be shown more clearly in the first place.
\n\nHere are a few things I'd like to suggest to Kaggle:
\n\nPlease make the FAQ more elaborate, clearly specifying the rules for all the cases that are possible generally in competitions and making it technically complete. Include a link to it in your section of the rules tab of a two-stage competition. If something you think is to be handled by the Organizers, then make it more clear to them that they need to include a clarification in the rules tab of their competitions. \n
Please do not show the days left in the competition header image like you do right now, it's misleading. As the days left for the competition for a participant user is over for all intents and purposes by the end of the first stage itself, make this thing more clear. For example, by showing it something like this:
\n\nBefore stage 1 is over:
\n\n \"4 days to go for stage 1 end. 10 days to go for competition end.\"
\n\nAfter stage 1 is over:
\n\n \"Stage 1 is over. 6 days to go for competition end\"
Also show the text \"Two-Stage Competition (code modifications not allowed after stage 1)\" somewhere in the header image.
I am really liking this platform for what it is achieving already and for giving us a real world opportunity and a wonderful environment to learn together. A big thanks to Kaggle, it's really commendable! I also believe and appreciate that the organizers on their part are trying the best to answer all the questions being asked by us!
\n\nMy suggestions are in the hope of conveying a new comer's thoughts as a feedback and what could be done to make things better. In hindsight, the code modification rules now feel obvious to me too because I already know about the FAQ. But for a person who doesn't know about it, he/she would logically think reading the rules tab is enough.
\n\nI'd surely like to take part in such wonderful competitions as this one in the future too, and hopefully with the proper knowledge of all the rules!
", "messages": [ { "id": 314020, "postDate": "2018-04-14T12:00:08.297Z", "content": "As a new comer to this platform, I am a bit disappointed with the way things are. There is so much confusion even for the experienced participants here, whereas this should not be the case and rules should be crystal clear. To give you an example as to what happened with me, I got very interested in the fact that this is a great competition with such a good aim and I thought it'd be great to take part and learn. But I got confused by the two-stage thing, I thought I could modify code till the very end of the second stage. Why ? Because, there is nothing linking to the 'FAQ' (where the rules for code modification are actually written) in the competition's official rules as far as I could see. Until I specifically asked the question in the forum and a good fellow gave me the link to the FAQ, I was unaware of it. I thought I read all the rules, be it Kaggle's own or the Organizer's, but the said FAQ wasn't conspicuous as much as it should have been. I still wonder as to how are we supposed to be legally bound by this FAQ when it is not specifically mentioned in the rules tab of the competition, shouldn't it be shown much more prominently and a link included inside the rules tab if it's so important and binding ?
\n\nMoreover, the FAQ itself is not adequate. It lacks the explanation for all the permutations and combinations of the interpretations that are possible. So, it becomes all the more important that such rules are included in the competition's rules tab making it very clear to everyone as to what exactly is allowed or not allowed in each of the stages. Personally, I do not think that just the word \"finalized\" is enough and properly explains the code modification rules, there is ambiguity and it can be interpreted in different ways.
\n\nAlthough I'd have loved to test my idea here in a live competition, I am not disappointed just for my own case. I'll take this as part of the learning experience. But, suppose there is even a minor possibility (for which I am getting sort of an inkling from the forum discussions) that the best brains to solve such an important problem might be out of the running or are not sure about what to do just because of the rules being not clear enough, wouldn't that be really disappointing ? Just to be clear though, I do understand that the organizers might have some things that they don't want to divulge beforehand for the competition to be fair or for getting a result as per their expectation, that's their right and totally okay. So I am talking about the general rules that can be and should be shown more clearly in the first place.
\n\nHere are a few things I'd like to suggest to Kaggle:
\n\nPlease make the FAQ more elaborate, clearly specifying the rules for all the cases that are possible generally in competitions and making it technically complete. Include a link to it in your section of the rules tab of a two-stage competition. If something you think is to be handled by the Organizers, then make it more clear to them that they need to include a clarification in the rules tab of their competitions. \n
Please do not show the days left in the competition header image like you do right now, it's misleading. As the days left for the competition for a participant user is over for all intents and purposes by the end of the first stage itself, make this thing more clear. For example, by showing it something like this:
\n\nBefore stage 1 is over:
\n\n \"4 days to go for stage 1 end. 10 days to go for competition end.\"
\n\nAfter stage 1 is over:
\n\n \"Stage 1 is over. 6 days to go for competition end\"
Also show the text \"Two-Stage Competition (code modifications not allowed after stage 1)\" somewhere in the header image.
I am really liking this platform for what it is achieving already and for giving us a real world opportunity and a wonderful environment to learn together. A big thanks to Kaggle, it's really commendable! I also believe and appreciate that the organizers on their part are trying the best to answer all the questions being asked by us!
\n\nMy suggestions are in the hope of conveying a new comer's thoughts as a feedback and what could be done to make things better. In hindsight, the code modification rules now feel obvious to me too because I already know about the FAQ. But for a person who doesn't know about it, he/she would logically think reading the rules tab is enough.
\n\nI'd surely like to take part in such wonderful competitions as this one in the future too, and hopefully with the proper knowledge of all the rules!
", "rawMarkdown": "As a new comer to this platform, I am a bit disappointed with the way things are. There is so much confusion even for the experienced participants here, whereas this should not be the case and rules should be crystal clear. To give you an example as to what happened with me, I got very interested in the fact that this is a great competition with such a good aim and I thought it'd be great to take part and learn. But I got confused by the two-stage thing, I thought I could modify code till the very end of the second stage. Why ? Because, there is nothing linking to the '[FAQ][1]' (where the rules for code modification are actually written) in the competition's official rules as far as I could see. Until I specifically asked the question in the forum and a good fellow gave me the link to the FAQ, I was unaware of it. I thought I read all the rules, be it Kaggle's own or the Organizer's, but the said FAQ wasn't conspicuous as much as it should have been. I still wonder as to how are we supposed to be legally bound by this FAQ when it is not specifically mentioned in the rules tab of the competition, shouldn't it be shown much more prominently and a link included inside the rules tab if it's so important and binding ? \n\n\n\nMoreover, the FAQ itself is not adequate. It lacks the explanation for all the permutations and combinations of the interpretations that are possible. So, it becomes all the more important that such rules are included in the competition's rules tab making it very clear to everyone as to what exactly is allowed or not allowed in each of the stages. Personally, I do not think that just the word \"finalized\" is enough and properly explains the code modification rules, there is ambiguity and it can be interpreted in different ways.\n\n\n\nAlthough I'd have loved to test my idea here in a live competition, I am not disappointed just for my own case. I'll take this as part of the learning experience. But, suppose there is even a minor possibility (for which I am getting sort of an inkling from the forum discussions) that the best brains to solve such an important problem might be out of the running or are not sure about what to do just because of the rules being not clear enough, wouldn't that be really disappointing ? Just to be clear though, I do understand that the organizers might have some things that they don't want to divulge beforehand for the competition to be fair or for getting a result as per their expectation, that's their right and totally okay. So I am talking about the general rules that can be and should be shown more clearly in the first place. \n\nHere are a few things I'd like to suggest to Kaggle: \n\n1. Please make the FAQ more elaborate, clearly specifying the rules for all the cases that are possible generally in competitions and making it technically complete. Include a link to it in your section of the rules tab of a two-stage competition. If something you think is to be handled by the Organizers, then make it more clear to them that they need to include a clarification in the rules tab of their competitions. \n \n\n2. Please do not show the days left in the competition header image like you do right now, it's misleading. As the days left for the competition for a participant user is over for all intents and purposes by the end of the first stage itself, make this thing more clear. For example, by showing it something like this:\n\n Before stage 1 is over:\n\n \t\"4 days to go for stage 1 end. 10 days to go for competition end.\"\n\n After stage 1 is over:\n\n \t\"Stage 1 is over. 6 days to go for competition end\"\n\n\n3. Also show the text \"Two-Stage Competition (code modifications not allowed after stage 1)\" somewhere in the header image.\n\nI am really liking this platform for what it is achieving already and for giving us a real world opportunity and a wonderful environment to learn together. A big thanks to Kaggle, it's really commendable! I also believe and appreciate that the organizers on their part are trying the best to answer all the questions being asked by us! \n\nMy suggestions are in the hope of conveying a new comer's thoughts as a feedback and what could be done to make things better. In hindsight, the code modification rules now *feel obvious* to me too because I already know about the FAQ. But for a person who doesn't know about it, he/she would logically think reading the rules tab is enough. \n\nI'd surely like to take part in such wonderful competitions as this one in the future too, and hopefully with the proper knowledge of all the rules! \n\n\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/two-stage-faq", "votes": 18 }, { "id": 314291, "postDate": "2018-04-15T06:46:22.537Z", "content": "Actually , though I am a little new to there, but I confused by somethings, even there dose not have clear elaborate about which data should be used as test data at the final..... test or test final or both.......
", "rawMarkdown": "Actually , though I am a little new to there, but I confused by somethings, even there dose not have clear elaborate about which data should be used as test data at the final..... test or test final or both.......", "votes": 1, "replies": [ { "id": 314313, "postDate": "2018-04-15T08:14:36.367Z", "content": "Yes I agree, there surely is scope and need for clarifying the rules more clearly.
", "rawMarkdown": "Yes I agree, there surely is scope and need for clarifying the rules more clearly." } ] }, { "id": 314164, "postDate": "2018-04-14T18:53:26.290Z", "content": "Great post!
", "rawMarkdown": "Great post!", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 314259, "postDate": "2018-04-15T03:16:18.553Z", "content": "Thanks @CPMP! Looking forward to learning and achieving something good together!
", "rawMarkdown": "Thanks @CPMP! Looking forward to learning and achieving something good together!", "votes": 1 } ] }, { "id": 314211, "postDate": "2018-04-14T21:42:37.677Z", "rawMarkdown": "", "votes": 1, "isDeleted": true, "replies": [ { "id": 314260, "postDate": "2018-04-15T03:19:56.947Z", "content": "Thanks @Issac for your inputs too! Yes, visual clues in this kind of a platform's UI become all the more important. It is a good idea to see what prompts we get as an organizer, but I think covering of all the rules being such a basic thing, Kaggle will surely take a note.
", "rawMarkdown": "Thanks @Issac for your inputs too! Yes, visual clues in this kind of a platform's UI become all the more important. It is a good idea to see what prompts we get as an organizer, but I think covering of all the rules being such a basic thing, Kaggle will surely take a note." } ] } ], "comments": [ { "id": 314291, "author_name": "Eric Chan", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2018-04-15T06:46:22.537000", "content": "Actually , though I am a little new to there, but I confused by somethings, even there dose not have clear elaborate about which data should be used as test data at the final..... test or test final or both.......
", "votes": 1, "replies": [ { "id": 314313, "author_name": "Kishore Badyakar", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2018-04-15T08:14:36.367000", "content": "Yes I agree, there surely is scope and need for clarifying the rules more clearly.
", "votes": 0, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 314164, "author_name": "CPMP", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2018-04-14T18:53:26.290000", "content": "Great post!
", "votes": 2, "replies": [ { "id": 314259, "author_name": "Kishore Badyakar", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2018-04-15T03:16:18.553000", "content": "Thanks @CPMP! Looking forward to learning and achieving something good together!
", "votes": 1, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 314211, "author_name": "", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2018-04-14T21:42:37.677000", "content": "", "votes": 1, "replies": [ { "id": 314260, "author_name": "Kishore Badyakar", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2018-04-15T03:19:56.947000", "content": "Thanks @Issac for your inputs too! Yes, visual clues in this kind of a platform's UI become all the more important. It is a good idea to see what prompts we get as an organizer, but I think covering of all the rules being such a basic thing, Kaggle will surely take a note.
", "votes": 0, "replies": [] } ] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "314020": "As a new comer to this platform, I am a bit disappointed with the way things are. There is so much confusion even for the experienced participants here, whereas this should not be the case and rules should be crystal clear. To give you an example as to what happened with me, I got very interested in the fact that this is a great competition with such a good aim and I thought it'd be great to take part and learn. But I got confused by the two-stage thing, I thought I could modify code till the very end of the second stage. Why ? Because, there is nothing linking to the '[FAQ][1]' (where the rules for code modification are actually written) in the competition's official rules as far as I could see. Until I specifically asked the question in the forum and a good fellow gave me the link to the FAQ, I was unaware of it. I thought I read all the rules, be it Kaggle's own or the Organizer's, but the said FAQ wasn't conspicuous as much as it should have been. I still wonder as to how are we supposed to be legally bound by this FAQ when it is not specifically mentioned in the rules tab of the competition, shouldn't it be shown much more prominently and a link included inside the rules tab if it's so important and binding ? \n\n\n\nMoreover, the FAQ itself is not adequate. It lacks the explanation for all the permutations and combinations of the interpretations that are possible. So, it becomes all the more important that such rules are included in the competition's rules tab making it very clear to everyone as to what exactly is allowed or not allowed in each of the stages. Personally, I do not think that just the word \"finalized\" is enough and properly explains the code modification rules, there is ambiguity and it can be interpreted in different ways.\n\n\n\nAlthough I'd have loved to test my idea here in a live competition, I am not disappointed just for my own case. I'll take this as part of the learning experience. But, suppose there is even a minor possibility (for which I am getting sort of an inkling from the forum discussions) that the best brains to solve such an important problem might be out of the running or are not sure about what to do just because of the rules being not clear enough, wouldn't that be really disappointing ? Just to be clear though, I do understand that the organizers might have some things that they don't want to divulge beforehand for the competition to be fair or for getting a result as per their expectation, that's their right and totally okay. So I am talking about the general rules that can be and should be shown more clearly in the first place. \n\nHere are a few things I'd like to suggest to Kaggle: \n\n1. Please make the FAQ more elaborate, clearly specifying the rules for all the cases that are possible generally in competitions and making it technically complete. Include a link to it in your section of the rules tab of a two-stage competition. If something you think is to be handled by the Organizers, then make it more clear to them that they need to include a clarification in the rules tab of their competitions. \n \n\n2. Please do not show the days left in the competition header image like you do right now, it's misleading. As the days left for the competition for a participant user is over for all intents and purposes by the end of the first stage itself, make this thing more clear. For example, by showing it something like this:\n\n Before stage 1 is over:\n\n \t\"4 days to go for stage 1 end. 10 days to go for competition end.\"\n\n After stage 1 is over:\n\n \t\"Stage 1 is over. 6 days to go for competition end\"\n\n\n3. Also show the text \"Two-Stage Competition (code modifications not allowed after stage 1)\" somewhere in the header image.\n\nI am really liking this platform for what it is achieving already and for giving us a real world opportunity and a wonderful environment to learn together. A big thanks to Kaggle, it's really commendable! I also believe and appreciate that the organizers on their part are trying the best to answer all the questions being asked by us! \n\nMy suggestions are in the hope of conveying a new comer's thoughts as a feedback and what could be done to make things better. In hindsight, the code modification rules now *feel obvious* to me too because I already know about the FAQ. But for a person who doesn't know about it, he/she would logically think reading the rules tab is enough. \n\nI'd surely like to take part in such wonderful competitions as this one in the future too, and hopefully with the proper knowledge of all the rules! \n\n\n [1]: https://www.kaggle.com/two-stage-faq", "314291": "Actually , though I am a little new to there, but I confused by somethings, even there dose not have clear elaborate about which data should be used as test data at the final..... test or test final or both.......", "314164": "Great post!", "314211": "" } }