Survey evaluation
Survey about CERC 2011 completed 59 participants. Thank you for your time for completing. We value your opinion and we will try to take into account your comments in the following years competition.
Summary results are here:
Contest schedule, i.e. timing, organization etc. |
Summarily comments: |
Contest environment |
| Summarily comments: 2x Computers was sometimes slow, but satisfactory 1x Strange LCD and keyboards 2x Yellow bulbs was poor, balloons would be better 2x More information on the scoreboard (who tries which problem; when was problem solved; how many attempts did it take) 1x No programming tools with GUI for C++ 1x "Time Limit Exceeded" for Java, same code in C/C++ was OK 3x It was good 8x RAID should be used for central store, data lost was painful 1x Thanks for better STL documentation (cplusplus.com) and for sharing homes 2x Teams was small amount of space, listening to each other could be 1x Filling duplicate information during submit 2x Archaic environment, it's hostile towards the user. Should be accept any file and extension; show all your submits and their state and could be download back; publish size of the judge queue; electronic form of problems + copy and paste example I/O; clock for count down for end of contest etc. - Throw it away and use something else - For instance KATTIS (the one used at World Finals) is pretty good 1x Need to use web interface 1x Submits without results during last hour to publish for coaches |
Provision during the contest, i.e. food, printing, facilities etc. |
| Summarily comments: 1x Pens and scratch pads were missing 1x No food on first day 1x Bigger variety of food will be better 2x Possibility to eat inside the contest room 1x No dinner after contest 3x The food was awesome; was missing buns, juices; plentiful but cheap, poor of quality and unhealthy 1x Lunch in Masarykova kolej was awful. Same as 4 years ago. 1x Food was OK, thanks for printer in contest room (no delays) 3x A+ (The + is for the coffee); apples were really great 1x Difficult to find the dress room 1x Facilities were not representative |
Problems |
 |
| Summarily comments: 6x Nice problems, pleasure to solve 5x Nice balance of difficulty 5x Timelimit for each task wasn't known; strict timelimits; 10^9 ops. was too big 1x T problem was known problem, C problem would have been better if the point was solving the problem instead of fiddling with long long overflows 1x Problems were only hard for coding, not thinking 1x Checking of white spaces was strict 1x This wasn't an algorithmic contest, this was an implementation contest 1x Analyze problem statement wasn't formally correct and complete |
| Judge's comment: "Problems were only hard for coding, not thinking" a "This wasn't an algorithmic contest, this was an implementation contest" Yes, we agree and this was (at least partially) intentional. This is a PROGRAMMING contest, not a competition in mathematics or theoretical informatics, as happened in some of the previous years. According to the Contest Rules, "problems avoid dependence on detailed knowledge of a particular applications area". We wanted the problems to be interesting for everyone, not for the top 10 teams only. |
Cipher contest |
| Summarily comments: 8x Thanks for it; great idea, surprise in form of visit technical museum was very classy; interesting 2x Didn't participate 3x Could be a bit harder 1x It was too hard, first task should be easier 3x Wasn't interesting, no motivation 1x Bad timing of the first task 1x Last one was very tricky |
Accommodation |
| Summarily comments: 1x Greetings from Hostel Strahov ;-) 1x Poor wifi in hotel Denisa 1x It would be better if the contestants were housed together in student dorm, we always have some fun with the others. 1x Diplomat hotel was expensive and not very good 1x Denisa Hotel wasn't that brilliant as expected in room was really cold; breakfast could be better; just a few minutes from the contest place 1x Better than that one in Wroclaw 2x On dormitory; was acceptable 1x Not bad, more than 1 hour waiting because organizers forgot to forward money to the hotel |
Other comments |
| Summarily comments: 1x Add parameter for gcc compiler "-std=c++0x" would be quite handy 1x The approach from the staff about technical problems is understandable, apology and explanation at the start of the problem missed 1x Good job, learn from the technical problems, find good food for lunch instead Masarykova kolej 1x That was my last chance to contest, I would to compete again. Good luck for following contests! 2x The final impression was everything except for "the contest was great"; It is ridiculous to say about yourself that you are the best organizers! 1x A submit containing a single fork() call is not necessarily an attempt to hack the judge. 1x Thank you and see you next year somewhere 1x It was no need to give the same prizes to each team member, they can share it. The prizes are great, it's fun to play with them. 1x Do not rename team names (minimal during ceremony), sizes of T-shirts weren't same as in the ICPC system. |
|
Judge's comment: "A submit containing a single fork() call is not necessarily an attempt to hack the judge." No, but it is the violation of the Contest Rules, even during the Practice Session. Not speaking about another submit containing an endless forking loop. |