I don't believe this to be a meta question. It is about puzzle creation. Although I mention two puzzles that I have already set, I am not complaining about down-votes, I'm trying to see what aspect of the design (if any) separates them in popularity.
I have submitted two puzzles that are based on Google ngrams. The first got lots of upvotes and the second got lots of downvotes.
I have an idea for a third but I want it to be successful.
A. Can anyone explain the different attitudes towards the two questions in terms of up- or down-voting?
I have a couple of theories
- Maybe one ngram puzzle was enough and members are now bored with the idea.
Note that the questions don't have an identical format. The first question relied on a cryptic clue whereas the second require a deductive leap. You had to notice the peaks of the curves and then work out the significance of those peaks.
- Maybe the second puzzle was too considered too difficult by some people and they down-voted for that reason.
Clearly it was possible to solve because someone did. But would people really down-vote a puzzle just because they thought it was too hard?
B. If I post a third it will still use ngrams but the solution strategy will be different yet again. So, how can I design it so as to ward off down-voters this time? Just what were they objecting to and what was so good about the first?