Sharing and rewarding what went into making a good puzzle

Question

I'd like to put forth an idea which I think could simultaneously address two heavily discussed topics on Puzzling.SE:-

1. Adding more content about puzzle creation itself (in addition to being a repository of high-quality puzzles)
2. Rewarding good puzzles by awarding the questioner more than +5 per vote

About puzzle creation

While Puzzling.SE originally started out as a site to learn about creating and solving puzzles, and some meta-posts state that posting and solving puzzles created by others is kind of a way to learn about puzzles, there isn't actually much insight on offer on what really went into making those puzzles.

There are several great puzzles on this site, and it would be interesting as well as educative for others to learn things about how their designers created them, such as:

• The source(s) of inspiration
• How the puzzle started and evolved, ideas that were discarded or added along the way, and why
• Any resources or programs that were used to research or produce the content
• What the OP learnt from solvers' responses to the puzzle
• Etc.

Proposal

The proposal is to allow the OP to share their story by (optionally) posting a self-answer with this description. Each such answer could have a brief standardized heading, possibly with a meta-post link, to explain what it is and that it's not an answer to the puzzle itself. This post would typically be posted after the puzzle is solved.

Rewarding good puzzles

Now anybody who reads this special answer and appreciates the work behind the puzzle can choose to upvote it, thereby awarding an additional +10 points. For puzzles that were copied (with due accreditation) from another source such as a puzzle book, no such narration is possible, and thus good but unoriginal puzzles would not be unduly awarded additional points. Similarly, regular questions that aren't puzzles would only receive the standard +5 points.

Pros and cons

Advantages of this approach:-

1. This mechanism would work without requiring any site-specific code changes.
2. Moreover, it allows a finer level of control than a blind +10 per upvote (as described above).
3. Bounties can also be awarded to this answer in lieu of the question. [Thanks, @Ian MacDonald for this suggestion.]

The few potential concerns that I can think of are:

1. This additional post should be genuinely interesting and not degrade to something like "Please upvote this answer if you liked this puzzle"
2. It shouldn't be abused to place hints to the answer of the puzzle itself
3. A really interesting post could get more upvotes than the accepted answer (i.e. solution) and earn the "Populist" badge
4. If this proposal goes through, there may be an initial spurt of people trying to mass edit their old questions.

I think all of these can be dealt with, and overall this approach would make puzzling more interesting and rewarding.

Samples

A sandbox for sample commentaries on puzzle creation has been created.

There is also a question on how these samples should be standardized in format.

Answer 1

An outline for wrap-up posts can be found at Wrap-up posts: What should the formal part of it contain? Please copy the outline’s header, being sure to include the words wrap-up, making and poser, so that wrap-ups are easier to find and distinguish from other kinds of posts. Content below the header can be free-form and the outline includes many excellent ideas.

Examples of wrap-up posts may be found by searching for keywords such as wrap up making poser. (Experimental wrap-up posts, made while this topic was under discussion, may be found at Sample commentaries on puzzle creation.)

---

Full answer, which motivated community approval

Just to clarify I understood the idea correctly:

• this is an optional thing
• the OP posts an answer (call it wrap-up) to his/her own puzzle-question on the main site
  _{For now: As this idea is tested, the wrap-up is posted on the meta site sandbox only}
• the wrap-up is posted only after the puzzle is solved (i.e. when an accepted answer already exists.)
• the wrap-up never becomes the accepted answer
• there is some format standardization of wrap-up answers

---

I very much like this idea! And it is similar to some of the "community-wrapup-answers" I've done in the past, but still I think your suggestion is better than this community-wiki post. (And could co-exist.)

Addressing your issues:

1. This additional post should be genuinely interesting and not degrade to something like "Please upvote this answer if you liked this puzzle"

Self-solving, as one could easily downvote bad wrap-up posts (and comment on them).

2. It shouldn't be abused to place hints to the answer of the puzzle itself

I think it should only be posted after the puzzle has an accepted answer, so this problem does then not exist. Note, that for too-difficult/never-solved puzzles, there is still the possibility to "self-answer-solve" a puzzle with a community-wiki post. So the wrap-up idea does not interfere.

3. A really interesting post could get more upvotes than the accepted answer (i.e. solution) and earn the "Populist" badge

I see this as a benefit, not as a problem.

4. If this proposal goes through, there may be an initial spurt of people trying to mass edit their old questions.

True. Not really a huge issue - and maybe a wave of very interesting information sparking new puzzles! - but we might add to the proposal that old posts should be wrapped up at a slow pace. (One at a day / user ?)

Additional points:

• If wrap-up posts are at least partly standardized in format, it is easy to create a search-filter for them. (Similar to how I group puzzles of a series, like here.) This is an excellent way of 'tagging' these without the need of meta-tags.

• This idea kind-of adds a missing feature which is not wanted on other SE sites, but clearly is in our special case: A place to discuss/comment on the puzzle-creation process which is still neatly linked to the puzzle but not obscuring it, like question-comments would be. Comments on this wrap-up are a very good place, and if there are too many, it becomes a chat automatically...

Summing up:

I love your idea. I really want to see it implemented, and I don't think it causes havoc on the existing system.