2
$\begingroup$

The first sentence of the tag summary/excerpt (that most people see) means something very different from the first line of the description/wiki.
I have heard the description is the correct usage, and that we should not use the tag just to indicate the puzzle is designed to not require a computer.

I think these should be reconciled/match, either one way or the other. The tag is very confusing since at face value, the summary is the natural interpretation.
Thoughts?

Summary:

A puzzle designed to be solved without using calculators, online decoders, or computer programming. Using a computer to type and post the answer is allowed; the spirit of this tag is to make people solve the puzzle on their own.

Description:

This tag should be used for a puzzle that can be solved by brute-force calculation or programming, but where the puzzle-setter explicitly does not want people to do so and is looking for a solution that can be understood without the use of a calculator or computer.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ "I have heard the description is the correct usage, and that we should not use the tag just to indicate the puzzle is designed to not require a computer." - do you remember where you heard that? $\endgroup$
    – bobble
    Apr 26 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ It's not obvious what you see as the conflict here. "to be solved without using calculators … to make people solve the puzzle on their own" and "understood without the use of a calculator …" are effectively the same requirement. Perhaps the question could suggest better wordings. $\endgroup$ May 23 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ If I have a puzzle that was designed to be solved without requiring a computer, but is not any easier with a computer (brute force/programming don't help), can I use the tag to quickly show users that the puzzle doesn't need a computer? I have seen multiple people say NO (don't remember where). The description is clearly NO ("can be solved by programming") but the summary is more open ("designed to be solved without computers") $\endgroup$
    – Amoz
    May 23 at 14:38

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .