Do the year to date points for this year include or exclude extra puzzles from the previous year that were solved this year?
Extra points are no longer included in the year to date rankings.
Last edited by paulv66 on Sun Feb 01, 2026 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paul,
Are you sure?
I admit I wasn't paying close attention to the discussion, and we all can have different opinions.
In the past the past, the points from the EXTRA puzzles counted. But those puzzles had to be solved in the year they were published. You had to be done with all the 2025 puzzles by Dec 31 2025. But maybe I was wrong.
Are you sure?
I admit I wasn't paying close attention to the discussion, and we all can have different opinions.
In the past the past, the points from the EXTRA puzzles counted. But those puzzles had to be solved in the year they were published. You had to be done with all the 2025 puzzles by Dec 31 2025. But maybe I was wrong.
Last edited by eclipsegirl on Mon Feb 02, 2026 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yes, I’m sure. It was covered in one of Patrick’s posts. By doing this, he doesn’t need to wait until almost a month after year end before publishing calendar year rankings.
He didn’t say that he was going to apply this new approach retrospectively when publishing prior year historic rankings, but that’s clearly what he’s done, given the discrepancy between these historic results and previously advised totals.
He didn’t say that he was going to apply this new approach retrospectively when publishing prior year historic rankings, but that’s clearly what he’s done, given the discrepancy between these historic results and previously advised totals.
No, I'm pretty sure it was like what eclipsegirl said, that you had to have solved the extra puzzle before January 1st for it to count.
And now the extra puzzle points are no longer included (it also says so below the rankings), this to be able to compare with non-subscribers (because now they can also do the two randomly excluded puzzles each day).
It doesn't make much sense to apply this to earlier years then, it was more that it is easier to run the program I wrote for thispaulv66 wrote: He didn’t say that he was going to apply this new approach retrospectively when publishing prior year historic rankings, but that’s clearly what he’s done, given the discrepancy between these historic results and previously advised totals.