I have a three question quiz. I'd like the respondents to only be able to reach the End Of Survey only if all three questions are correct.
I am stuck at this point. There doesn't seem to be a way of "going back to the first question". Am I taking the wrong approach here?
Related
I am trying to find a way to display individual results of a questionnaire after the survey to the participants. I have looked at stackexchange and googled quite a bit but it seems that I am not formulating my question correctly, as I have not found any helpful information.
Could anybody here point me to the right direction on how to figure this out?
Thank you so much,
Noemi
I tried to find information on how to even start doing this, but was not successful so far. I am probably not using the correct keywords to search. Any hints on that would already be amazing!
Consider 12 people who want to meet up to play a game every week.
They meet in groups of 4. They want to play each other an even number of times.
After 4 weeks there doesn't seem to be any combination that allows each player to have played with all 11 opponents. I haven't been able to prove it, but I've yet to find a solution.
So what is the smallest value of N such that after (N*4) weeks every player can be guaranteed to have played with all other players at least N times? Can it be done for N=2?
This is very similar to the Social Golfer Problem -- an unsolved problem in mathematics. Here's a relevant post from math.stackexchange which discusses what you're looking at. If your concern is focused on the math behind it, you may want to repost it there, since that's not really suited for stackoverflow.
If you're just concerned about an algorithm to attempt to solve it (and don't want to just brute force it), this paper presents a bunch approaches to solving problems of this type. It's a pretty dense read, but it's a place to start. There's also a list of explicit solutions to some cases, but I don't know how useful it will be to you (since the problem is slightly different).
If you really just want to prove a lower bound for N, since its discrete and the cases you're examining are relatively small, your best bet would probably be to throw together a brute force search algorithm, and increment N until it works.
Finally, here's a few other links that may or may not be useful:
http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/movements_for_bridge.html
http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/tournaments/individual-pairs/individual-pairs.html
http://www.csplib.org/Problems/prob010/
https://www.metalevel.at/sgp/
Thanks for the pointers - they gave me the answer that I was looking for.
In simple terms, for N=1 there is no solution, as you said.
Solutions exist for 12 players over 11 rounds, eg http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/tournaments/individual-pairs/ip-pure_12.html - this actually goes one stage further and asserts that each player partners once with each other player, and opposes them twice. That effectively covers the case of N=3
The existence of a solution for N=3 and the lack of a solution for N=1 pretty much eliminates the possibility of a solution for N=2.
I'm attempting to write a "trivia quiz" skill, like many others that already exist, but I would like the user to be able to give actual answers rather than "a/b/c" or "1/2/3". So the conversation will go like this:
Alexa: Which planet is closest to the Sun: Mercury or Venus?
User: Mercury
Alexa: That's correct! You have one point. Which company makes the Corvette, Cadillac or Chevrolet?
User: Chevrolet
Alexa: That's right! You have two points. What were George Washington's false teeth made from? Wood or ivory?
...etc...
Since each question has its own set of answers, I'm happy to create one custom slot type per question, so I'd have a LIST_Q1_ANSWERS slot of ["Mercury", "Venus"] and a LIST_Q2_ANSWERS slot of ["Cadillac", "Chevrolet"], and that's all fine. However, I do not know how to tell my skill that answers should come from this particular custom slot only.
I can of course create a specific Intent for each question, so I create Q1Intent, I start a Dialog, and I Elicit my Q1Intent. However, this doesn't work out, because in my response to their filling in the required LIST_Q1_ANSWERS slot, I have to say "correct" and also ask the next question, which means that I have to Elicit the Q2Intent... and that's not allowed; I'd have to end the Dialog first, and then start a new one. (So the conversation would go "Which planet...?" "Mercury" "Correct! Do you want the next question?" "Yes" "OK. Which company..." and that's no good.)
I may be over-complicating things here. Perhaps there's an easier way to model the voice interface that I want. I can of course define all the different answers in one big custom slot, and then just have one single AnswerIntent, but then people can answer Chevrolet to the planets question and that's silly. (I know that I have to cope with any answers to a question, not just the ones in the slot, but I'd like to bias the question towards choosing answers from the slot; that's what slots are for.)
So, how should I be doing this? Dialogs won't work, I don't think.
That is a very reasonable request, IMO, but it is still not possible with Alexa. With some other bot/AI platforms you can specify a context that causes it to try to match the user response against a subset of your skills intents (usually just 1, I would think).
Here is a popular Alexa feature request that gets at the same point:
Allow temporarily disabling intents/utterances based on application state
https://forums.developer.amazon.com/content/idea/40045/allow-temporarily-disabling-intentsutterances-base.html
Yes, I believe that you can do exactly what you want. I did something similar in my "Who's On First?" baseball skit skill.
There are probably many other ways to accomplish this also, but I took the following approach:
Create an intent for each user response. For example, in the above example you stated, "mercury" and "chevrolet" would each be intents.
Pass information forward in the session object. A database could be used, but the session works well in this case. This information will allow your intent handlers to identify the question that was asked. This isn't really necessary if every answer is unique, but it allows multiple questions to have the same answer. For example, maybe the answer "mercury" is an answer to both questions "name a planet" as well as "name a liquid metal".
Since there will be more possible incorrect answers than correct answers, it might make sense to use slots for the incorrect answers. Alternatively, you might just handle unmatched intents as incorrect answers, and use the question ID passed in the session to identify which question was incorrect.
You can put together the response string programmatically. So if the answer is correct, prepend "Correct, the next question is " to the beginning of the next question your skill says.
I hope this gives you an idea for how to proceed. A lot is possible with Alexa. We just need to get creative sometimes.
New to posting here on stackoverflow, so please forgive any transgresses that occur.
So a little background....
My grandfather is a current computer science professor at a university. I have always taken a great interest in computers, and have really grown into dealing with the hardware side of things. However, him being how he is, he wants to me to have a broader understanding of computing in general. Including coding/programming.
SO to my question.... He has given me a Key P5FW-93F6. He told me, that if I am able to make other keys "with the same value" he will give me a reward. So as I am trying to solve this problem, I haven't a clue where to start. In the beginning, I have entered the code, and followed the pattern of Letter, Number, Letter, Letter, etc. into excel and used the random value function.. However, none of these keys work in his program. He told me there is a massive amount of different "Keys" that will work but will not provide hints on to how to solve the problem. What language should I learn to solve this? Should I be looking for a hash value to be the same as the one key listed above? I am completely lost... any help would be appreciated!
Thanks!!
P.S. I do have an unlimited number of attempts, however only have one line that I can enter at a time. So I can't make batch entries.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
We have up to several team members that does not work 100% on our team. You might argue that this is a bad idea in the first place, but lets assume we can't do anything about it. I have had a discussion with one of the other team members, and my argument is that the burndown chart is "lying" to us. Let me give you an example.
Lets say we have a sprint, lasting 2 weeks.
We have 6 members, where 2 of them are only working 50%.
If both of the part time members work 100% the first week, and 0% the second week, my argument is that after 1 week, the burndown will look alot better than the reality is. Scrum says that this is the time to add features to the sprint.
Ive seen an alternative way to do this, where you beforehand type in the days you are available, and then have a nonlinear ideal line. My first suggestion was to have placeholders to burn down even if you were not available, but that was shot down pretty quickly.
So I wonder; Should we do anything with the burndownchart? Is the chart even useful? Are there other good practices to overcome this hinderance?
We are currently using Urban Turtle
Regarding the part time developers - obviously, it is not an ideal situation, but there isn't really much of a problem with it. Would Scrum fail if one of your team member wanted to take a day off and would be available for only 32 hours out of 40 in one week? Would Scrum fail if during the week of Christmas nobody would be working? No - on both accounts.
Here's the simplest (and in my opinion best) way to handle your situation: you simply add up the hours that all of the team members will be available for work in that Sprint, e.g. if you have a team of 3, with one member at 100%, and two at 50%, and the sprint is a week, you will add up 40 + 40/2 + 40/2 = 80. That is how many work hours the team has to commit to. It is no different than if you had two full time members.
Regarding the burn down chart - I think that plotting a non-linear "ideal" burn-down is both a waste of effort, as well as misguided. There's a reason it is called ideal. It is not because you must strive to work on that line, but to demonstrate what the burn down would look like if you would (could) work at a constant pace.
Remember the function of that graph - it is there to indicate possible problems in the development. Not every deviation from the ideal is bad. Life isn't ideal, and you are fooling yourself (and harming yourself) if you get worked up over the difference.
In fact, trying to account for every deviation is exactly the predictive method that waterfall famously fails for, and that agile methods try to get away from.
What you may want to do, is to note every major deviation, that you had, understand them and see if there is something you can do about them, and then adapt your process. That is better than trying to model the current state.
So to answer the last question - Are there other good practices to overcome the hindrance - the answer is it is not a hindrance. Overcome it by accepting your reality, and ignoring that which is wasteful.
Your situation is a perfect candidate for using story points over hours. The relative combined effort to complete a story would be more meaningful to your teams ability to deliver value over time, regardless of how much time has been historically spent on similar stories.
There is a very well known anecdote about this situation that turns the situation on its head. Imagine you had a full time team and you knew exactly what hours they could work. Imagine your team had the best scrum practices and you reached a velocity everyone agreed they were happy with. Are they now confined to that velocity forever? Is it conceivable that if you set the same team the goal of delivering the same velocity in less hours and offered the incentive of simply going home early, could it be achieved?
The answer is yes. In fact a real life scenario like this occurred at a major US software house and that team actually got their working week down to 16hrs!! Yes, 16hrs!! They did it by continually fine tuning how they viewed effort. After all, if you take hours to compare stories rather than comparative complexity, how do you factor things like reusable components or cope with unexpected requirement changes from one feature to the next?
Switch to story points, you'll never look back :0)