Proposition - Let's fix some cubing terms!

[Godmil]

There are some good naming conventions there. ZBLS is a natural improvement, however it could be difficult changing people's meaning of F2L as it's such a popular term.

8- I still think grip notation could be useful, if it's kept simple enough that people can understand/use it easily. I started a thread on it a wee while ago in which Xishem had a nice idea about using codes in < > brackets, but I think it still needs some work.

9- I think we should just use the terms 'skip' and 'full step' more often and leave 'lucky' as just a non-defined judgement call. People know for themselves if there solve was lucky so it probably doesn't need to be clearly defined.

 

[Athefre]

Yes, but L6E is more intuitive than LSE, I think. 'S' could mean 6, 7, 16, 'sexy', etc. 6 is six.

I'm not saying my preference should stay and a change or different standard shouldn't be made. I'm only giving reasons why it would be a difficult change for me.

 

[qqwref]

I'm not really sure whether I prefer L6E or LSE. L6E is more accurate and probably a better way to describe the case, but LSE is more aesthetically pleasing.

 

[asportking]

I'm sort of split between the two as well. L6E is a little more easier to understand, but LSE just looks nicer and is easier to pronounce ("el es ee" instead of "el six ee"). Would it be that bad to use them interchangeably?

 

[waffle=ijm]

Well, the question would be "are we looking for a standard?"

if not then I think it's perfectly fine to use either LSE or L6E .Personally I'm torn between the two but typing LSE is just so much easier and so much nicer in terms of pronunciation.

 

[uberCuber]

Honestly, I've used both L6E and LSE, sometimes even in the same conversation. I don't really think this is something that needs to be an issue, since as far as I know, we don't have anything else that could go with the other possible meanings of LSE.

 

[Kirjava]

No idea why you seem to have a problem with LSE. Seems fine to me.

Gilles calls it 6E4C, fyo.

Ok some personal stuff. I've been calling this OLLCP Rainbow, because it reminds me of rainbow tables. I'd also like to phase out "KCLL" and replace it with CLLEO (or whateverEO).

I've wanted a new name for Human Kociemba for a while. Mainly because it's not really like kociemba at all and people keep getting confused. I like 'Redux' but I changed the name from redux in the first place because of the bigcube (meta-)method. Any ideas?

I think after we reach a consensus I'll go add all the changes from this thread to the wiki. We cool with that?

 

[Kirjava]

I always look at the F in CFOP as meaning "Finish First 2 Layers", rather than just plain "First 2 Layers".

I hope you realise that this suffers from the same problems. There are many different steps that finish the first two layers.

 

[Cool Frog]

You could have a systematic labeling
A: DC BC DC BC

Where A is the starting grip of the algorithm, B is the fingers pushing a piece(described in a bit). C is the standard notation for the move that is done. finally, D is used to show that you wristed a turn and the grip of the cube is different.

as to labeling the fingers used, you can use this simpleish labels
||||- and -||||
While it may seem that typing this out many times would be very tedious, you can make it a bit shorter by dropping the remaning slashes as they are a bit redundant if you don't use them.
To indicate where to push you would use blind notation to identify the sticker pushed

A example of this could be
Standard: R U R' U'
S(tandard grip): RR lub-U RR' bul-U'
This identified that you wristed the R, you used your left index finger(since the finger noted is to the left of the "thumb") you wristed the R' with your Right hand, and then pushed the BUL sticker with your Left index...

While this seems a bit much to write out for ALL algorithms, it can be used to identify unusual fingertricks.

Example 2:

Standard: R2 D R U R' D' R U' R
R(shows that the Right hand is in the position after wristing an R):RR2' bld||-D RR -burU RR' lbd||-D' RR bul-U' RR
R:RR2' bld||-D RR -burU RR' lbd||-D' RR bul-U' RR

you could also use the stickers of edges to show MU style moves
M' would be a bd||-M'
and a M2 could be either a bd||-M2 (suggesting a double trigger), or bdbd|-M2
^You could probably label something bd-|- the second dash showing you use the above finger.
the same could apply for corner pushes U2.

Feel free to ask some questions.

 

[DavidWoner]

No need to enforce it, just start using it and watch it get adopted. I see this happening with ZBLS already. Changing wiki information will help.

Cross
Four Slots
OLL
PLL

bam.

I prefer "Fill slots." A solve with an X-Cross really only solves 3 slots for the second step but it should still be considered a CFOP solve IMO.

How about denoting rotations, tips, and face turns on the Pyraminx?

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?16004-Proposed-notation-for-pyraminx-rotations

Pretty straight-forward I think. I always thought tips were just <u,r,l,b> since that is how they appear in all scramblers. Face turns could be <D,F,BR,BL> since that is their position based on standard RULB grip, but I hate using BR and BL. Also it can be confusing to have the same typeset refers to two different types of moves.

OP and Sarah

1- Yes please.

2- Both are valid, though I'd like to encourage the use of CFOP since people misspell Fridrich SOOO MUCH.

3- Why? A lot of the more obscure methods would likely possess characteristics of multiple meta-methods, which would either get confusing or require the creation of a new meta-method classification.

4- I like classifications like CLL, CLLEO for what is now COLL, CLLM for CMLL, CLLEF works as it is. I think we should be consistent with CLL then letters to denote variation.

5- I always thought this was straight forward- description of substeps with number of cases and avg/min/max movecount for each substep.

6- Since most people take 2-Gen to mean RU, why don't we try to phase out the phrase 2-gen entirely and just use RU? It's shorter and clearer, and a lot of people seem to have trouble with the concept of a generator.

7- EJF2L is not the same thing as I(m)CLS. EJ2F2L refers to the entire concept of building a 2x2x3 with a twisted corner in order to save moves, then using CLS to twist it and the LL corners later. The name EJF2L does not suffer from the same naming inaccuracies as VHF2L and ZBF2L. However, I agree that "EJLS" should not become a thing. Instead we should clarify that EJF2L actually applies to the entire F2L, and that I(m)CLS is a substep of EJF2L.

8- I don't think grip notation will never be as effective as watching a video. There are too many variables to create a readable but still useful grip notation.

9- "Lucky" and "non-lucky" should just not be used. There are a lot of things that make a solve lucky- skipped steps, low movecount, low number of rotations, lookahead is easy because the pieces you need are always visible, etc. This is another thing where there are too many variables to objectively say that a solve is lucky or not. Not even movecount can be used here, because a solve with an unintentional 2xcross, sexy*3 for last two slots, doublesune OLL and Jperm PLL can have an average movecount, but is definitely much easier than an average solve. I whole-heartedly approve of using full-step and (insert step) skip for all good singles. "Easy" is a good word as well.

 

[uberCuber]

4- I like classifications like CLL, CLLEO for what is now COLL, CLLM for CMLL, CLLEF works as it is. I think we should be consistent with CLL then letters to denote variation.

When hearing the term "CLLEO", my impression would be that it would solve the corners and actually orient the edges.

 

[DavidWoner]

When hearing the term "CLLEO", my impression would be that it would solve the corners and actually orient the edges.

Ah fair enough, but I think we should hold to CLLx rather than mixing xCLL, CxLL, and CLLx. Open to suggestions.

 

[Athefre]

CLL+O (Orient Edges, or just CLLO)
CLL-O (Misorient Edges, haven't seen this used and maybe unnecessary)
CLL/O (Don't care about orientation, or just CLL)
CLL~O (Preserve orientation)
CLL/MU (Roux)
CLL/2 (2x2x2)
CLL/4 (4x4x4)

And if those aren't pleasing to look at:

C+O
C-O
C/O
C~O
C/MU
C/2
C/4

Plus mix and match. If wanted, change the symbols to something most agree makes sense.

 

[Lucas Garron]

[attempt to make use of this sub-forum]
There are a lot of 'standard' terms that we hold right now that I don't think are the best.

Maybe it's already too late to change some standards, but if it's possible, I'd love to change a few things.

Some quick examples of things I'd like to change/stop/do.
1-ZBF2L->ZBLS, as well as any other LS variations to be named as such.

Strongly in favor. I started using "ZBLS" after creating "MGLS", and it's nice to see that LS is relatively recognizable as a suffix now.

2-Stop CFOP/Fridrich naming debate, finally.

I don't know why people really care. See Stigler's Law to see why I think this is so petty.

EDIT: Note that I am still strongly in favor of attribution for new ideas. But Fridrich/CFOP is established and at this point it's just a name. Maybe we should put up a clear wiki section explaining the history, but "Fridrich" is still clear and accurate while people can like using "C"FOP all they like.
(Also, names can be changed. e.g. Husita-Justin axioms.)

5-I'd like there to be a standard format for publishing a method. Just a fancy way of displaying the attributes of a method, so one could publish faster, and hopefully get their point across quicker. I have some ideas about this - I'll post them tonight hopefully.

I think I have some pretty decent ideas, and plans for cubing.net. Whether I can implement them in a reasonable time depends on if I can assign this to any class projects.

I like CSOP. Cross, slots, OLL, PLL.
The problem with any 'new' name would be enforcing it. It'd be near-impossible.

No need to enforce it, just start using it and watch it get adopted. I see this happening with ZBLS already. Changing wiki information will help.

Cross
Four Slots
OLL
PLL

bam.

I've wanted to do this for a while, but haven't had the chance to advocate for it.




12. Is anyone in favor of introducing N for M' ? This could either be a really bad idea if it doesn't catch on, or a really good idea if M can be phased out pretty quickly. (The biggest issue is legacy material.)

I think the choice of N instead of M is pretty logical because it's a closely related letter (looks similar, sounds the same, adjacent in the alphabet), but distinguishable. If we *could* switch over, things would feel sort of like before, except we don't have to put silly primes on all the nice algs with slice moves.

 

[irontwig]

3-Better meta-definitions for methods. F2L>LL would be one meta-method. CF would be another, perchance.
A nice way to organize methods other than "good" or "bad" or something too convoluted would be nice. I know Thom has already thought about this - other thoughts?

A half-jokingly proposal: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ing-Discussion&p=641913&viewfull=1#post641913

I've wanted a new name for Human Kociemba for a while. Mainly because it's not really like kociemba at all and people keep getting confused. I like 'Redux' but I changed the name from redux in the first place because of the bigcube (meta-)method. Any ideas?

Yeah, and it doesn't get better that it's a subset of domino redux (pretty much "actual human kociemba"), which is a pretty rare method as iirc I've only seen Fredlund and Okayama use for 1h+ solutions.

 

[Kirjava]

I prefer "Fill slots." A solve with an X-Cross really only solves 3 slots for the second step but it should still be considered a CFOP solve IMO.

A solve with an XCross doesn't start with a Cross, either. I don't think minor variations should make a difference to the main idea of the method.

 

[asportking]

CLL+O (Orient Edges, or just CLLO)
CLL-O (Misorient Edges, haven't seen this used and maybe unnecessary)
CLL/O (Don't care about orientation, or just CLL)
CLL~O (Preserve orientation)
CLL/MU (Roux)
CLL/2 (2x2x2)
CLL/4 (4x4x4)

And if those aren't pleasing to look at:

C+O
C-O
C/O
C~O
C/MU
C/2
C/4

Plus mix and match. If wanted, change the symbols to something most agree makes sense.

I think CLL works better than just the "C." For me, symbols in general work a lot better than big long abbreviations. The "+,-,/,~" notation could probably be used for things other than CLL as well.

 

[a small kitten]

We should probably make a thread for each of the things we want changed. This is getting messy.

Also, would it be a good idea to rename OH turning techniques? I've heard the terms "Western" and "Japanese" thrown around a lot.

 

[Kirjava]

CLL isn't something that always affects the last layer only.

On the other hand the effect it has is on the last layer corners.

Conflicted on this issue. An alternative more descriptive suffix could be useful.

 

[StachuK1992]

Create new topics as you see fit, and be sure to include all details from this thread.
This thread should be a starter from discussions - once it has some headway, and interest is shown, a new topic being made is definitely appropriate.