Standard Lettering Scheme for Reference

[cmhardw]

1) The quadrant lettering for the FACES will start out by going from left to right (ULB->URB) and proceed clockwise around the face.

2) The problem is that the FACE ORDER - UFLBRD starts out by going back to front. This is not consistent.

3) The face order URFLBD is consistent with the clockwise lettering scheme being proposed, but UFLBRD, while it is clockwise, is not traversing the cube in literally in the same clockwise order that the faces are being assigned.

4) Traversing the face order CLOCKWISE AROUND A CORNER PIECE - ULBRFD (that has stickers on 2 other faces besides the one we are trying to label), is NOT clockwise consistent with the quadrant face lettering scheme.

5) The face lettering scheme should be seen as traversing CLOCKWISE AROUND A FACE - not around a corner.

reThinking, you do bring up some good points here. However, it seems that most people are agreeing that UFLBRD seems more natural.

Therefore, the correct face order is: URFLBD

Since this standard scheme can be whatever we want it to be, and it is appearing that the majority concurs one way, then it seems that the method will likely go that way. I'm saying that based on experience of these kinds of dealings in the past.

Any other opinions on this?

By the way, if people want to retain the UFLBRD order then we can fix a lot of the issues of this being a bit of an inconsistency by rewording the one rule that says everything must go clockwise. We could simply describe the clockwise nature of piece lettering for the quadrants when we talk about quadrants, and list the face order as a set rule.

I'm ok with the inconsistency here, as UFLBRD does feel very "natural" to me then URFLBD. I'm not the only one that will be using the notation though, any other opinions on this before it becomes final?

 

[reThinking the Cube]

...I go clockwise for consistency. If you're going clockwise around the face to label letters doesn't it make sense to go clockwise for everything else?

I think whatever scheme we use should be exactly the same idea for all piece types. I can promise that I will put absolutely no effort into learning a new scheme. If there is one simple rule that I can follow to derive the standard lettering scheme then I will do that, and use it in all my posts referring to BLD cycles.

...but I think the proposed order fits the whole theme of everything being ordered in a clockwise direction.

However, the simple rule or process stated above can allow someone to not memorize this scheme, but derive it every time when writing out cycles on the forum.

...the face order was because it preserved the idea that everything was clockwise, including how we worked our way around the side faces,

Like Aron said let's just do everything clockwise for consistency

If we're going to say "everything clockwise" then we need to stick with it and make everything go clockwise.

Wait, I just realized that this picture labels pieces counterclockwise to the corner - but piece groups move clockwise around the face. I thought we had agreed to keep everything clockwise for consistency? Can we redo it so that the labelling of each piece chunk goes clockwise as seen from the corner, but keep otherwise the same scheme? I think this would be more "standard" and easier to remember/re-derive.

...having everything clockwise with respect to viewing the cube from above is more consistent and more "standard" for the purposes we're striving for.

...but labeling the pieces counterclockwise from the corner seems to be an irregularity that is not matched anywhere else in the labeling scheme. If this is to be a standard approach, I feel there should be no irregularities, personally.

This standardized method needs to be so simply defined that someone can re-derive it on the spot without have to try to memorize the scheme itself beforehand.

Spoiler

By the way, if people want to retain the UFLBRD order then we can fix a lot of the issues of this being a bit of an inconsistency by rewording the one rule that says everything must go clockwise. We could simply describe the clockwise nature of piece lettering for the quadrants when we talk about quadrants, and list the face order as a set rule.

I'm ok with the inconsistency here, as UFLBRD does feel very "natural" to me then URFLBD.

Chris, your diplomacy skills are 2nd to none on this forum, but I wish to stay true to course. Rules based on what feels the most *natural* are a departure from what had been pledged previously.

U.R.F.L.B.D. = Universal Rules For Lettering Blind Discussion :tu

 

[Forte]

let's just choose one

 

[cmhardw]

Will others following this thread please weigh in with their votes as well?

Basically what has happened recently is that reThinking pointed out, quite well in my opinion, that the face order UFLBRD violates our rule of ordering everything in a clockwise direction, and in a consistent way. Following the way that we name quadrants always as seen from the top face as moving from the UBL corner to the right toward the UBR corner, then face direction should go the same way. I think we can all agree U is an obvious starting choice. Starting at U the next face we move to in order to stay consistent with not only going always clockwise, but in a consistent way, then we should go right and have the face order URFLBD.

If we are to choose the face order UFLBRD, then let's simply agree on it, and trash the "always clockwise" rule. If we really do want to keep things "always clockwise, and always consistent" then we need to adopt the face order URFLBD to stay with this consistency.

My vote is to use UFLBRD for its "natural" feeling, and to trash the "always clockwise" rule. I agree that this is an inconsistency, but I think this hybridized standard lettering will more closely match most of our actual letterings which I assume move from U directly to F for many of us.

Others following the thread, please weigh in on this with your opinions!

Chris

 

[Escher]

I'd have to +1 ReThinking's suggestion - I actually quite like his acronym.
A standardised lettering scheme should be intuitive and easy to learn for people who are relatively new to cubing - and what is intuitive to them is what is easy to remember - not what feels 'natural' to those who have been cubing longer.
Those of us who have been cubing long enough will be fine remembering either, I'm sure.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I don't care about the order. For me, going clockwise looking from the bottom makes the most sense (which is why I lettered mine that way), so either one will feel equally unnatural to me. In fact, ReThinking's approach will probably confuse me less, since it will be more clearly different.

But honestly, it doesn't matter that much to me, one way or the other.

 

[Ville Seppänen]

My vote goes for UFLBRD. All I have to say about it is that it just feels more natural.

 

[riffz]

My vote goes for UFLBRD. All I have to say about it is that it just feels more natural.

Agreed. I still argue that this does not break any rules. I know that URFLBD fits more closely, but UFLBRD still spirals clockwise from U to D. reThinking is visualizing the face transition as clockwise around the URF corner, whereas UFLBRD transitions clockwise around the UFL corner.

 

[StachuK1992]

In topics where people don't know the scheme we can either refer them to the Wiki where it is defined, or I wouldn't mind typing a "translation" to the regular piece location lettering if it ever becomes an issue. Perhaps a nice programming-minded person could write a translator applet for us as well to simply this?

I'm in. What all is required?

In other words, what all are the possible "languages" to translate to/from?
I can make it Sunday night when I get back - shall check this thread.

(Although I kinda assume it will be done by someone before then. )

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

I'm casting a vote for URFLBD.

 

[cmhardw]

I'd like a few more people who were posting in this thread to weigh in before we make a final decision, please keep voting! This is awesome, we're almost done!

 

[riffz]

I'd like to hear Stefan's opinion, tbh.

 

[aronpm]

My vote goes to UFLBRD

 

[cmhardw]

I'm tabulating these votes, so please keep them coming. This, as far as I know, is the last issue that needs to be resolved before we can finalize this standardized notation.

 

[mr. giggums]

I would like URFLBD if there is still time to vote.

 

[Sakarie]

So the main options are
URFLBD
or UFLBRD

How could one of them be MORE clockwise? And wouldn't consistency be to start from UBL and go clockwise, which would be UBRFLD?

Anywayz, I vote UFLBRD, but I wouldn't mind.

 

[Lucas Garron]

UFLBRD

As a programmer, I've had to work with so many face orders, and neither of these two is one of them.

 

[MatsBergsten]

UFRBLD (ends in BLD, don't you see ), that's how I did it!
If I have to choose only by those two I go for UFLBRD.

 

[Lumej]

I vote for URFLBD. It's what I use, and I think it's natural.

 

[Mike Hughey]

UFRBLD (ends in BLD, don't you see ), that's how I did it!

That's how I did it too! I love the fact that it ends in BLD - I never noticed that before.