First it brought an interesting topic useful for business that was presented by a perfect host.
\nThanks for that to the sponsoring OTTO company and namely to @pnormann .
\nI am sure that they got great value for their investment in the form of divers solutions presented here by top teams.
\nThanks to all those, who shared and enabled us to learn from their work.
\nThat's all about the positives.
Second it brought a big encouragement to high number of cheaters of all kinds that there are much easier \"alternative\" ways to get medals and reach even the highest tiers than the hard work is.
\nWhy to spend long hours with creating something new, when you can simply join Kaggle at the last moments before the entry deadline, have no activity on Kaggle at all and with 9 team's submissions get a silver medal?
\nAs an example this is the case of the GoodLuckTeam, but there are many similar (traditionally mostly silver) teams that are still in the leaderboard.
\nThe exact evidence of how such \"sudden geniuses\" can appear is mounting up but Kaggle team keeps ignoring it.
Kaggle team members' behavior is hardly understandable.
\nOn one hand they have no problem to unlawfully eliminate from the leaderboard anybody, who doesn't fit into their model of a perfect (loyal etc.) competitor.
\nOn the other hand Kaggle team shows an endless tolerance to some competitors despite they are able to repeatedly ruin their teams' efforts and reputations.
It seems to be quite easy to buy a way to become a competition master but, before reading discussions in this competition, I supposed the GM tier to be the unreachable limit.
\nNow I know that there is no limit how high a dishonest individual can get on Kaggle without any significant effort or knowledge.
@wcukierski
\nWhen will Kaggle team finally apply the same rules to all competitors?
\nWill you still keep only observing how all the Kaggle competitions' reputation is falling deeper and deeper?
First it brought an interesting topic useful for business that was presented by a perfect host.
\nThanks for that to the sponsoring OTTO company and namely to @pnormann .
\nI am sure that they got great value for their investment in the form of divers solutions presented here by top teams.
\nThanks to all those, who shared and enabled us to learn from their work.
\nThat's all about the positives.
Second it brought a big encouragement to high number of cheaters of all kinds that there are much easier \"alternative\" ways to get medals and reach even the highest tiers than the hard work is.
\nWhy to spend long hours with creating something new, when you can simply join Kaggle at the last moments before the entry deadline, have no activity on Kaggle at all and with 9 team's submissions get a silver medal?
\nAs an example this is the case of the GoodLuckTeam, but there are many similar (traditionally mostly silver) teams that are still in the leaderboard.
\nThe exact evidence of how such \"sudden geniuses\" can appear is mounting up but Kaggle team keeps ignoring it.
Kaggle team members' behavior is hardly understandable.
\nOn one hand they have no problem to unlawfully eliminate from the leaderboard anybody, who doesn't fit into their model of a perfect (loyal etc.) competitor.
\nOn the other hand Kaggle team shows an endless tolerance to some competitors despite they are able to repeatedly ruin their teams' efforts and reputations.
It seems to be quite easy to buy a way to become a competition master but, before reading discussions in this competition, I supposed the GM tier to be the unreachable limit.
\nNow I know that there is no limit how high a dishonest individual can get on Kaggle without any significant effort or knowledge.
@wcukierski
\nWhen will Kaggle team finally apply the same rules to all competitors?
\nWill you still keep only observing how all the Kaggle competitions' reputation is falling deeper and deeper?
Kaggle applies the same standard to all participants when reviewing competitions for rules compliance, and we are investing considerable time and focus on preventing/removing cheaters. Please see my comments here on why our efforts here aren't always publicly noticeable, and why there are bound to be some false negatives in this process.
", "rawMarkdown": "Kaggle applies the same standard to all participants when reviewing competitions for rules compliance, and we are investing considerable time and focus on preventing/removing cheaters. Please see my comments [here]( https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/otto-recommender-system/discussion/381495#2117914) on why our efforts here aren't always publicly noticeable, and why there are bound to be some false negatives in this process.", "votes": null }, { "id": "2135595", "postDate": "02/08/2023 18:24:08", "content": "\n\n\nKaggle applies the same standard to all participants when reviewing competitions for rules compliance
\n
Once again it is only a proclamation. In reality you don't do it.
\nAnd it is not only about cheaters but also about elimination for technical unaibility of your team to keep competitions fair.
It is good that you reminded the discussion at the link. You still owe me the answer to my question:
\n\n\nWhat can be of a higher priority than keeping competitions fair and with equal chances for all participants?
\n
Your actions needn't be publicly noticeable but the results of your actions (and no-actions) are very visible. And it is a sad and discouraging picture.
", "rawMarkdown": "wcukierski \n>Kaggle applies the same standard to all participants when reviewing competitions for rules compliance\n\nOnce again it is only a proclamation. In reality you don't do it.\nAnd it is not only about cheaters but also about elimination for technical unaibility of your team to keep competitions fair.\n\nIt is good that you reminded the discussion at the link. You still owe me the **answer to my question**: \n>What can be of a higher priority than keeping competitions fair and with equal chances for all participants?\n\nYour actions needn't be publicly noticeable but the results of your actions (and no-actions) are very visible. And it is a sad and discouraging picture.", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 2135525, "author_name": "wcukierski", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/08/2023 17:26:32", "content": "Kaggle applies the same standard to all participants when reviewing competitions for rules compliance, and we are investing considerable time and focus on preventing/removing cheaters. Please see my comments here on why our efforts here aren't always publicly noticeable, and why there are bound to be some false negatives in this process.
", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 2135595, "author_name": "blankaf", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/08/2023 18:24:08", "content": "\n\n\nKaggle applies the same standard to all participants when reviewing competitions for rules compliance
\n
Once again it is only a proclamation. In reality you don't do it.
\nAnd it is not only about cheaters but also about elimination for technical unaibility of your team to keep competitions fair.
It is good that you reminded the discussion at the link. You still owe me the answer to my question:
\n\n\nWhat can be of a higher priority than keeping competitions fair and with equal chances for all participants?
\n
Your actions needn't be publicly noticeable but the results of your actions (and no-actions) are very visible. And it is a sad and discouraging picture.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "2135485": "**First** it brought an interesting topic useful for business that was presented by a perfect host.\nThanks for that to the sponsoring OTTO company and namely to @pnormann .\nI am sure that they got great value for their investment in the form of divers solutions presented here by top teams.\nThanks to all those, who shared and enabled us to learn from their work.\nThat's all about the positives.\n\n**Second** it brought a big encouragement to high number of cheaters of all kinds that there are much easier \"alternative\" ways to get medals and reach even the highest tiers than the hard work is.\nWhy to spend long hours with creating something new, when you can simply join Kaggle at the last moments before the entry deadline, have no activity on Kaggle at all and with 9 team's submissions get a silver medal?\nAs an example this is the case of the GoodLuckTeam, but there are many similar (traditionally mostly silver) teams that are still in the leaderboard.\nThe exact evidence of how such \"sudden geniuses\" can appear is mounting up but Kaggle team keeps ignoring it.\n\nKaggle team members' behavior is hardly understandable. \nOn one hand they have no problem to unlawfully eliminate from the leaderboard anybody, who doesn't fit into their model of a perfect (loyal etc.) competitor.\nOn the other hand Kaggle team shows an endless tolerance to some competitors despite they are able to repeatedly ruin their teams' efforts and reputations.\n\nIt seems to be quite easy to buy a way to become a competition master but, before reading discussions in this competition, I supposed the GM tier to be the unreachable limit. \nNow I know that there is no limit how high a dishonest individual can get on Kaggle without any significant effort or knowledge.\n\n@wcukierski \nWhen will Kaggle team finally apply the same rules to all competitors?\nWill you still keep only observing how all the Kaggle competitions' reputation is falling deeper and deeper?", "2135525": "Kaggle applies the same standard to all participants when reviewing competitions for rules compliance, and we are investing considerable time and focus on preventing/removing cheaters. Please see my comments [here]( https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/otto-recommender-system/discussion/381495#2117914) on why our efforts here aren't always publicly noticeable, and why there are bound to be some false negatives in this process.", "2135595": "wcukierski \n>Kaggle applies the same standard to all participants when reviewing competitions for rules compliance\n\nOnce again it is only a proclamation. In reality you don't do it.\nAnd it is not only about cheaters but also about elimination for technical unaibility of your team to keep competitions fair.\n\nIt is good that you reminded the discussion at the link. You still owe me the **answer to my question**: \n>What can be of a higher priority than keeping competitions fair and with equal chances for all participants?\n\nYour actions needn't be publicly noticeable but the results of your actions (and no-actions) are very visible. And it is a sad and discouraging picture." }, "source": "meta" }