What a great project -- I want to shake your hand for making that in a day. There was a similar site once, slickorslack.com, around long enough to show up some

What a great project -- I want to shake your hand for making that in a day. There was a similar site once, slickorslack.com, around long enough to show up some biases in the ratings. Most obviously, short cryptic snippets got lots of undeserved love: you could see this because code with great ratings didn't even work. Like, a broken but even shorter version of the Haskell pseudo-quicksort we've all seen handily beat out the good version. I tested this bias by fixing some other broken or poor submissions, with usually similar results. You can kind of see the same pattern on the new site where the 1/sqrt(x) approximation currently rules -- how many upvoters understand how it works? I'm not sure what to do about this, if anything. Make it easy to run the code? Would help, but does nothing about judging things cool because you don't understand them at all. Deliberately post broken code to keep people on their toes? Eh. This love for the obscure didn't extend all the way to IOCCC obfuscation -- the sweet spot seemed to be dense code apparently written for someone much smarter than you. So I'm tempted to strip out helpful doc comments, even 1- or 2-liners, for the ratings. There was a heavy Ruby bias -- dunno if we'll see any equivalent here. Since slickorslack was an anonymous hotornot-style shootout, there's an opportunity for new biases now, like positive feedback on the visible ratings, or submitter reputation. I'd like to be able to blind that info until I've judged for myself. Maybe view in either reading mode, without vote arrows, or judgment mode, without metadata until you've judged? I think I'd like to be able to fork submissions and offer supposed improvements.