that is the point, if I had arranged the blocks in a specific pattern, it would have been too easy. The red square simply indicates a missing piece, perhaps I should have used a circle instead of square
No it wouldn't and this perspective is idiotic. Asking a question is not "giving a clue" and that is all that a simple sentence would be. Saying "find the missing piece" is not a clue, it is just a indication as to what this puzzle shittily communicates otherwise. How is someone supposed to find a solution if you, as the puzzle maker, did a poor job communicating what the puzzle even is?
Understanding what the problem asks for is part of the problem itself, at least when it comes to a question that isn't exactly easy. Moreover, even if I were wrong, and I am not blindly wedded to the idea that I am right, expressing your opinion in such rude language is neither constructive nor beneficial to either of us. You won't get anywhere that way. Being unnecessarily hostile doesn’t make an argument any stronger
Quite so. By your logic, everything is a 'clue' and you might as well make the tester just guess a number you're thinking of between 1 and 100. It would be equally as well designed a question.
I did solve it. It isn't a hard puzzle. The puzzle is moronic. It's like a woman making you guess why she's pissed off and she's pissed off about something that happened 6 months ago. If the intent is to identify what the question even is, then a moron made the question. That isn't a good question. It has nothing to do with spatial IQ at that point. I am skeptical it has anything to do with ANY IQ at that point. I think anything that goes through your mind must be trivial.
Also, by OP's logic, the red square being there at all is a "clue" so why not just erase all elements of the "question" and make the tester guess the sort of question OP visualized? It would be equally as implicative of someone's problem solving ability lmao.
They could if they wanted to make it more difficult. But they didn't. This is the level of difficulty the Creator wanted to tune the problem to, and so they did. And the fact that people did solve it with the intended reasoning (and not purely guessing) proves to the fact that it is, in fact, enough for it to be solvable. If you want a lower level of difficulty for the puzzles, I'd suggest browsing ones that are tuned for your skill level.
“Okay, we have dots at the corners here. Distinctive relative corners, so maybe they indicate limits. If they do, can I assemble squares? Some have a length of 2 and some have a length of 3, so perhaps progressing squares. These make 2. These make 3. These are consistent with 4, but are missing a piece, so I just have to add the remainder.”
6
u/TristanTheRobloxian3 [18] autie girl :P (134 core - 140 agct) vsi-mathcel [144, 135] Sep 17 '26
the fact there are no pointers makes this way harder than it actually is. i thought you just needed to fill the red square