@Gus: The quality of the images is indeed very good.
You really want e.g. a search option where all 3200 puzzles are shown?
The result would be something like this:http://twistypuzzles.com/cgi-bin/pdb-se ... a%20&off=0
Darren Grewe wrote:
I feel that I need to say this! I'm sorry if I offend you or step on your toes or cause you more work but I think all builders/makers/creators of a puzzle should share a entree like the one below. One was made by Anthony Greenhill, the other was made by Carter Tarrer and the last one that looks totally misleading is unknown. Why am I saying I think we should show respect to all of the builders/makers/creators that share the same puzzle. http://twistypuzzles.com/cgi-bin/puzzle.cgi?pkey=675
What are your thoughts?
Your point is very interesting. It was good to bring it up. There are too few discussions about the museum.
Regarding the special case of the mastermorphix:
I am very unhappy about the fact that the mastermorphix still has inventor="Unknown". The Mastermorphix is one of those very old puzzle where the search for the first builder is a historicians job. I could trace it back into the time before 2000 but couldn't find an answer. However I am sure, that the first builder was neither Anthony Greenhill nor Carter. That is, why the field "inventor" is left blank in this case.
BTW: The misleading variant was made by me...
For the abstract topic of valuing designers:
The field "inventor" is reserved for the designer (in the days of CAD) or the first builder. There might be persons who invented/built a specific puzzle independently from others but I consider that as bad luck as it is with patents in real life.
How do you want to value the work of builder specifically? Should their names be mentioned in the items description? And who should track these names down?