Results
| Team |
Total |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q5 |
Q6 |
Language |
| Trogdor |
44 |
10 |
4 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
C++ |
| TASLAN |
32.5 |
9 |
4.5 |
9.5 |
|
9.5 |
|
C++ |
| Critical Coders |
32.5 |
9.5 |
2 |
9.5 |
3.5 |
8 |
|
Python |
| Spectres |
27.5 |
8 |
|
9 |
1 |
9.5 |
|
C++ |
| Lollerskates |
26.5 |
6 |
|
9.5 |
1.5 |
9.5 |
|
Python |
| Elite |
26 |
1 |
|
9 |
8 |
7 |
|
Python |
| Cube Rooters |
25 |
10 |
1 |
5 |
|
9 |
|
VB |
| Team 3 |
24 |
8 |
1 |
9 |
|
5 |
1 |
C++ |
| HAHS |
20.5 |
9 |
2 |
9.5 |
|
|
|
Python |
| Monty |
20.5 |
|
5.5 |
9 |
1 |
5 |
|
Python |
| CGSWON |
20 |
|
|
10 |
|
10 |
|
C++ |
| Ben M Ben |
19.5 |
9 |
|
1 |
|
9.5 |
|
Java |
| Backus |
19.5 |
6.5 |
2.5 |
1 |
|
9.5 |
|
Basic |
| Gnikiv |
19 |
|
|
8 |
2 |
9 |
|
C++ |
| 2AC |
17.5 |
5.5 |
|
2 |
|
10 |
|
VB |
| BHS |
16 |
9.5 |
1 |
4.5 |
1 |
|
|
PHP |
| Scheme Name |
15.5 |
|
|
9.5 |
2.5 |
3.5 |
|
Python |
| 313373 |
15 |
2.5 |
|
8.5 |
|
4 |
|
Java |
| Pro-Grammers |
12.5 |
9.5 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
VB |
| NZK |
12 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
VB |
| We're Just Here For The Pizza |
11 |
2 |
|
9 |
|
|
|
C++ |
| NERDS |
11 |
2 |
|
9 |
|
|
|
VB |
| Team Oscar |
11 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
9 |
|
VB |
| teamlegend |
10 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
PHP |
| Blue |
9 |
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
VB |
| Guy on Fire |
9 |
5.5 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
VB |
| Team 4 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1.5 |
3.5 |
|
C++ |
| Mystery Lecture 2 |
8 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
VB |
| MSC 1 |
7.5 |
6 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
Java |
| erindale green |
6.5 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
3.5 |
|
C |
| Team 5 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
C++ |
| Nimbus |
5.5 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
3.5 |
|
VB |
| 1337 |
5.5 |
2.5 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
Pascal |
| Team1 |
5.5 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
3.5 |
|
VB |
| skyover |
5 |
3 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
VB |
| Gosling |
4 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
Basic |
| erindale blue |
3 |
2 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
VB |
| BMGS |
3 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
Python |
| Team2 |
3 |
2 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
Basic |
| rAbB1+ Cage THT |
2.5 |
1.5 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
VB |
| Razor |
2.5 |
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
C++ |
| NAJ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
VB |
| Team Extreme |
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
Basic |
| toolshed |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
VB |
| erindale red |
1.5 |
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
VB |
| MSC 3 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
VB |
| Team 1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
C++ |
| MSC 4 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
VB |
| QWERTY |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
C++ |
| Payaso |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
PHP |
| MSC 2 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Pascal |
| POW |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
VB |
| 2AdvanceD |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
VB |
| Jimbo |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Reddam |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
VB |
| Mizan* |
0* |
6 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
9 |
|
C, Python, VB |
*marks deducted due to use of more than one computer (by admission of not reading the rules accurately) - 22
Language Statistics
|
Language |
Teams using |
Average mark |
|
Any |
56 |
10.87 |
|
Basic |
4 |
7.13 |
|
C/C++ |
14 |
16.14 |
|
Java |
3 |
14 |
|
Pascal |
2 |
3.25 |
|
PHP |
3 |
9 |
|
Python |
7 |
18.93 |
|
Visual Basic |
22 |
6.64 |
Marking Scheme
Performance: 6
Q1: 1 per correct answer
Q2: 1 per correct answer
Q3: 1 per correct answer and another 1 if all 5 are correct
Q4: 1 per correct answer
Q5: 2 per correct answer
Q6: 2 per correct answer
1-2 marks may be given if all answers are wrong due to a trivial (eg off by one) error
Most answers tended to get all or nothing for performance.
Style: 2
Half a mark each for indentation, good variable names, good design, and commenting. This is just a guide that may be altered on subjective grounds.
The most common mark was 1 for good indentation and design, then 1.5 for good variable names. Good commenting was very rare.
If the code given only indicated a trivial attempt at the question, the maximum style mark was 1.
Ideas: 2
2 marks for having the correct algorithm, or a clear algorithm with a trivial mistake
1 mark for a messy but correct algorithm, or a nearly correct algorithm.
0 marks for not really having any idea how to tackle the question.
Typical categories
The marking scheme above resulted in these typical categories. This is based on observation of the marks after marking, and was not used as a marking guide:
10 Correct and elegant code with full solutions given
9.5 Correct code with good style but no comments
9 Correct code with poor style
6-8 Mostly correct code, or correct but very ugly code
4-6 Clean code with some correct output
1-4 An attempt at the problem that looks correct but didn't produce output.
1 An attempt at the problem that misses the main thrust of it
0 No real idea how to tackle the question.