The bigger problem in my book, however, was the issues with the submission system. I tried both Firefox and Chrome, and couldn't get the "download input" link to function properly (I tried, left clicking, "save as"-ing, opening in a new tab, etc.). Add the 6-minute time limit to this, and it was pretty bad. Six minutes to get the download to work, run your code on it, and then get back to the page, paste your output, and upload. Oh, and good luck eyeballing your output to make sure you pasted it correctly -- the window you paste into wasn't resize-able, and every line wrapped, so it looked like an utter mess.
Don't get me wrong, I sound rather negative in this post, but I love the idea, and look forward to the next attempt at it. I was just somewhat disappointed to see how the process went. And to be honest, I really wish they'd do away with the 6 minute time limit, and add a time limit for how long your code is allowed to take during execution. Though I suppose they have to restrict the languages then. Perhaps a "can you finish the problem within the 3 hour time limit" is sufficient for this competition then. As it is, knowing when to optimize, and when not to takes too long to figure out in the 3 hour time limit, so you end up taking a shot in the dark as to when you should be submitting your code.
Hopefully Facebook learns from these mistakes, and comes back with a competition that is just that much better. Also, if you're interested in the problem solving for this competition, check out the Puzzle Master. It's great fun as well.
I read all the FAQ stuff beforehand, so I thought I was prepared. I didn't know that there were additional rules/instructions when the contest started, because no one told me there were. So the first thing I did was read all three puzzles and download the test data for them. I actually solved the third puzzle and submitted my solution inside six minutes anyway, but I ran out of time on the first one (still submitted my solution after six minutes), and I didn't even bother with the second one because their sloppily worded FAQ didn't make it clear that getting through the qualifier round was competitive and that I needed to complete all three to have a chance at advancing. Their wording wasn't technically incorrect, but it gave the impression that they were just trying to filter out people who couldn't solve a simple problem.
I am pretty sure I'm the kind of person they were trying to capture with this competition, and, well, they failed to capture me.
Rule 1: Read all the directions first. Rule 2: Jump up and down on your head Rule 3: Generate a proof which demonstrates that [insert random equation here] ... ... ... Rule 50: See rule #1 ... hand this paper in to complete the assignment within the first X minutes and you get an A. (or something to that extent)
While I gotta agree that the communication wasn't clear, part of me wants to be the grouchy teacher which says "the lesson is this: read the dang directions". This guy just forgot the 1st part which was: read the directions first!