Feedback: Puzzles should be scored on a scale of 1 to 10

I think that chess puzzles should be scored on the a scale of 1 to 10. The down-up arrows don't really give a sense of how good the puzzles are. In the current system, two puzzles can have the same number of up votes, but one of the puzzles can be much more liked than the other puzzle. There is no way to tell that with the down-up arrows.

I just played a puzzle that was amazing and I would have given it a 10, but all I could do was give it an up arrow. Wouldn't it be neat to know what puzzles receive the highest rating?

I'd prefer that the arrows be replaced with "favorite" and "report" buttons.

I see the present arrows as having 3 choices: Good (Press up), Average (no action) , Bad (press down).

What the puzzles now needs is a chess courtesy encouraging comment saying:

If you solve the puzzle you get this comment ...
Solved: 48.7% solved this puzzle.
Your time: ____ Others: ____ (Average time solved)

If you did not solve the puzzle, you get this comment ...
Unsolved: 51.3% did not solve this puzzle.
Your time: ____ Others: _____ (Still did solve it.)

Having the puzzles timed internally, generating a comment after they made their last move.

A comment like well done if solved in a timely manner.
If it was done too fast, wow, that was fast.

It does not say who solved it the fastest or slowest. So it's not a race, it's training with an AI coach commentator.
This should help encourage the players to continue to do puzzles. Just to see the next comment or quote from a grand master. It becomes a surprise to see the comment that the AI will say, depending on the time it took for us to solve it or not solve it.

Well done ...
Keep going ...
Better luck next time ...
That was close ...
That was fast ...
Took long, but you did it.

Unless time taken to solve the puzzle is incorporated into the rating gained or lost, then any attempt to read meaning into the time it takes to solve it is futile. There are behaviors which happen now but which would not happen if time were part of the rating.

I don't know what Lichess is planning for the future of the "puzzle training".

But I have learned so far, that Lichess doesn't want to copy from other sites.
That is the reason because Lichess will never have a "Puzzle Rush" or a "Puzzle Battle". If you want stuff like that go to chess.com

You want that the "solving time" gets incorporated in the rating system ?
I think that this will also never be done on Lichess, because this would be a copy from chesstempo.com

On chesstempo.com you can play puzzles in 3 categories
1. standard: all positions are winning, solving time doesn't matter
2. mixed : some positions are a draw, solving time matters
3. blitz: solving time matters

On chesstempo.com you also get a lot of information about the puzzles after solving/failing. Test it.

And these guys also have rating lists to show the best players.

By the way, I don't think that it is necessary to motivate a chessplayer after solving/failing to try another puzzle.
You must motivate yourself to improve. All your failures should be the best motivation to try harder the next time.
You will only improve in this task, if you are willing to learn from your mistakes.
Don't go simply to the next puzzle !
Always try to find out why you failed to solve a puzzle ! Analyze the position after your failure with the engine and test several lines and try to find the secrets of the puzzle.

I like Toscani´'s ideas! I totally agree that we need good/bad buttons, with average as no action. The thing I would like the most is the % of people failing or completing the puzzle.

#5 "Lichess doesn't want to copy from other sites"

No, that's just me not wanting to reinvent the wheel; I'm continuing to bash my head against a wall attempting to get Lichess logins working on blitztactics.com and someday either the wall will collapse or I will die trying. But in the interim if Lichess wants to spend resources reinventing the wheel which makes players miserable, I don't care; but it's hard work and Lichess puzzles are quite predictable. Puzzle Rush is as novel as Tetris and far more addicting despite its complete lack of instructive value.

Regarding puzzle solve times, Chess Tempo is copying the Bratko-Kopec test from 1982 (albeit in an inferior manner), so at least get your facts straight... copying natural ideas isn't a problem, however stupid those ideas may be:
www.chessprogramming.org/Bratko-Kopec_Test

I play tactics here because they aren't timed. I'm not penalized for answering the phone, going to the bathroom or getting a snack.

I think some of the comments here are over-complicating things. The purpose of rating the puzzles (up-vote/down-vote) is to provide a way for the community to assess puzzle quality. I would prefer to have more diverse response options. I think it also creates more information that could be used to further develop puzzles in the future.

-I think that AI generated commentary is a separate idea from what I am suggesting.
-I think that timed puzzles is a separate idea from what I am suggesting.
-I think that puzzle rush is a separate idea from what I am suggesting.

It's good feedback for me as a player when I fail a puzzle to which many before me have given high scores. It's also helpful to know when I fail a particular puzzle that most people agree it is a garbage puzzle. I think the puzzle scoring system could be improved. That's my feedback.

#9 Excellent points. Thanks for getting this discussion back on topic (even if #2 is still my opinion, other developers might agree with you and might be motivated to implement your suggestion).