Madolite wrote:I think we should consider deprecating the shame, say after 6 months, or something. Just a suggestion. Cause I think it's easy for these outlets to use bunk sources for their Sudoku, only to realize the mistake after people have complained to them and then improving their papers after. Obviously, if they're repeat offenders, we can put them on permanent shame until they can prove that they're now using a proper, reliable source.
Madolite, the vast majority of these publishers (if they're still even publishing sudoku--most are not) don't care. They don't know or care anything about sudoku--they just have space they need to fill, hopefully with something that will catch readers' attention. They also don't know or care about our "Sudokus of Shame" thread here, and probably wouldn't change anything even if they did become aware of it. They certainly aren't getting enough complaints from readers to make it worth their while to care.
Publishers of most sudoku books, apps, etc., also fall into the category of not knowing or caring about "proper" sudoku. They're just trying to make a fast buck, although I can't imagine there is much money anymore in sudoku now that the "craze" has long since worn off. Again, the puzzles these outlets publish are geared toward newbies and dabblers who also don't know anything about "proper" sudoku--their interest is a passing fancy.