Separate "Mate in x" Puzzles from "Find how to win" Problems

Nuf said?

Umm... but checkmating is winning?

Hellball, think about a puzzle where you have king alone against queen, knight, a pawn, and king. You have 9 mates in 4, 7 mates in 3, only 1 mate in 2 and you don`t give a damn about it because you don`t like "puzzles with mate in x moves". You`ll get 16 times the message "you have a better move" in a position where anything wins, actually. And before half of that you`ll hit the give up button and move on to something less annoying, where the message "you have a better move" means the difference between an advantage of +2.6 and a bigger advantage of +4.9, for example. But then it should not be called a "puzzle", it`s rather called a "tactical problem".
Many people do like these "mate in x puzzles", but they should be on a separate place. Here they are mixed together, and I think it`s a bad thing, because after a while we could get many users just giving up these puzzles before even trying to solve them, and it would somewhat disrupt the rating system.

A tactical problem can also be a puzzle.
I like that he often says "you have a better move" because it's important to find the best move for your understanding of chess. So these exercises helps you in long-time games a lot.
It's like Emanuel Lasker said:
"When you see a good move, look for a better one!"

BearJr: I think that's not better. Maybe it's reasonable even to add puzzles where you need to equalize position, rather than win. Knowledge about the winning method the problem is simplified. Although sometimes it's really annoying to have to win that already won =))