Subject: Crosswords (General)
Posted by: moonraker2
Date: Jan 25 24
Apologies (if necessary) for including in this thread a point raised in the Forums more than a month ago, which has either not been seen or perhaps conveniently ignored?
“I've noticed several times in the past, and it's still happening, that some of the times recorded for the completion of crosswords are simply not possible, even if all of the answers are known prior to submission.
Times shown as 0.4, 0.6 and even 0.1 minutes are impossible to attain when filling in each and every answer.
Is there an explanation for this anomaly, as it makes the whole system of "times taken to complete" a puzzle meaningless.
My own belief is that timings should not feature for the completion of crosswords in line with quizzes, as without doubt it detracts from the enjoyment which many cruciverbalists experience, and also provide absolutely no end product!”
Having reached a certain milestone in the submission of crosswords, after 10 years of considerable effort, I’m afraid disenchantment probably expresses my current position. There are no further goals to aim for, whereas with quizzes there are a multitude of badges on offer.
At present I have taken a break from crossword compilation, a situation which in the past would never have entered my mind.
I’ve also listed below just a few of the perks which the crossword fraternity is lacking:
1. The ability to rate crosswords
2. Editor’s Choice
3. Author’s Challenge
4. Cool Quizzes
5. Polymath/Rainbow
Posted by: moonraker2
Date: Jan 25 24
Apologies (if necessary) for including in this thread a point raised in the Forums more than a month ago, which has either not been seen or perhaps conveniently ignored?
“I've noticed several times in the past, and it's still happening, that some of the times recorded for the completion of crosswords are simply not possible, even if all of the answers are known prior to submission.
Times shown as 0.4, 0.6 and even 0.1 minutes are impossible to attain when filling in each and every answer.
Is there an explanation for this anomaly, as it makes the whole system of "times taken to complete" a puzzle meaningless.
My own belief is that timings should not feature for the completion of crosswords in line with quizzes, as without doubt it detracts from the enjoyment which many cruciverbalists experience, and also provide absolutely no end product!”
Having reached a certain milestone in the submission of crosswords, after 10 years of considerable effort, I’m afraid disenchantment probably expresses my current position. There are no further goals to aim for, whereas with quizzes there are a multitude of badges on offer.
At present I have taken a break from crossword compilation, a situation which in the past would never have entered my mind.
I’ve also listed below just a few of the perks which the crossword fraternity is lacking:
1. The ability to rate crosswords
2. Editor’s Choice
3. Author’s Challenge
4. Cool Quizzes
5. Polymath/Rainbow
9 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
kyleisalive
|
Hey Moonraker-- My guess is that the ignoring of the topic is unintentional. A number of your top-of-list requests are ones that, internally, we would like to see as well. Stuff like crossword rating, for example, seems like an easy gimme in the way of improvements. The truth is that stuff like that is actually a bit more nightmarish on the execution side, which is why it's always pushed to the back of the list. It's the type of thing I'd love to explain in layman's terms, but as one of those laymen, I'm not the best to do so. ;) In regards to rewards, our goal is to supplant these, over time, with activities and benchmarks that are not 1:1 with quizzes. The two are similar but different, and I think taking the easy route of just replicating the rewards is convenient, but not really engaging. The other catch, seeing this from the inside, is that with the challenges here in the Lounge there appears to be clearer preference for certain challenge types over others. Doing something like 'Author Challenges' is a lot harder to oversee for Crosswords because we don't have any clear definition as to 'how much of the title needs to be relevant for it to count'. With a quiz, there's always going to be a clear push to get the title as close to the contents as possible, and that's also valid for CWs, but we know that there almost *has to* be filler. To this day, on the quiz side, there's no way for an editor to detach the 'Author Challenge' tag from a quiz from our side, so it's not really as easy as just saying it doesn't meet the expectation. We're a lot more liberal with this here in the Lounge, and it's part of why Challenges lean more and more into simply having 'category requirements' or 'construction requirements' instead of just linking to a title. Sometimes that title doesn't beget a highly-thematic end result. (And that's fine...until it counts for rewards, because then it's about the integrity of the challenge.) All this to say I agree with you that rewards for creation are worth having. ;) As for the timing concern, would you mind posting a couple instances where you're seeing these times? Definitely worth it from our end to see if there's an exploit occurring. Reply #1. Jan 25 24, 10:36 AM |
Lottie1001 
|
I'm sure moonraker has many more examples, but my single solitary small crossword has times from 0.1 minutes to 19.1 minutes. There are a total of 48 clues, so I find it hard to imagine how anyone could even type letters to fill all the spaces in 6 seconds, let alone read the clues.  https://www.funtrivia.com/crossword/scores.cfm?gid=9439Reply #2. Jan 25 24, 11:37 AM |
moonraker2
|
Kyle, I much appreciate your prompt and all-encompassing reply to my post. Thank you. I remember prior to being allowed to create my very first crossword, back in 2014, that you gave me the encouragement I required to start my journey. I understand that the provision of almost any additional perks would probably involve complex technical programming beyond my comprehension. However, I imagine that the removal of times taken to complete crosswords, (in line with quizzes), would be relatively simple? I'm not for one moment suggesting players credited with "impossible" completion times are at fault, my sole reason for highlighting these anomalies is to provide solid reasons why the whole concept of completion times are meaningless. Most crosswords display a small number of such instances, and as requested I've listed a few below: Large crossword https://www.funtrivia.com/crossword/scores.cfm?gid=10402Medium crossword https://www.funtrivia.com/crossword/scores.cfm?gid=10366Small crossword https://www.funtrivia.com/crossword/scores.cfm?gid=10353Reply #3. Jan 25 24, 1:33 PM |
| kyleisalive
|
Re: I understand that the provision of almost any additional perks would probably involve complex technical programming beyond my comprehension. However, I imagine that the removal of times taken to complete crosswords, (in line with quizzes), would be relatively simple? Likely absolutely yes. I think the point behind these was always to justify difficulty, all said and done, but there is absolutely zero reward for being faster than someone else on a crossword, so anyone trying for this is doing it for themselves, I figure. I agree that 0.1m makes no sense, so it's either an exploit or it's a browser-related quirk. Either way, it makes sense to look into, so we can make sure we do. In theory, someone could open a crossword, print the contents, leave the page, come back later, and fill it in rapid-fire. There's nothing stopping this, and that's fine too. Reply #4. Jan 25 24, 1:42 PM |
looney_tunes
|
Time for crosswords completion is really quite irrelevant to the experience. I play some games on a site that insists on telling me how long the game took, and giving me stars for fast completion. For the Sudoku game, this makes sense, although I do not personally pay any attention to it, as the satisfaction of wrestling out a tough game in 20 minutes is more rewarding than happening to look at another grid and immediately be able to fill in half the spots. But when I am playing one of the solitaire games, which rely on the random card arrangement to have any chance of winning, and which are played as a way to fill in a bit of time rather than in an attempt to break speed records, it is quite bemusing. But there are clearly people who want to see their speed rewarded in some way. Reply #5. Jan 25 24, 4:54 PM |
psnz
|
Regarding superfast crossword completion times: nothing could be easier. Start solving a puzzle in the usual way. Take as long as you want. When there's just one (easy) answer left to complete, save your progress and exit the crossword. Return to the puzzle and complete that final answer. Bingo: 0.1 minutes of solving time! Reply #6. Jan 26 24, 1:58 PM |
| psnz
|
I fully support moonraker's request for further perks for CW authors. Not sure that I'd class this as a perk, but I'd dearly like to see sets of CW puzzles added to the Quiz List system on FT. Recently, my final 20th puzzle from last November went live. Putting that category tour into a CW list should encourage a few more people to complete the set, including the religion and video games puzzles. Reply #7. Jan 26 24, 2:05 PM |
| moonraker2
|
psnz, I believe your explanation of a system which provides superfast times, (which I wasn't aware of), actually enforces my request to abolish completion times. As I've asked before, why is it necessary to impose such restrictions on crossword completion, whilst it's not applicable to quizzes. Reply #8. Jan 26 24, 4:05 PM |
| kyleisalive
|
There is no restriction on completion. The timings hold virtually no value, and with significant amounts of players, the 0.1m oddities are negligible in determining CW difficulty. I agree with the idea of removing those pages, but for all intents they don't (and shouldn't) hold bearing on playability. Reply #9. Jan 26 24, 4:17 PM |
9 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: