XWord Muggles Forum

Wow, I'm glad I stopped yesterday, because I would never have gotten this.

I ran into my biggest problem with the MGWCC -- the sheer number of red herrings, like:

--central entry STRIPES and last Across DOTS, which had me connecting all of the Is and Os searching for patterns and even putting them through a binary code converter

--the clues containing a very large amount of alliteration (even moreso than the usual "No, in Nice") like "Frequent flag features" for STRIPES which had me looking for a pattern for a long time

--unusual words appearing 2x in consecutive clues or in the same clue, like "Reagan's Secretary of State" and the next clue also containing the word "state"

--"Second," "third" and "fourth" all appearing in clues, making it appear as if the Missing Piece were the first of a set

Oh well...

ricky wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:56 am Wow, I'm glad I stopped yesterday, because I would never have gotten this.

I ran into my biggest problem with the MGWCC -- the sheer number of red herrings, like:

--central entry STRIPES and last Across DOTS, which had me connecting all of the Is and Os searching for patterns and even putting them through a binary code converter

--the clues containing a very large amount of alliteration (even moreso than the usual "No, in Nice") like "Frequent flag features" for STRIPES which had me looking for a pattern for a long time

--unusual words appearing 2x in consecutive clues or in the same clue, like "Reagan's Secretary of State" and the next clue also containing the word "state"

--"Second," "third" and "fourth" all appearing in clues, making it appear as if the Missing Piece were the first of a set

Oh well...

Yep, hit all of them and more.

I felt fortunate to get this one, with a couple of nudges. (What's between a nudge and a shove. Maybe a shudge? OK ... with a couple of shudges.) In between working on this MGWCC, I was reading an Agatha Christie mystery, Pale Horse. They were similar experiences. AC was fair; there was a hint here and there that so-and-so was possibly involved, but she also provided much other info to lead you on other paths. That is: red herrings.

The unused info in this MGWCC -- such as the three black spaces in each theme answer, and STRIPES (and maybe DOTS), and MONA LISA almost appearing, and ... maybe other things -- may not quite qualify as true red herrings (are they actually INTENDED to mislead?), but they felt enough like them to me, that it got me thinking about the potential role of red herrings in a meta crossword. Should we expect to see more frequent use of red herrings as meta puzzles evolve? Will we be OK with that? Could they become an assumed part of the meta solving experience?

I'm thinking there's a subtle difference between a rabbit hole (a path that maybe shows promise but quickly goes nowhere) and a red herring (real reason to believe, ultimately disproven, that you're on the right path). Maybe that's why this puzzle felt different to some of us -- because some of the ultimately irrelevant info inched toward being true red herrings, instead of just coincidental distractions.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't dare speak for Matt, but he's said a few times that he doesn't put red herrings in because so many of them occur naturally enough without his help.

Al Sisti wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:00 pm I wouldn't dare speak for Matt, but he's said a few times that he doesn't put red herrings in because so many of them occur naturally enough without his help.

Yeah, I don't think Matt was trying to mislead. Just random stuff. BUT ...

It still makes me wonder whether some meta makers might someday experiment with including true red herrings, as a way of adding complication and upping the challenge. (Though that could make for some VERY complicated puzzles!)

Readers accept red herrings in mysteries. Would puzzlers accept red herrings in metas? I don't know, but this MGWCC led me to ponder it a bit.

ChrisKochmanski wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:50 pm

Al Sisti wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:00 pm I wouldn't dare speak for Matt, but he's said a few times that he doesn't put red herrings in because so many of them occur naturally enough without his help.

Yeah, I don't think Matt was trying to mislead. Just random stuff. BUT ...

It still makes me wonder whether some meta makers might someday experiment with including true red herrings, as a way of adding complication and upping the challenge. (Though that could make for some VERY complicated puzzles!)

Readers accept red herrings in mysteries. Would puzzlers accept red herrings in metas? I don't know, but this MGWCC led me to ponder it a bit.

Pete Mueller did that this year for the red herring meta mega meta thingie.

Dplass wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 6:29 pm
Pete Mueller did that this year for the red herring meta mega meta thingie.

... and would you believe, I got his mega meta thingie but have absolutely NO CLUE on the red herring The one time it would benefit me to see a red herring, I miss it!

the ultimate red herring here was to think too much about non-English words and diacritical markings, and other punctuation items not in the grid.

such as:

1. the dots in Umlaut
2. the colon after HTTP
3. whether "MAS" has an accent on the A
4. whether "ECOLE" has an accent on the E

etc

I spent WAAAY too much time trying to figure out which words in the grid (which letters) "should" have a punctuation and/or diacritical mark and then trying to spell something from those.

That last across clue/answer made me think this rabbit hole might have a rabbit. But then I decided it was just too much Chuting and not enough Laddering to continue that Trivial Pursuit.