MGWCC #733 - "Couples Only"

[MMe]

IMHO the idea is to solve the puzzles.

[burghman]

I’m on the lower end of the skill spectrum around these parts, so I don’t really “compare” myself to anyone by way of Matt’s boards. I also don’t look at it and wonder who did or didn’t solo solve - it just doesn’t mean that much to me overall. I’m in awe of the names that pop up at the top of the list for weeks 2 onwards, assuming that they solo solve the grid and the meta in a fraction of the time that it takes me to solve the grid. And I’m very happy to have stumbled on this forum because my skills have improved as a result.

My own personal philosophy is that I won’t ask for nudges if I don’t feel that I’ve earned them, and when I do ask for nudges I list the things that I’ve noticed with a disclaimer to just ignore my request if I’m nowhere near the ballpark. If I’m staring at a puzzle and have no earthly idea how to even get started, I’m comfortable enough in my meta skin to recycle the printout and wait to read Joon’s write-up. It’s cost me badges - I have yet to solve 2 full months in a row or to get even the 10 badge, but I know I could if I wanted to.

I don’t begrudge anyone their own approaches - there’s no money, Olympic medals, promotions, or anything else on the line, so it’s all just (often frustrating) fun for me. Others take it more seriously and really want to see themselves on a more restricted list of their solo solving peers - that’s legit too. Solo solve, work together, offer and receive nudges, have a blast. If Matt wants to create different reporting, awesome! Solo badges? Great! Create “group solve” vs. “nudged solve”? Go to town!

Having said all that, I’m on the board (ETA with a nudge) and the offer in my signature still stands

[Bird Lives]

1. Kay W says, “It's up to each solver to determine their own boundaries.” It has to be because there’s no way to enforce norms. Yes, I’m a bit pissed off if I solved a tough one myself and then lots of other people come from a group solve where a couple of people figure it out and the rest are basically being told the answer, and on the board, we all look the same. But there’s nothing I can do.

2. Matt too has no way to prevent someone from falsely claiming a solo solve. I did that inadvertently a couple of times myself when I first started at MGWCC. I rushed to submit my answer and left the Solo Solve on the default. I agree that Matt should change the default to No. But even so, any count of Solo Solves is approximate since people can lie, or rather use a different definition of "solo."

3. The satisfaction I get from a difficult puzzle is partly internal but also from the exchanges on this forum, exchanges which involve only a small number of people. I appreciate the people who acknowledge not just that they got a nudge but in some cases the strength of the nudge.

4. I wouldn’t mind getting rid of the number after my name (or anyone else’s). I learn who the especially adept solvers are by looking at the early solvers. When I scroll down the list, mostly I’m looking for familiar names, i.e., the ones I know from this forum. In fact, if it weren't for the possibility of discussion, I probably wouldn't have been so interested in these puzzles and wouldn't have spent so many hours staring at letters in a grid.

[ChrisKochmanski]

I’m sorry, I’ve been away on a short vacation, so I haven’t had time to read this full thread. But in case this helps …

The tracking of streaks does increase my enjoyment of MGWCC.

But I’d still subscribe to MGWCC without the streaks. Great puzzles!

I’d love to be able to check “assisted solve” when it applies. Sometimes when I’ve been nudged hard, I can feel pretty darn guilty about maintaining my streak.

As it happens, my 100+-week streak ended some weeks back when I entered my silly screen name wrong. Grr!! Matt said his webmaster could perhaps fix it, but after my two minutes of sadness, I was sane again, and I haven’t lost sleep about the streak since. Given how many nudges I’ve taken (a lot!), finally losing the streak seemed just.

[lbray53]

I'm not going to get into my many (and probably unpopular, and perhaps inconsistent and evolving) thoughts on all this, but one simple thing I wonder if Matt could do is not have "solo solve" checked by default. Forcing us to choose would eliminate a lot of false solos and probably save him the effort of dealing with emails about it later.

I have often thought of this.

[lbray53]

HELP!! Now that I have an answer to submit, I cannot find a place to submit it. It is usually part of the email that I get from Matt but I cannot find it today.

NEVER MIND! I figured out that I could use last week's email and select Next Puzzle to get to this week's.

Are there really only 82 correct entries???

[Joe Ross]

HELP!! Now that I have an answer to submit, I cannot find a place to submit it. It is usually part of the email that I get from Matt but I cannot find it today.

NEVER MIND! I figured out that I could use last week's email and select Next Puzzle to get to this week's.

Are there really only 82 correct entries???

https://xwordcontest.com/

[ricky]

Finally got this. Quite a difficult solve due to the absolutely incredible number of red herrings, including one that must be the coincidence of all coincidences.

[mattythewsjpuzzler]

Beamed up after a useful nudge from a fellow muggle helped me narrow my vastly long list of possible metanisms!

[oldjudge]

For those asking for nudges now please realize that the solution and an explanation of how to get there will be posted tomorrow afternoon. If anyone still has questions after that I’m sure there are many people here, including myself, who would be willing to explain things further.

[woozy]

For those asking for nudges now please realize that the solution and an explanation of how to get there will be posted tomorrow afternoon. If anyone still has questions after that I’m sure there are many people here, including myself, who would be willing to explain things further.

So, basically you are saying your opinion of asking for nudges and submitting is the one true opinion we should all adhere to?

[oldjudge]

After the discussions yesterday I spent time last night thinking about why it was so important to some people to stay on that streak list, even if it means submitting answers to puzzles that they’ve played only a small part in solving. I kept coming back to the point that on boards such as this a hierarchy forms. Those at the top on this board could be constructors, such as Josh, Ben, or some of the Monday Meta team. It could be people like Bob who has taken over the discussion and record keeping for the WSJ puzzle. Finally, and probably most esteemed, is the group of superior solvers. People like Al and Meg have achieved their lofty status by exhibiting amazingly consistent superior solving skills over the years. Even though he is not on the board Jeffrey Harris (Jangler) is another name talked about with reverence. I think the natural inclination for most people is to want to move up the hierarchy, but how do you do that? Most of us (myself certainly included) don’t have the skill or inclination to lead or construct. Therefore, the only way to move up is to show superior solving skills. How can that be measured? There really aren’t many yardsticks. There are no streak lists for most of the puzzles and many, again myself included, do not do all the puzzles. Really only the MMMM and MGWCC publish lists of solvers and beyond a year MGWCC is the only one with a streak list. Therefore, Matt’s list, I believe, has become the de facto reference of who is where in the solving universe. Is it accurate, no. Jangler is Babe Ruth whether his streak is 600 or 6. However, many people, maybe myself included, cling to the list as some justification for the time we take solving puzzles. Is this the answer, I don’t know. Hopefully, someone smarter than me can figure it out.

[oldjudge]

For those asking for nudges now please realize that the solution and an explanation of how to get there will be posted tomorrow afternoon. If anyone still has questions after that I’m sure there are many people here, including myself, who would be willing to explain things further.

So, basically you are saying your opinion of asking for nudges and submitting is the one true opinion we should all adhere to?

First, what I stated in what you quoted was an observation, not an opinion. I believe all of it is factual. Most of my posts in this thread, however, are just my opinion.Everyone needs to do what they believe in their heart is right. Again, it would be nice if Matt chimed in and gave his view since, after all, it is his puzzle.

[Laura M]

I love this discussion and seeing everyone's points of view! I'm not sure how it's possible to agree with all of them but I kind of do.

To @oldjudge's questions:

1) I don't really like streaks in particular, to me it's more stressful. However! I do really like having the other stats: total number of solves, YTD solves, and leaderboard. (I don't pay much attention to the achievement badges though.) I'm irrationally and disproportionately pleased with myself when I have a (relatively) low number on the board, and who doesn't need that once in a while?

2) Obviously lack of streak monitoring wouldn't change anything for me, but honestly I might rethink my subscription if there were no stats at all. Of course the puzzles are awesome, but part of the fun for me is submitting and seeing my name go up on the board! Ultimately though I think just the puzzles would be enough, as long as this forum still existed so that I could read and occasionally contribute to discussions about them :-)

[JordanianTomlinson]

This topic has certainly given me something to think about. I've used nudges frequently in the past - initially because I wanted to see the "green lantern" 50 logo next to my name. The 100 had never been as important to me and, anyway, several subsequent glitches have reset my streak (one of them I mistyped my UNIQUE username and the other was a submission right before an extended deadline). Since sending the screenshot of the 50 to my wife I've cared less and less about numbers though find myself continuing to ask for nudges. Not sure if it's just habit these days or what but I'd like to give the old solo approach a shot. I have to say the most fun for me is solving with others though, really, with a one and four-year-old time for that (and really the time available to look at these puzzles) has already dwindled since the start of the new year. I'd probably keep on with this regardless of streaks. I DO have a problem with mug submissions after any help but different situation not relevant to the question at hand.

[docison]

I will admit that - whether by design or not - this whole discussion has soured me somewhat (more than somewhat? perhaps) on this board, and has taken away some of the joy of solving metas. I think there are more important things to worry about than how other people choose to solve, or submit, answers to puzzles - especially when the maker of said puzzles has explicitly allowed for people to acknowledge whether they solved with or without help. There are people on these boards who have A LOT of time to dedicate to going down every possible rabbit hole they might consider, as well as the desire to do so - and others who have less time but still are eager to be part of the meta community. If you don't want to offer nudges, that's your decision - but others can do whatever they wish. Happy solving, everyone.

[boharr]

Well said @docison

As Bob has pointed out many times, Matt’s “interpretation is that a solo solve is exactly that, no winks, nudges or anything. Beyond that he does not care.”

[oldjudge]

Bob, you may be right, but if that is so what does the list mean?

[ky-mike]

On shore thanks to a nudge to continue down one of the paths that I had started on.

Obviously, I am ok with nudges. My streaks are for my own ego as I am certainly not one of the elite solvers. More of a tracking device and incentive to keep doing the puzzle each week. I like gentle nudges that redirect my focus where I still get the “aha” moment versus nudges that drag me over the finish line. Also, it is more satisfying to me to finish with a nudge, if needed, than read the answer after the deadline as I learn more by doing than by reading what someone else has done.

[lbray53]

Beam me up.