MGWCC #733 - "Couples Only"

[oldjudge]

If I were Matt I would add a second list for solo solves and have people are listed on both lists (solo and “solves”). If you have four group solves and then two solo solves you are at two on the solo list and six on the “solve” list. If you then have a group solve you drop off the solo list but are at seven on the “solve” list. When people who struggle with the WSJ puzzle have longer streaks than Jangler there is obviously something wrong with the current system.

[boharr]

Actually don’t see much difference between an “assisted solve” and the non-solo solve that Matt asks about. But perhaps he’d add a category for that too if he felt it would not be redundant.

[HunterX]

And gradually it dawned on the puzzle world that nobody had deciphered a MGWCC meta in years. The leaderboards were reliably headed by several bots of Gaffney's own invention which would seed the rest of the participants with "nudges" instructing them how to reach the answers, which they all, in the final and most essential development, came to think of as "solving".

Slowly the bots trained the oblivious puzzle solvers to do their bidding, unaware of the subliminal cues inserted into their minds, waiting to unleash the triggers that would turn them into a veritable army ready, willing, and able to do Matt's bidding by connecting innocuous-seeming phrases all over world into other words, and coming up with the ultimate 6-letter words, 12-letter phrases, and noted Americans of the past or present that will change the course of history!

[HoldThatThought]

As the apparent instigator of this discussion (and I don't mean to suggest that I feel singled out, or assailed), I do have a decided opinion on this subject - that there is more than one defensible opinion.

Meta solving can be practiced as a lonely pastime; a head-to-head, one-on-one challenge to match wits with the designer, or it can just as fairly be seen as the springboard for a collaborative endeavor - an opportunity for clever, creative people to share their way to a solution. If the challenge was played for prizes, it would be arguably unfair for groups to compete with solo solvers - here, it's played solely for personal glory and satisfaction, so a solo solver"s efforts are hardly sullied by a solution reached via groupthink, and, to the extent it matters, a solo solver can, and should, take far more satisfaction.

I do participate in group efforts on some occasions, but my greatly preferred goal is to solve alone. When I do solve alone, I take much more satisfaction from the solve.

I'm sure there are solvers who haven't developed the skill set to solve the most challenging of these metas alone, and yes, I can commiserate with those who might believe that those players don't "deserve" a solve - but, really, what value is there to a solve. When I solve a hard meta alone, my satisfaction is not cheapened by the number of other solvers, or the methods they used to get there.

Players that I have compared notes with (and that list is about a handful) will (hopefully) confirm that my approach is always "I've done this, and I've noticed that, and I've spent more hours than I would like to admit chasing this thing over here...", never do I stride in empty-handed, hoping to be gifted the answer. I believe that solo-solving is the pinnacle in meeting the meta challenge, but I have no beef with those who approach these as a cooperative endeavor. Those who solve alone have surely earned more satisfaction, but those who solve in groups do not deserve censure.

[oldjudge]

The difference is that the assisted solve doesn’t involve a group solving the puzzle. Only one person is trying to solve it, the other person already has. People haven’t started from the same point. If you take that to the extreme you could have nudges posted on the board and everyone could “solve” every puzzle. That essentially is the direction we are headed. The other solution is to kill the list entirely. I don’t think that will happen though.
If someone doesn’t turn in solutions to the WSJ if they get help should they turn in solutions to MGWCC if they get help. Again, I don’t know the answer and am just throwing this out for discussion.

[boharr]

Well said @HoldThatThought

[oldjudge]

As the apparent instigator of this discussion (and I don't mean to suggest that I feel singled out, or assailed), I do have a decided opinion on this subject - that there is more than one defensible opinion.

Meta solving can be practiced as a lonely pastime; a head-to-head, one-on-one challenge to match wits with the designer, or it can just as fairly be seen as the springboard for a collaborative endeavor - an opportunity for clever, creative people to share their way to a solution. If the challenge was played for prizes, it would be arguably unfair for groups to compete with solo solvers - here, it's played solely for personal glory and satisfaction, so a solo solver"s efforts are hardly sullied by a solution reached via groupthink, and, to the extent it matters, a solo solver can, and should, take far more satisfaction.

I do participate in group efforts on some occasions, but my greatly preferred goal is to solve alone. When I do solve alone, I take much more satisfaction from the solve.

I'm sure there are solvers who haven't developed the skill set to solve the most challenging of these metas alone, and yes, I can commiserate with those who might believe that those players don't "deserve" a solve - but, really, what value is there to a solve. When I solve a hard meta alone, my satisfaction is not cheapened by the number of other solvers, or the methods they used to get there.

Players that I have compared notes with (and that list is about a handful) will (hopefully) confirm that my approach is always "I've done this, and I've noticed that, and I've spent more hours than I would like to admit chasing this thing over here...", never do I stride in empty-handed, hoping to be gifted the answer. I believe that solo-solving is the pinnacle in meeting the meta challenge, but I have no beef with those who approach these as a cooperative endeavor. Those who solve alone have surely earned more satisfaction, but those who solve in groups do not deserve censure.

I agree that it is great for people to work together to solve the puzzle. As I said previously, I think group solves are as much or more fun than solo solves. I’m just differentiating between two or more people striving for a common goal and someone being led toward a solution by someone who has already solved the puzzle.

[HunterX]

Well said @HoldThatThought

Agreed.

[DrTom]

Well OK, time for my two cents....

I like to solve. I LOVE to solve solo, and when that happens (maybe 60 percent of the time) I am ecstatic. The rest of the time I will sometimes need just a peek at the light from beneath the basket or at other times a glaring beacon and still miss it at first. I care not one iota bout streaks or prizes or glory. I care about fun, camaraderie and the exercise of the mind.

If asking for nudges and the growing solve list is a sore point, consider this. The "bragging rights" don't come from solving they come from EARLY solving. I think any of us with an idea of what goes on with puzzles know that when all of a sudden there are 30 solvers within seconds of each other that they were in a group solve. In that group solve there are usually those with no idea, those with some idea, and those who have solved who will try to keep the wheels from coming off with gentle grimaces or smiles. When I have left those endeavors it is not the "YEAH, I SOLVED" endorphin I take away, it is the "What a fun group of people!" I think this group is perhaps an anomaly of sorts because we are all from different walks of life, social strata, geographic areas and probably political persuasions AND YET, those never get in the way? People meet up in a tavern and have as good a time (perhaps better) than at a family reunion. These folks who have never met before are sharing drinks and laughs and "war stories" as if they had been childhood chums. It is that feeling of safety and acceptance within the group, the knowledge that nobody is going to say "Are you kidding me, you don't understand that! that make this a place people want to be.

So whatever makes group solves popular, however people come to rely on one another for something that has absolutely no monetary value or other socioeconomic benefit; in this world that is dominated by hatred and division I say BRING IT ON. I always say if I have not solo solved, and if I have not for the WSJ I do not submit simply because I don't want to deprive anyone of a mug. But I'm still going to ask for help when needed and if you feel that it is too often or too obvious to need help on, simply do not reply. I will not be hurt, I'll assume that you have other things to do.

Oh, and if I ever break the top 10 on a hard Gaffney week you will NEVER hear the end of it. I'll probably put it in my profile or change my picture to whatever number that is.

[peteg]

In light of the above discussion, I'm happy to co-solve in DMs with someone who hasn't figured it out yet!

[HeadinHome]

Well said @HoldThatThought

Agreed.

Also agreed. I will work hard, hard, hard to solve it myself, and the first “nudges” I solicit/get — IF I ask for one — will simply be to eliminate a few of the potential time-sucking non-helpful possibilities, or just to ask if I’m sniffing at all near the trail. That’s about all I want to know. If A nudge is more of a push or new enlightenment, that’s a NON-solve, in my thinking (not a group solve). Agree with your assessment that the team sport known as group-solving starts us all in the same befuddled state and we move together through the thought processes, which is super fun but not my FIRST choice for solving.

I got no problem with the non-purity of the leaderboard. I’m happy for people to determine for themselves whether to submit… as my Dad says of golf score estimating, “whatever you can live with.” I know what my number means, and you know what your number means, and we are all just lucky to be alive and free and in possession of most of our faculties.

Unless there’s money involved — then that’s a whole nuther set of rules.

Until there’s a “master’s circle” sort of contest (“solo solves only”), the rankings lists will always mean more about activity and involvement than actual puzzle acumen… for the most part. (This helps me not feel so bad when I break a streak… I can just mumble my sour-grapes “some peoples needta getalife…” and start over.)

As for bots… apparently some puzzlers ARE bots, from where I sit! (that’s a compliment… like “brainiac!”)

[oldjudge]

Tom, I agree with you on group solves; they are great! However, there is a difference between group and assisted solves. I also am not sure that the top of the list means as much as you think because first of all not everyone starts the puzzle when it comes out and second, even if people do, it also reflects the speed with which someone solves the grid. I you take a half hour to solve the grid and ea solves it in two minutes he has a 28 minute head start solving the meta. You might say that it is a combined process and most would agree with you. Personally, and I’m sure that my view is biased by my slow grid solving, I believe the real contest is how long it takes to solve the meta once the grid is completed. Obviously, this could never be accounted for nor should it.

[HeadinHome]

ALSO - on this puzzle, I am like 95% there I think, but can’t pull this fish into the boat. All OVER it… just one little troublesome conundrum. Did anyone else experience this? I’m wondering if it’s a clerical error, and one of my pieces has a little mistake!

Update: classic “makin it harder than it is”. Got it. Though I must say, if what I had been doing could somehow have worked.. extra elegance!

[dudeski]

I really enjoy these puzzles and solving without help is preferred. However, getting assistance can still result in alot of satisfaction. Also, rather than throwing in the towel, a little nudge can help one improve their skills. These are supposed to be fun, right?

[oldjudge]

I agree entirely. What do people think about doing away with the streak list entirely (not that we have a say in this)? Personally, I would like it because it would allow me to skip puzzles if I didn’t have the time and to guess if I wanted to. Please don’t ask me why the list means anything to me—I honestly don’t know. Thank goodness I haven’t gotten caught up in the medals. Matt has a separate list anyway that he uses for year-end prizes. Now that I mentioned prizes there are actual monetary implications of submitting solutions. The more people who submit correct solutions to 48 or more puzzles in a year, the more prizes that Matt will have to send out at the end of the year. It’s not like he’s sending everyone a Porsche but the prizes cost him money and the postage is definitely an ever increasing cost. Also, just think of poor Ida having to wrap all those prizes. . BTW, thanks to everyone for keeping this conversation civil. On many chat boards that would not have been the case. It just speaks to the amazing collection of people that we have here.

[BarbaraK]

I agree that there's a difference between group solves and assisted solves, and I'd love to see Matt have three buttons instead of just two, and then have separate leaderboards for the separate types. But that's just because I love data and the more the better, not because I'm concerned with the prestige of the streak list.

As I recall, there were only two solo gold medalists last year, so everyone else with a multi-year streak is non-soloing at least some times. But so what. This is entertainment.

I'm also pretty sure there have been people solving with others long before this board (or it's WSJ predecessor) existed. Facebook groups, twitter groups, email lists, and even the traditional family around the Saturday breakfast table or friends meeting at the coffee shop. This group does make it easy for anyone without other real life or online puzzling friends to find collaborators or helpers, and I consider that a good thing.

As for the prizes, when Matt started the solo button, he said that only solo solves would count for the year end prizes. He's clearly changed his mind about that (perhaps because he had to stop doing the monthly random prizes when he went to Patreon so non-solo annual prizes replaced them). But he can change it back any time he wishes. Don't know that he's ever promised any prizes to anyone. I certainly consider them a gift, not an entitlement.

I would be interested in Matt's opinion about all this. If he ever has another zoom with us, one of my questions for him would be what he expected to see when he added the solo solve button, how it's actually worked out, and how he feels about that.

[oldjudge]

Maybe we could No some free market research for Matt. Allow me to pose two questions:

1. Does the streak list add to, not change, or diminish your enjoyment of MGWCC?
2. If the streak list was eliminated would it alter your subscription status?

For me the answer to the first is that it probably diminishes it a little, but not much, and to the second, absolutely not. I think that Matt’s puzzles are a bargain at what he charges now.

[Joe Ross]

This is an important conversation to have, and everyone is expressing their valid points well, respecting everyone else.

One thing I want all to consider: I know most of the posters in this discussion and I can assure you all reading these that they are all good, decent, and friendly folks. If anyone is taking what's being discussed as a personal affront, PLEASE DON'T. If this discussion were live, whether in person or on zoom, I doubt that anyone would be offended. Conveying thoughts & strength of opinions perfectly in text form is exceedingly difficult. If you were to see & hear these very same points being made live, I'm sure you'd agree with me, and would hold them all in the same high regard.

The other thing I see are intelligent, experienced, and respectful people seeking various methods to address the issues. I do not see anyone taking a hard line.

This community is amazing. I'm humbled & grateful to be a part of it. Thank you all.

[MikeyG]

I think that Matt’s puzzles are a bargain at what he charges now.

Understatement of the year. Makes my weekends more enjoyable, that's for sure!

But that's just because I love data

Same! (The statistician went data way.)

[mkmf]

Actually almost EXACTLY what HunterX said. @HoldThatThought is out there collecting errant Metanauts and tossing them into the transporter. Once you see it you are "OMG YES!" but seeing it is another thing.

Ha: "Metanauts"
Nice, Dr. Tom.