Live crossword chat on Times website – final reminder

Author   petebiddlecombePosted on Categories Announcement
Just a quick reminder that at 1 p.m. London time (about 75 mins from now) you can buttonhole various Times xwd setters, editors and solvers on the Times Online website – more information here – including a link to the session for those who couldn’t see it live.

5 comments on “Live crossword chat on Times website – final reminder”

  1. That was rather fun, wasn’t it? It seemed to take a long time for messages to process, so some answers appeared before their questions, but it was pretty insightful stuff and the results of the two polls were interesting.

    On a personal level I think it’s a shame that a majority were in favour of removing setter anonymity – although not by much, and I suspect certainly not enough to force a change; however, this is democracy in action one must go with the flow.

    1. Yeah – it’s funny. I’d be really upset. The Times has 3 things that sets it apart: Anonymous setters, no living people, and damn-near Ximenean cluing. I’m strongly in favour of the philosophy Richard Browne mentioned today of no Chambers-only words, too.

      I think losing any of these would just take it closer to the crosswords of the other broadsheets, and I’d prefer it if it retained its status as The Daddy.

      Will

      1. Would you mind my compromise suggestion – setters identified with the solution? This would let you see who’d written something really good (or not so good!) without affecting the solving experience on the day.

        I’m ambivalent on the living people, seeing arguments for and against. On the other two, I’m with Richard Browne both in allowing minor variations from strict Ximenean clue-writing, and in not having a cast-iron rule about which dictionary to use, but avoiding Chambers-only material.

        Edited at 2009-10-14 06:20 pm (UTC)

        1. I think the compromise idea has merit. As things stand I imagine the number of people who peruse the solution grid is small vs the number who attempted the puzzle.

          Knowing that the solution will also identify the setter won’t just create a frisson of added interest; it may encourage more solvers who didn’t complete the puzzle to take another look at the clues that defeated them.

  2. Polls are useful if you have some sense of how representative the sample is — two questions: (1) how many people actually participated and voted and (2) is this a fair sample? (pretty self-selecting I’d say)

Comments are closed.