Quick Cryptic Week 3

Author   linxitPosted on Categories Quick Cryptic
The Quick Cryptic blogs seem to have brought a new life to this community – not that we were struggling but we’ve seen a new influx of bloggers and commenters as a result, which has to be a good thing. The response and take-up has been terrific, which proves there was a gap in the market worth filling. It remains a shame that The Times have made such a pig’s breakfast of the presentation online, but we have to remember that that’s the IT department’s fault rather than the crossword editor’s.

Anyway, on to week three, which blogging-wise should be a repeat of week one:

Monday: jackkt
Tuesday: ianb21
Wednesday: nick_the_novice
Thursday: macavity123
Friday: william_j_s

Please let me know asap if you can’t make it on your appointed day for any reason. We still have a vacancy for alternate Thursdays, although I believe macavity123 is willing to cover them until we get somebody.

9 comments on “Quick Cryptic Week 3”

  1. Surely not the IT department today (Tuesday QC12) when it’s the paper version that manages to display the wrong grid. Shall we open a sweepstake on what tomorrow’s error will be?
  2. Starting next week I’ll only be catching up on these blogs sporadically but they do seem to be off to a very good start – much kudos to you for organizing, Andy.

    This has almost certainly occurred to you, but after reading some of today’s exchanges I was wondering if the posting of solving times is exactly encouraging to the newer solvers.

    I know it was part of the original cryptic set-up here that we would state our times, and of course there are fairly wide variations on that side too. But could it be that seeing you (and me today) solve in single digit minutes, while those whom these new puzzles are designed to attract struggle to bring it in in multiples of those times, is a bit counter-productive.

    Also, could it look a bit like boasting? I know it isn’t but I can see it might appear so. I have been at pains to point out just how long it took me to get to my not exactly lofty pinnacle!

    Edited at 2014-03-27 08:39 pm (UTC)

    1. I think the new solvers should be encouraged to post times as it will help them track their own progress and enable others to benchmark themsleves against their peers. I’m inclined to agree. however, that us “old hands” posting times for the Quick Cryptic could be discouraging.
  3. I’m anti rules and regs, though I have a known aversion to off-topic postings that lead to conflict, but I foresee all sorts of problems arising if solving times are not allowed. The next stage would be, should we mention our perceived level of difficulty?

    How can one discuss a puzzle without these matters coming into the equation? Please leave things be and let contributors find their own level of discussion.

    1. I don’t really disagree with you Jack. I was making some observations based on comments from yesterday’s blogger (Macavity) and one or two others. I suspect everyone will settle in and be pleased with their progress in time. I do, however, hope that when the sites are completely merged we get the option to print the QCs – I’m really stupid about solving onto a screen and heaven forbid I should have to try it with a main cryptic like yesterday’s…. Similarly I think the print option would be helpful to the newer solvers on the QC.
      1. I couldn’t agree more about printing as I am completely incapable of solving on a screen. At the moment I have a workaround for printing involving Windows Snipping Tool that allows me to copy and paste into Word and to print the puzzle from there. If anyone is interested in details I’d be happy to post instructions to my own Live Journal.
      2. I think solving times do help as a learning process but it may be better to show more positions on the leaderboard. At present , if your not in the top 100 you have no idea where you are in the order of things and how much you need to improve ; it also allows filtering out the 20+ neutrinos who mess up the first 100 on the “easier” and prize crosswords. Solving on screen should be encouraged.
        1. Top 100: I suspect there’s a reason for that – if they showed all positions, competitors would be able to see how many users they had, and for some reason that’s a “valuable commercial secret”. That’s why they never reveal how many entries they get for the prize competitions either, not even a rough ballpark figure. Just my opinion anyway.

          As for solving times, they’re an integral feature of the blog, and I have no intention of changing that. They’re not for boasting purposes, never have been. Cryptic crossword expertise isn’t a measure of IQ, it’s more a measure of persistence. Pick a rival and try to beat his or her times, record your own improvement, get an idea of how tough a puzzle was by gauging how long it took others. That’s what this blog’s always been for. See the “About this blog” link above for a slightly outdated description from Pete Biddlecombe, who started it all off in 2006.

          Above all, remember that the people on here who post fast solving times have mostly been doing the puzzle for decades (at least 35 years in my case, and I’m one of the youngsters!), so if you’ve just started out, don’t get discouraged – we’ve all been in the same position, but without the Internet and blogs like this, so you have a lot more help than we did!

          Finally, we get comments all the time from people who’ve found this blog and let us know that with our help and encouragement they’ve solved their first puzzle unaided. For me, that’s motivation enough to carry on as we always have, and to reiterate to the new members we’ve gained since the Quick started – enjoy the thrill of finishing the puzzles, and don’t get discouraged when you find out that someone did it faster than you!

Comments are closed.