TLS Crossword – bloggers wanted

Author   linxitPosted on Categories Announcement
Peter Biddlecombe is now editing the TLS Crossword (he has been helping out for a while but now it’s official), and he’s asked me if we might start blogging it again. Myself and Tony Sever did alternate weeks a few years ago, but only for one year. At the time it wasn’t edited by anyone and the mistakes were legendary, as all regular solvers will know – incorrect enumerations, anagrams with letters missing, etc… In recent months it’s been a lot better, and some new setters have been introduced. From now on there will be four setters taking alternate weeks, so an ideal number of bloggers would be three, so they don’t end up only blogging the same setter every time.

I’m afraid I won’t be able to throw my hat in, as I can’t spare the time (I have a pile of four or five of them printed out which I haven’t even had time to look at yet). However, the puzzle does have a small but dedicated following online so hopefully we’ll get enough volunteers.

OK, looking down the comments below I think we have enough people to get started:

I think the three to start with will be Olivia, Zabadak and Tony, with Verlaine and Sotira on the bench and Pip in training 😉
Currently the submission deadline is three weeks after publication, with the solution published the following week, so I think the blogs can come out on the 3rd Friday, i.e. TLS 1117 on 18th March would be blogged on 8th April.

If that’s ok with everyone I’ll update the Calendar accordingly.

28 comments on “TLS Crossword – bloggers wanted”

  1. Hi Andy. As you know I’m about to go out of regular blogging circulation for the next several months but it’s possible I could do this in rotation with others. Provided, that is, that the time-lag for the blog would track the publication of the solution which is 4 weeks. That way there would be plenty of time for me to get around to it in off moments when I’m back in NYC. Zabadak is one of the other regulars but he may have too many other commitments. Yes, thanks to PB the puzzle has improved out of all recognition, although perversely I sort of miss the old craziness…
  2. They are fun! Haven’t actually done one for a while, should rectify that. I suspect the fact that they come out on Fridays too would make it foolhardy for me to volunteer to blog any though.
    1. Verlaine – if, as I suppose, the blogger has 3/4 weeks to solve and cobble a blog together it shouldn’t interfere with your more exigent regular Friday duties. Especially if we can have a rotation with one additional person. I suspect your TLS blog would be just as entertaining as your Friday cryptic!
      1. Oh well, I’d be willing to do the occasional one if I didn’t have to get it up before noon on the same Friday!
  3. Andy, I recently started doing the TLS again, encouraged by PB’s involvement. I’d like to have a bash at blogging it as long as it’s no more than one in three.
  4. Checking: TLS staff have done some in the past, but have less time than they used to. One reason why my main contact there is so pleased to have some help.

    Puzzle/answer gap: ironically, Andy asked whether this might be shortened to make the blogs relate to a puzzle people are likelier to remember. If the long gap is a possible advantage for bloggers, I won’t ask the TLS about the feasibility of this yet.

    Rotation: we’re hoping to have a few puzzles related to significant dates or the TLS content, which has a particular slant each week. Not all of these will suit a puzzle, but when they do and one setter wants to write it, we may amend the rotation. I’m happy to send a blogging team information about the setters of near-future puzzles something like once a month if that helps.

    Edited at 2016-03-13 12:00 pm (UTC)

  5. Re the time lag – I don’t need to be the one driving the bus and could certainly make it work with a slightly shorter turn-around if that’s what’s wanted.

    If there’s to be a theme now and then I wonder how that would work for a blogger who’s not a subscriber (e.g. me) – or is that something we could just pick up from scanning the magazine headlines that are accessible online without logging in? Otherwise I could just see myself missing the point in spades!

    Do we have any idea of our potential readership? I’ve no objection to chatting amongst ourselves but the die-hards in the Club number about 30 at most so I suppose you are thinking that the non-Club magazine subscribers might find the blog of interest. In which case, since these are prize puzzles, we circle back to the timing of publication of the solution/blog.

    1. There’s a list of the TLS weekly slants which is available to potential advertising customers. Any bloggers are welcome to a copy, which should compensate for not having the paper if a puzzle seems to have a theme. My guess is that no more than one puzzle in six wouldbe themed.
  6. All starting to sound a bit complicated. I’ll maybe amend my offer to “if you’re really stuck”.
  7. I’d volunteer, but have yet to get more than 75% of the way through one! Too many gaps in my (scientific) education. I don’t do it often (partly because there was no blog to help me learn) but I will take more interest. I’d certainly need the TLS theme, if there was one, and I don’t think that comes with my online Times sub. PB where would I find this list of themes for advertisers to latch on to?
    2. Interesting thread.. I tend to find the daily cryptics and weekend jumbo and the club monthly are sufficient, most of the time, for me to get my fix, but I do look at the quick cryptic, the Guardian, FT and Indy cryptics and also the TLS from time to time for a change of scene. I attempted a TLS a few months ago and failed miserably, but attracted by the commotion I did last Friday’s and managed to complete it in under an hour. I will try the next few too and if they go as well then I might be up for the occasional blog if required.

    3. I seldom do the TLS but I do see it as good educational stuff if you have the time and will definitely try harder if it is going to be blogged. Try last Friday’s, Pip, I thought it was easier than others I’ve tried. Also I don’t think a little bit of judicious googling would be frowned upon, at least for us scientific types 🙂
  8. I’d be happy to have a go, especially as there’s plenty of w(r)iggle room for putting a blog together. I’m a big fan of the TLS’s eccentricities, and (Peter) it would be a shame if the thing turned out faultless every week.
  9. I’m afraid I haven’t been doing the TLS puzzle too much recently, but blogging one in three would be a good excuse to get back to it without being overly onerous, so I’m up for it.
  10. Righto Andy. I’ll kick off this Friday then to be ready for submission on April 8th when my next turn comes up.
  12. I’m sorry to drop out so soon, but another funeral today – this time of the husband of a cousin of my wife’s, just a couple of years older than me – was yet another reminder of mortality. And a reminder of the reason I stopped doing the TLS puzzle in the first place, which is that although I enjoy tackling it, I already waste too much time on the crosswords I currently do (basically the cryptics – including the Listener – and concise puzzles published in the daily Times newspaper; plus the concise and 15×15 cryptic puzzles that appear in the Sunday Times, though I suspect I may well abandon these before too long).

    The problem is that a) I’m getting slower at everything, and b) there are more pressing things that I really ought to do before I finally kick the bucket – not the “visit Machu Picchu” sort of thing for the most part, but generally the more mundane stuff like writing down some family history that I’m the last remaining person alive who knows about.

    So over to Verlaine or sotira, either of whom would I’m sure do the job brilliantly, and certainly more wittily than I would have done.

    1. Sorry to hear that Tony, but you’ve got your priorities right. I waste too much time on them too, but I’ve let the Listener slip, as I’m working 6 days a week lately. Not that I’ll ever be in your league with that particular puzzle.

      So, Verlaine and/or Sotira (you might even try sharing the 3rd slot if you prefer)?

      1. Yes please! A co-blog eh?

        Sad that we won’t be getting the benefit of Tony’s literary wit and wisdom, but there’s definitely more to life than crosswords (if not much more)…

        Edited at 2016-03-17 01:47 am (UTC)

  13. Very sorry to hear this Tony – be well! So I’m alternating with the triumvirate of S,V and Z – this puts me on my mettle.
  14. Thanks to Andy and the volunteers. I’ll be in touch with you to supply information about the setters of upcoming puzzles.
    1. Hi Peter: Sorry to say there may be a glitch with this week’s puzzle. So far there isn’t a single all-correct submission. My answers checked out ok and Dave Howell (aka the oracle) said likewise. Whenever you get a moment…. Forgive this back-door approach.
      1. Copy (slightly edited) of my response to queries on club site:

        Sorry for the slow reply – lots of other stuff going on today. In this case, the 10 or so submissions that I’ve looked at have the same error, as did my test-solving solution, in which I avoid using references until I have to. It’s a bit of a trap – one answer includes a word that’s surprising, but correct according to every online version of the text that I’ve found.

        Olivia: if you are still stuck when writing your report, email puzzle.feedback@sunday-times.co.uk [Others: if you work out which answer it is and have a source to justify the “solver’s version”, let me know at the same email address.]

        1. Well I’ve actually finished it, for the first time in half a dozen attempts, but unsure about my answers to the 21d – 26a crossers. When and where does the solution appear online?
          Need a bit more confidence before I’m up for a blog.
        2. Oh dear. A second look reveals that my bad guess in test-solving for the middle word of 3 down made it into the online solution grid, but was fixed in the solution sent for print, and I read the right/wrong info on individual solutions the wrong way round. Rescore on the way, and note to self that 100% wrongness by solvers does not happen.

Comments are closed.