I do five puzzles daily at The New York Times, typically in this order: Wordle, Spelling Bee, Connections, Letter Boxed, and The Mini Crossword. The most time-consuming of the five is the Spelling Bee. There are some things that continue to bother and/or interest me about this puzzle.
- One is that it seems like it ought to be about finding all the words that you can make from the given letters, but in practice it’s about finding the words that the editor favors, because those are the only ones that are accepted by the app. I understand why it’s that way, but it’s often frustrating. You can’t hit Genius level–the natural stopping point–until you’ve reached a certain score. If you happen to get stuck, unable to find any more allowed words, it becomes especially irritating when the app doesn’t accept the words that you give it. Today in unaccepted words were the pangram ALCHEMICAL (which of course means “related to alchemy,” and I can’t fathom why it wasn’t allowed), plus several smaller words including LAMELLA (thin plate or scale), MACLE (twin crystal), MACHE (a salad green, a.k.a. “corn salad”), ALEE (on or toward the lee), and HELLA (very).
- Though I get frustrated by the words the editor doesn’t accept, I no longer try to get him to add them, even when I am certain I’m justified. For one thing, the wording of the automatically generated e-mail response suggests that he really doesn’t care about anyone else’s input. Understandable, really. He has his method, and he’s sticking to it, as well he should. More importantly, the score required to reach each achievement level is based on how many words the editor expects you to find. So, if he added more words, that might actually make it harder to reach each achievement level, which would not be good.
- But, I wonder if the app could be improved by allowing more words without requiring them. See, if you play the Spelling Bee in its printed form, you get to decide if a word counts. So, how might it play out if the app were made to be more like that? Imagine if the scoring for the various achievement levels were still based solely on the editor’s list of chosen words, but you could score points for all achievement levels except Queen Bee by playing any word that could be verified in a specified source, such as a particular dictionary edition. Would that be fairer and feel less onerous on those days when you’re struggling with the puzzle, or would it come across as strangely hybrid-y? I couldn’t say without testing it out myself, which isn’t possible, so I’ll never know. Just as well, I suppose. It’s not my job.
- The other thing I find interesting (spoiler ahead) is that the last word I play–the one that gets me to Genius level–is so frequently an unsavory word. Today’s was CELIAC. Yuck.
Regarding the other four puzzles . . .
- Wordle is pretty much perfect. It’s quick, simple, satisfactory. That’s why it got so popular.
- I have mixed feelings about Connections. The concept is great. But, IMHO, the editor doesn’t always adhere to a standard of fair play, and the words/categories skew super young. I also don’t like that you only get a certain number of guesses before you’re shut out of the puzzle. Puzzling is supposed to be fun, and it’s not fun to be told that you don’t get to finish a puzzle. Yes, Wordle shuts you out after 6 guesses, but 6 guesses are all you need, so that limit feels like an intrinsic part of the puzzle. It pushes you to be a good solver, rather than punishing you for being a “bad” one. In Connections, the limit is arbitrary and unpleasant. Why shouldn’t you be able to keep trying combinations until you find the ones that work?
- Letter Boxed is an interesting challenge, but I think it would be better as a scored puzzle.
- My current speed record for The Mini Crossword is 12 seconds, which I’ve hit twice, and which I doubt I’ll ever beat. I’m going to keep trying, though!