I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics1 min ago
Listener 4098: Language Balancing by Schadenfreude
49 Answers
A fine piece of craftsmanship from Schadenfreude: I especially like the fact that "altered words consist only of real words" after a few recently that have included gibberish in the finished article. My only query is a practical one: when I created the polygon, it obscured some of my entries: maybe I'll have to write it out again and use a thinner marker.
A very pretty and elegant puzzle: appreciation and thanks to Schadenfreude.
A very pretty and elegant puzzle: appreciation and thanks to Schadenfreude.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zabadak. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I have only just completed this having had an unusually busy weekend. I was only able to look at it in short bursts – not ideal for puzzles at this level. Grid completed and the highlighter employed, but I am struggling to make sense of the extra letters, some of which I am unsure of. I’m going to give it a rest for a day or two.
Off topic, I work for the IT crowd Hewlett Packard. The CEO has just resigned after being caught with his pants down (some extra curricular with the stenographer apparently). He was fiddling expenses to fund the jollies – cheeky bugger already had a private jet. You and I would be given the bum’s rush in no uncertain terms, but this guy has walked with $40 million to soften the blow. Nice work.
Off topic, I work for the IT crowd Hewlett Packard. The CEO has just resigned after being caught with his pants down (some extra curricular with the stenographer apparently). He was fiddling expenses to fund the jollies – cheeky bugger already had a private jet. You and I would be given the bum’s rush in no uncertain terms, but this guy has walked with $40 million to soften the blow. Nice work.
[Picking up from the last thread the discussion about statistics and whether the Listener puzzle has become easier.]
The late Mike Rich started to keep statistics on entries to the Listener puzzle in 1975. John Green took over from him in 1985. I have analysed the data that they have painstakingly and devotedly collected.
When the puzzle was published in the now defunct Listener magazine it attracted a steady average of about 250 entries per puzzle between 1975 and 1990; when it switched to the Times the average number of entries rose immediately to about 500 and has stayed steady ever since.
The average error rate per puzzle has not changed at all over the whole period of 35 years since the records began. It is around 15-20% of entries. This suggests either that the puzzle has not become more difficult or more easy to solve over the years, or that it is now more difficult to solve but the numerous aids that are available make it more accessible than it would otherwise be.
The total number of entrants who submitted at least one puzzle during each year was about 900 when the puzzle appeared in the Listener; when it switched to the Times it immediately rose to about 2500. However, since then, and especially in the last 5 years, it has gradually fallen, and is now less than 2000. This suggests that there is a hard core of solvers who regularly submit solutions, but that overall interest has waned in recent years.
[To be continued]
The late Mike Rich started to keep statistics on entries to the Listener puzzle in 1975. John Green took over from him in 1985. I have analysed the data that they have painstakingly and devotedly collected.
When the puzzle was published in the now defunct Listener magazine it attracted a steady average of about 250 entries per puzzle between 1975 and 1990; when it switched to the Times the average number of entries rose immediately to about 500 and has stayed steady ever since.
The average error rate per puzzle has not changed at all over the whole period of 35 years since the records began. It is around 15-20% of entries. This suggests either that the puzzle has not become more difficult or more easy to solve over the years, or that it is now more difficult to solve but the numerous aids that are available make it more accessible than it would otherwise be.
The total number of entrants who submitted at least one puzzle during each year was about 900 when the puzzle appeared in the Listener; when it switched to the Times it immediately rose to about 2500. However, since then, and especially in the last 5 years, it has gradually fallen, and is now less than 2000. This suggests that there is a hard core of solvers who regularly submit solutions, but that overall interest has waned in recent years.
[To be continued]
[Continued]
That there is a hard core of solvers is also suggested by an analysis of the numbers of solvers who have submitted more than 25 puzzles each year. Since records of this began in 1992, that number has remained roughly steady at an average of about 430, although the number may have increased slightly in recent years (average of 490 in the last 5 years), and the regression line shows a small gradual increase over the whole period. During the same period, the number of entrants who have submitted only one solution during the year, although highly variable, has fallen on average.
I suspect that all this means that overall the puzzle is slightly more difficult to solve today than it used to be, and has therefore become of interest to fewer people than before. However, because the available aids, if you have them and are interested, mitigate this increase in difficulty, the coterie of regular solvers has increased a little.
This is consistent with my impression that setters have responded to the availability of solving aids by putting higher barriers in the path of the solver. For example, it has become more common for them to use definitions that differ from the exact (i.e. searchable) wording in Chambers, and there has been an increasing use over the years of misprinted definitions and other obfuscating techniques.
Those who would like copies of the graphs that I have prepared based on the complete data set should e-mail me at [email protected].
That there is a hard core of solvers is also suggested by an analysis of the numbers of solvers who have submitted more than 25 puzzles each year. Since records of this began in 1992, that number has remained roughly steady at an average of about 430, although the number may have increased slightly in recent years (average of 490 in the last 5 years), and the regression line shows a small gradual increase over the whole period. During the same period, the number of entrants who have submitted only one solution during the year, although highly variable, has fallen on average.
I suspect that all this means that overall the puzzle is slightly more difficult to solve today than it used to be, and has therefore become of interest to fewer people than before. However, because the available aids, if you have them and are interested, mitigate this increase in difficulty, the coterie of regular solvers has increased a little.
This is consistent with my impression that setters have responded to the availability of solving aids by putting higher barriers in the path of the solver. For example, it has become more common for them to use definitions that differ from the exact (i.e. searchable) wording in Chambers, and there has been an increasing use over the years of misprinted definitions and other obfuscating techniques.
Those who would like copies of the graphs that I have prepared based on the complete data set should e-mail me at [email protected].
Staurologist
That is very interesting - a further subject for investigation might be whether the availability of the puzzle on-line has had any impact on he stats. I have no idea though when that started.
I am, these days, one of those who do not buy the physical paper but have joined the Crossword Club and download it every Friday.
That is very interesting - a further subject for investigation might be whether the availability of the puzzle on-line has had any impact on he stats. I have no idea though when that started.
I am, these days, one of those who do not buy the physical paper but have joined the Crossword Club and download it every Friday.
I started doing The Listener in the early '80s and they were certainly as hard, if not harder, then. Without current aids my success rate was lower than now, getting about half of them right, and an awful lot of time was spent in the library! Bradford and the Chambers Wizard have made the biggest difference. There's also a little Scots-English/English-Scots dictionary published by Lomond Books which at times is invaluable. I wonder if there's anything similar for Australian.
I stopped doing them for years as they were just taking up too much time. Now I'm retired and they're the high-spot of the week. For the first time I've managed to get 13 right on the trot.
I stopped doing them for years as they were just taking up too much time. Now I'm retired and they're the high-spot of the week. For the first time I've managed to get 13 right on the trot.
Many thanks to staurologist for that fascinating look at the stats. I would be obliged to receive a graph or two at [email protected]
I don't know how many setters if any read these threads, but it would be interesting to know how recent advances have affected them. I know that the advent of Tea and Sympathy have taken much labour out of grid construction and filling.
I don't know how many setters if any read these threads, but it would be interesting to know how recent advances have affected them. I know that the advent of Tea and Sympathy have taken much labour out of grid construction and filling.
-- answer removed --
That is interesting Staurologist. My success rate rose from about 1 in 4 up to managing to complete every listener since buying Chambers CDROM. It does seem strange that the number of listener entries has stayed the same with the availability of this and extra online help. Either, those that use these aids are very small, the difficulty of the listener as increased to counter-balance this, or there have been a number of solvers who do not submit compared to before even though are completing them. Most people who have subsequently got hold of these aids have seen an increase in the number of Listeners solved, so I don't know what the answer is.
Latest Posts
Religion & Spirituality9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.