Feedback wanted

[Redfraggle]

I did just rattle it off MBH - that's the scary bit!

Ok, Scurra, when you are ready to do that I will add it to the group and handle any enquiries at this end - if it helps. I can also add a link to the new site through my official Nettlefield site in the links. Pber's all helped me get my book and DVD out there so Im only too happy to help.

[Laura]

You could add Atlantis to that list, except I have a vague recollection that we may have done something similar before, but I really can't remember properly. My brain has started melting.

[Bunnylump]

Going back to MBH's point about starters - I quite agree with that because I have given puzzle books to lots of friends (about 10 different people) and most of them gave up after an initial look because they hadn't experienced anything like them before and just couldn't start any of them. I truly don't think this should be underestimated as a problem.

For me, my ideal scenario would be that there would be initial hints in the magazine but then the first two hints online. I've lost count of the number of times I've looked at the first hint and thought "well, I knew that already". Because I am sad and have no life I am prepared to wait until the next hint comes out a few weeks later. However, if I was new to the magazine, I would have just thought "this is too hard, I can't be bothered"...and would have never bought another one.

I would personally also like hints to continue WAY beyond the current ones (after a suitable period of course). I can't actually see any reason why there can't be a final, sledgehammer type hint (virtually telling you what to do). It strikes me that if someone can follow through instructions on a puzzle they just can't do on their own, they will at least start to get the hang of how they SHOULD work.

I do realise that this is probably the entirely opposite view Scurra would take, however.

[clvrlad]

Some others could include
Search for Excalibur
Finding the grail
Finding the stolen fa cup
Locating the arc of the covenant
Could have modern examples too
Finding Sher gar

hunt for the loch ness monster
Big cat hunting on Exmoor

You could also parody famous books

Murder on the flying Scotsman
Possibly using train routes (the ticket to ride puzzle come to mind and yes i know its not yours) and peoples involvement letting you find the murderer

The importance of being scurra
Id switching puzzle

The lady of the Ringtone
crime and Prejudice
His Dirk Materials
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy bar
Harry Potter and the Goblet of wine
To Kill a bunnylump
Winning the Pooh
Nine tease Eighty-Four
The tindog, the jester and the Wardrobe

i might have got some names mixed up

[edited since i was on my phone and it only sent half of it] and for my spelling...

[Bunnylump]

Big cat hunting on Exmoor?

My cousin's son had it jump right across their garden path in front of him and then disappear into the undergrowth in the next field (they live up on Exmoor in the back end of beyond). He said it was definitely a black puma. They have several normal cats themselves (who regale in the wonderful names of Patchface, Claude and Moomoo) so he definitely knows the difference!!

So mystery solved there.

[giraffe]

The DVP puzzles were much easier to start. You didn't have to have an aha moment until you had done the first step.

Some of the puzzlebrains puzzles are like that, you can see it's a cross word, so you start solving, then realise that some clues are missing, or there are some pictures, so you start identifying them then realise they are all associated with cheese (or the phonetic alphabet). What I struggle with are ones where there is just a list of words. eg the current issue I don't know where to start Add one.

My favourite puzzles in DVP were the ones with a picture, with letters round the edge. You worked out a message from the letters, by reading every other one for example (ie not a hard code) then it told you to do something , then you read letters off a chess board doing a knights path, then that told you to do something else. Each step led seamlessly onto the next, really clever and all in one photo.

[Laura]

Yeah, I liked those too.

Also, did anyone ever do Vlad's online puzzle that was based on different detectives, and you had to enter the correct answer to get the next puzzle? I loved that. Not sure it's really practical for your purposes, but as we were reminiscing...

[giraffe]

The only Vlad puzzle I saw was one with a grid, with something that looked like a little boat in it. I couldn't even start it and he sent me a hint, but it made no more sense to me than the puzzle did.

[Bunnylump]

Oh, Strep and I worked our way through lots of the Vlad detective puzzles. Liked them too.

[Scurra]

Also, did anyone ever do Vlad's online puzzle that was based on different detectives, and you had to enter the correct answer to get the next puzzle? I loved that. Not sure it's really practical for your purposes, but as we were reminiscing...

There are several gazillion on-line puzzles like that, where you enter the answer for one puzzle to get to the next (it's usually done by entering the answer on the address line e.g. http://www.puzzlebrains.com/answer3.htm)
There are several reasons why I don't do that model. Mostly because if you get stuck well, that's it. And because of the difficulty level issue that is often mentioned here (what I find easy you might find impenetrable and vice versa) there is no easy way to graduate them.

Going back to MBH's point about starters - I quite agree with that because I have given puzzle books to lots of friends (about 10 different people) and most of them gave up after an initial look because they hadn't experienced anything like them before and just couldn't start any of them. I truly don't think this should be underestimated as a problem.

Oh I don't. But - and I know this sounds rude - that's their problem, not mine. People are very conservative by their very nature; we (mostly) don't like to try new things even though we frequently find that we do enjoy them if we do. And, similarly, most of us prefer to get quick rewards; if we have to work at something, we often feel that this isn't pleasurable when the reward does come. These sort of puzzles appear to be designed to ensure that both of those aspects are emphasized - so it's no wonder that a lot of people express frustration at them.
And no, I have no idea how this problem might be solved. But it's one of the reasons I thought that the Snark might be a good idea as a "stand alone" publications - even if you fail to solve any of the puzzles, you've still got a nice printed copy of the poem. It's the Masquerade principle: most people bought that book to try and solve the puzzle, but we all actually ended up with some very lovely paintings.

As to giving hints/solutions - no, this isn't against my principles at all, it's more that hinting is so bloody difficult for the reason mentioned above: unless you have a total and complete insight into someone else's brain, you have no idea what they might think is obvious or difficult. I actually hate being given the "solution" to a puzzle when that solution simply consists of a word, or a grid of numbers (e.g. sudoku) - it doesn't tell me anything about how that solution should have been reached, so I can't learn how to do better next time. But that often takes more space than the original puzzle would have done!

[Bunnylump]

What about if people could request (say in the last week) that they were sent INSTRUCTIONS on each step of a particular puzzle - everything apart from the actual answer? I for one would be much happier with that. Then I would know that if I had tried all other avenues and failed then I would be able to work it through step by step and see what I missed. To me that would be every bit as satisfying as if I'd done it, because I would UNDERSTAND it. Also, there is the side issue that you and I would not end up swearing at each other...

[giraffe]

Oh I don't. But - and I know this sounds rude - that's their problem, not mine. People are very conservative by their very nature; we (mostly) don't like to try new things even though we frequently find that we do enjoy them if we do. And, similarly, most of us prefer to get quick rewards; if we have to work at something, we often feel that this isn't pleasurable when the reward does come.

I think you are slightly missing the point (forgive me if I'm wrong) . It's not a question of them not being prepared to put the effort in, it's a case of not knowing where to put the effort, or even what sort of effort is needed. That is what I meant about puzzles where the first step is clear like a crossword. I very often start a puzzle without a clue about the next step, and chip away doing the obvious bit and then hoping something will be clearer after that.

I think that we can often only solve your puzzles, because we know the sort of thing to look for, because we have done them before. We know that answers are very often the same length, we know that if there are 26 clues or even 24 or 25 that is a hint, we know that things often appear in alphabetical order, we know to read down or diagonally, we know to sort things into a diffferent order and then see if you can read something, we know not to panic when your answers don't fit in the crossword grid. To all of us these are the obvious things to try (even if we spend most of our time forgetting to try them). Someone coming to the puzzles for the first time almost needs a crash course, general instructions, things to try. (maybe reproduce part of the puzzle solving gude that people have put on here, or rewrite it in a logical / tidy way and put it somewhere separate, where people can access it . On the .com site? )

[clvrlad]

you and I would not end up swearing at each other

lies


you wont stop :-p

[Bunnylump]

Well, of course we would still swear at each other, just not so much.

[Scurra]

Well, of course we would still swear at each other, just not so much.

No, it would be just as much, but about different things, you [filtered] idiot.

[Bunnylump]

Well, you scumbag, I've been called some things in my time, but NEVER a filtered idiot.

[MBH]

I have given puzzle books to lots of friends (about 10 different people) and most of them gave up after an initial look because they hadn't experienced anything like them before and just couldn't start any of them. I truly don't think this should be underestimated as a problem.

You know I'm a keen advocate for promoting these mags, but I have had exactly the issue Bunny describes - no matter how keen a cryptic crossword solver they are. Ordinary people need a way to start and a sense of where they are going with it - either by intermediate rewards or a known form of answer. [Sometimes you've given a whole mag where it starts off saying "Every puzzle gives a 3-word clue to an answer"... the Lords I think.]

It's all very well passing that off as "their problem" but for one small point [which I KNOW you know] - we're trying to get them to part with money for this It's all about balance and drawing the new blood into our web of bafflement and amazement

[Scurra]

Well yes, of course I understand that, which is why I try to make sure that a reasonable proportion of the puzzles are indeed "standard" - based on crosswords, wordsearches, sudoku or whatever. Yes, they often have further levels but the initial part should be accessible enough for everyone - and yes, I would hope that the first stage of them would provide sufficient reward to justify those puzzles by themselves.
I grant you that I don't include "solving explanations" in the magazine itself, although if you look at Snark you should see that most of them do.
Likewise, in Snark I tried to ensure that the first few pages contain some fairly recognisable puzzles for the same reason.

However, I certainly intend to put some of the material I wrote for the Puzzler's Toolkit onto the website; it's definitely part of the revamp.

[giraffe]

Are the snark puzzles online somewhere? I was going to see how far I got with this issue, but I can't work out where it is.

[Bunnylump]

Look at the link on LAT's initial post on this thread.