Good tips, Mr. renfurdson. However since...

1. The puzzle editor is not working correctly. (Solution and Description/Special Instructions are not filled in when editing)

2. There is no list for unpublished puzzles.

...editing them is going to be a bit difficult.

PS: Since we have never seen the hint system before, how is it going to work? Should I create hints from vague (1) to specific (3)? Is there any point penalty (assessed against the solver) for using hints?

I don't mind the anagraming, but only small and very common words like those found on daily Jumbles.

there's a ton of anagram solving webpages... it's a piece of cake.

Who won the wii for the puzzlethon?

I'm not opposed to anagramming... but there needs to be some clue within the puzzle that you need to do it. Same with alphabetizing, or sorting by length, or any other method of rearranging things. They're all legit, provided you could reasonably come to that conclusion based on what you see.

And I'd echo the research-free plea. The puzzles I've most enjoyed consistently pass "dungeon test":
If I was locked in a room and provided pencils, scratch paper, and your 500 x 500 pixel image, could I reasonably be expected to solve the puzzle?

[6] I've just reviewed my submitted puzzles (my own local copies, I haven't found the online option yet) and see that many of mine pass the "dungeon test"... if you have the right knowledge. If specific knowledge is required, I try to either use what I believe to be common knowledge, or, what can easily be looked up in a reference book or internet. (One puzzle required the Periodic Table Of Elements. Now, I don't expect a solver to have the entire table memorized, but I'm hoping that most have at least heard of its existance, and would know where to find one. Given that these puzzles are actually being solved at a computer with access to the internet, I didn't feel that finding one was too unfair.)

I go the other way on the Dungeon test - I think that part of the fun of having web-based puzzles is that you have the full resources of the World Wide Web at your disposal. Self-contained puzzles are very satisfying, but I think that many of my better puzzles required some reach outside of the realm of common knowledge.

Are puzzles that were submitted on the old site still in the "queue"? I submitted a couple a while ago, and never heard back as to whether they were approved, denied, or if they just disappeared into the ether...?

Dave

[6] The problem with research free is, we don't all come from the same background. Pop references are easy for me except for about 40% of music references. Other folks may never have a problem with music references. Even if we stick to the basics: reading, writing geography and arithmetic, we will still have differing levels of experience.

My recommendation is that if you are going to have a very specific theme that some folks may not know, that you include enough hints to get them started and keep your research to a single authoritative source. (BGG, Wikipedia, IMDB, etc)

I would like to add that "red herrings" are overdone. If, while solving in a logical manner, you come across one that tells you to go another way, great. But I don't like puzzles that are obviously leading you one way and finding the "real" solve method requires great jumps or leaps. It's the try everything until you figure out the solve method type of puzzle. Remember with false leads, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. It's like wearing spandex.

[11] Sometimes the red herrings are not intentional. Take for example my "Tower of Hanoi" puzzle. ( http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/1860-11-27-2007 ) Once I plugged in the answer words in the three lists, I had to fill out the other words. When I put in random or semi-random words, the solution words stuck out too much. The only way to keep my testers from simply reading the solution was to make sentences going down the lists. I tried to create sentences that would quickly lead to a dead end so that folks would not waste too much time.

My point is, what is sometimes called a red herring is really needed obfuscation, to make the puzzle work.

[12] Hear, hear.

My 2005 hurricanes puzzle called for some of that obfuscation, and a couple of puzzlers took me to task for needless complexity. http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/1749-11-1-2007

To spell a theme-relevant word, I needed to use hurricane Epsilon. The proper letter order for my clue word would have put Epsilon second in my row of hurricane glasses - totally giving away that these weren't ordinary party-goer's names before they were all read. So I switched the glasses around to put Epsilon at the end and Katrina (another suspicious name) in the middle. That forced an anagram, but I thought the puzzle needed it...

Aaron,

Thanks for taking a moment to share your puzzle-selection criteria with us. Without feedback, us puzzle designers occasionally find we're shooting in the dark when trying to make puzzles that make the grade. I'd love to know more about the things that make you reject a puzzle with potential. Ideally, it would be fantastic to get feedback about individual puzzles, but I can appreciate that could become a full time job.

On a related note, do you have any available 6-figure jobs open for puzzle editors?

Great suggestions. I've just submitted my first tow puzzles today, so it's relevent as well.

If there's a couple "veterans" to the puzzle creators taht would be willing to "playtest" my first couple attempts, I'd love to hear from you. I'll E-mail them over. Send me a Tangagram or a shoutout.

14- I think Will Shortz has that only job right now. Try hiring a mobster to have him "diasappeared"

[16] Hmmmm... ;)

[17]stupid question, how do you put the links to the comments, will it do it automatically if you bracket the number.

Edit: answered my question with my own post. hooray for ignorance=bliss

Back about a month ago, I made a suggestion to the Tanga team. I suggested that a puzzle review board should be formed to review puzzles before that were posted. Reviewers would range from casual puzzlers to uber puzzle elite.

1. Reviewers would first attempt a puzzle all by themselves.
2. After the initial attempt reviewers could then turn to each other for salt and assistance.
3. Finally if none of the reviewers could solve the puzzle the answer could be examined.

After the initial review, each reviewer could post comments for to the author, rate the puzzle as "easy" or "hard" and either give a thumbs-up or thumbs down for publication. If a puzzle received enough thumbs-ups then it would move forward to publication. If a puzzle failed to receive enough thumbs-ups, the author would review the comments, make changes and resubmit. The goal would be to catch things such as...

1. Written errors (spelling, grammar, etc)
2. Author assumptions (facts, leaps in logic, etc)
3. Unnecessary elements (too many "red herrings", unneeded steps such as anagrams, etc)
4. Visual issues (color, contrast, legibility, etc.)

I was given the impression that Tanga is planning on doing something along these lines.

Great idea. We'd just have to have a sort of exclusion clause for solving so the review board wouldn't get the 100 points every night......................or would we? ;)

[20] LOL. I would imagine that review board members would get their points for doing the review (not sure if that is fair either) and would get zero points like the author for solving the puzzles that are live.

***SIGH***

Somewhere in the archive are a couple of blogs (one from January last year) with many suggestions for puzzle makers.

The discussion archive is not searchable, or I'd be able to put a couple links here.

A lot of effort has been expended by quite a few tangans to compile those suggestions.

Here the Puzzle Maker Guidelines from an the discussion blog - it has a link to the January blog.
http://www.tanga.com/forum/blogs/1044_Puzzle_Ma...

I've suggested a couple of times that a link to this kind of information be included on the Contribute Fun Page... but you guys have been pretty busy lately.