Since it has been suggested that this is a more appropriate forum to have this discussion, I would like to share my thoughts (hopefully in a relatively constructive way) about puzzles that have a “short-circuit” method of solving. What I mean by that is that there are essentially two ways to solve a puzzle: a difficult or time-consuming way, and an easy or quick way (usually involving guessing based on periphery/secondary clues).

I realize my original un-edited commentary in the puzzle thread was not constructive and potentially contributed to giving away the answer to others. For that I apologize. I chose to not only express my feelings on the puzzle but to explain why I felt that way. Unfortunately my reason was the existence of the short-circuit, which by even mentioning it allowed other people to exploit it (though I was far from the only one, or the first one). I suppose I could have just said “meh” and left it at that. But that’s not very constructive either…

I would like to share some of my discussion (edited) with Arnott on the matter:

“It was probably a bit of sour grapes on my part. I’m fairly competitive, and I solved the puzzle by the actual method. I felt like I solved the puzzle fairly quickly, and I’m pretty good at those kinds of “logic” puzzles. I was dismayed to just barely get in the top 100. That’s what led to my frustration. It’s hard to say how many people got it by guessing, but probably a fair number.

Would I have been frustrated had I instead taken a guess and gotten it? (I actually did guess “beans” before I solved it, just as a hoot based on the sentence at the top) I probably would not have been frustrated that I got it quickly, but I would have been disappointed that I didn’t get to fully enjoy the solve method. So either way maybe I was bound to be disappointed by it.

I did really enjoy the method, and thought it was a nicely constructed puzzle. Would it have been less guessable on a different day? Probably (although yesterday was a themed night, too). Would it have been less guessable without the sentence at the top? Again, probably. I guess short circuits are nice for those who “get” them – but I find they almost always make the puzzles much less satisfying no matter which route you took. (you either don’t get rewarded because you did the “hard” work and got fewer bonus points, or you don’t get the satisfaction of doing the “hard” work yourself). I guess I could look at it the other way in that you either get rewarded for the quick and easy solve, or you get rewarded with the satisfaction of the hard solve… I guess I just have a hard time feeling that way emotionally, even if I can recognize it logically (after the fact)."

Now, it would be one thing if the actual solve method would take a normal person maybe 2-3 minutes to construct a word list based on clues (for example) and extract an answer word, and have the short circuit take maybe a minute to a minute and a half of guessing to stumble upon the correct answer. It might be irritating, but there’s not a huge difference in speeds.

The puzzle in question took me 15 minutes. I probably wasn’t the fastest to solve by the real method, and probably not the slowest. So probably most people solved it in 10-20 minutes. How long did it take people who guessed? A minute, tops? Puzzles like that are problematic, in that the people who do get it by guessing (and realize they saved themselves quite a bit of time) are going to post that they got it by guessing. It’s gonna happen. To expect otherwise is to expect that the sun stop being hot, or that water stop being wet at room temperature (and standard pressure!) The comments might lead more people to guess, and post, and so on. Meanwhile the other folks are plugging away, and they finally finish, in their minds rather quickly given the somewhat challenging nature of the solve method, they see that they didn’t even make the top 100. That’s frustrating. You can say that people shouldn’t have commented or posts should have been deleted – but that’s not the real problem in my opinion. I feel the short-circuit is the problem, and puzzle-makers should be very aware of that.

As I said, I really really liked the solve method, but seeing that the answer was a very easy shortcut was very deflating, disappointing, and frustrating. I felt that way the second I got the answer from the puzzle before I even entered it. I knew that it would have been too easy to guess given that it is an obvious theme for the night (the crypto was very salty for the OWW…), given the sentence at the top (it didn’t add anything in my opinion to the actual solve method other than another hint at the short-circuit), and given the background (which provided an “insider” short-circuit for those who recognized it).

So I guess that’s my tip to puzzle-makers – be aware that giving clues that defeat your intended solve method is probably going to cause people to be upset and not enjoy your work as much as would otherwise be the case.