Sunday, June 8, 2014

Puzzography

Sometime in late 2007/early 2008 I was sitting at the kitchen table after finishing that morning's crossword puzzle when I heard myself saying "I could do better than that".  Turns out that's a whole bunch easier said than done, but with a lot of help from many sources and a few zillion hours work (I kid!), I've managed to get a handful of puzzles published.  Here they are, in chronological order:

9/26/08  "Think Again", Chronicle of Higher Education (CHE)

11/21/08  "One for the Ladies", USA Today (USA)

6/26/09  "Weaponyms", CHE

8/11/09  "Snake in the Grass", USA

8/15/09  "Giddyup", Universal Syndicate

9/23/09  "Minor Defects", USA

12/7/09  Untitled, Los Angeles Times (LAT)

3/22/10  Untitled, LAT

6/15/10  Untitled, LAT

10/11/10  Untitled, New York Times (NYT)

3/8/11  Untitled, LAT

7/18/11  Untitled, LAT

9/26/11  Untitled, LAT

7/20/12  "Natural Misunderstandings", CHE

11/8/12  Untitled, LAT

3/11/13  Untitled, NYT

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

POC Levels

In crossword constructing, a POC (Plural OConvenience) can be, well, convenient.  I can take a 5-letter word, say, and instantly make it into a  6- or 7-letter one by just adding an "S" or an"ES".  How easy is that?  I can vouch that it is temptingly so.  As is often the case with temptations, however, there is a price to be paid for giving in.

The price for succumbing to the POC's siren song is a reduction in the puzzle's overall quality.  After all, the constructor just used a short cut to make it easier to complete the fill.

The degree to which a puzzle's quality is compromised depends on what kind of POCs are used and how many times they appear in the puzzle (too many and it can become POC marked!).

The kind of POC can be categorized into four levels, going from the hardly noticeable (Level 1) to what should be a deal killer (Level 4).

Level 1 POC is the common-as-dirt kind, found in almost all puzzles.  POCs at this level involve only a single, relatively short entry being pluralized to up its letter count   One might see a Level 1 POC in a corner like this (the NW corner from my 11/8/12 LAT):


      J E E R
      A X L E
     W A L L
F L I M S Y
      N
      G

There 'tis, ELLS.  Hardly noticeable, but a POC nonetheless.

Level 2 gives the constructor two POCs in one.  Two entries share an "S" at the end.  This is more of a threat to the puzzle's quality because that "S" is the equivalent of what's called a "cheater square". This is a black square that doesn't change the word count, it just makes it easier to fill in.  In other words, that shared final "S" in a Level 2 POC could just as easily be changed to a black square.  Just clue the words as singular rather than plural.  Have I been guilty of this more serious POC?  Yup, sad to say.   From the same puzzle, SE corner:

       A Y E
O I  L E R
U V U L A
T E M PS

That's just too easy and it's why I think a Level 2 POC is a more serious threat to a puzzle's quality.  I was able to rework that corner to eliminate the POC in about six or seven minutes.  Wish I had done that before submitting it for publication.

Level 3 is when a long, non-theme entry becomes a POC.  Say, for example, HEX BOLT fits beautifully with some fantastic crossing fill, but it's a letter short for that slot.  No problem, just add an "S".  But now a much more integral part of the puzzle has been compromised than happens in Levels 1 & 2.

Level 4 POCs so compromise a puzzle's quality that they really should be deal killers.  This is where a theme entry becomes a POC.  Rarely seen, but it does happen.

Have I been guilty of using a Level 3 or 4 POC in my puzzles?  Nope, glad to say.

The other factor that can impact puzzle quality is how many POCs appear in the puzzle.  Obviously, the more POCs, the greater the impact.

Combining POC frequency with POC Levels offers a way to give each puzzle a POC Score.   The POC Score could then be used along with more commonly discussed  factors, like theme consistency, excess abbreviations, long partials, etc., to rate the puzzle's overall quality.








Sunday, May 19, 2013

POC doc.

I became aware of what I like to call a "plural of convenience" (POC) after I tried my hand at crossword constructing.  I remember an early attempt where I had only one pesky corner remaining to be filled.  The solution turned out to be simply a matter of adding an "s" to one of the words in that corner and, kaboom, the grid was complete.  This is a big milestone for a fledgling constructor, believe me.

Imagine that you have invested hours on a puzzle and have filled in all of the grid except the last corner.  There, one possible solution would work except that a word that fits four out of the five required squares, say FANG, is, unfortunately, a letter short of the number of squares in that slot.  And then you see that by simply adding an "S" to FANG, it all falls into place.  Woo-hoo!

Who could resist?    I couldn't, and it appears other constructors are in the same boat.  POCs are as common as dirt in crossword puzzles, even top-tier ones like the NYT or LAT.

That first experience got me hooked on POCs, but I still had a tinge of regret that I had to resort to what is essentially a SHORT CUT in constructing my puzzle..  And if I take pride in the quality of my puzzle, then taking a short cut, though convenient, will blemish my effort.  It's a compromise.  It's suboptimal.

Not all POCs are the same.  I'm seeing four levels, from the common-as-dirt to the deal-killer.

Next:  POC levels.