[HN Gopher] The elite, underpaid, and weird world of crossword w... ___________________________________________________________________ The elite, underpaid, and weird world of crossword writers Author : anarbadalov Score : 76 points Date : 2022-11-05 13:48 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (newrepublic.com) (TXT) w3m dump (newrepublic.com) | Magi604 wrote: | Crossword puzzles seem like something an AI can generate, with | things like topics or niches or word length/"difficulty" as | options to toggle. | nkurz wrote: | I found this to be an odd set of paragraphs: | | _For would-be constructors without such personal connections, | there's the Crossword Puzzle Collaboration Directory. The | Facebook group launched in 2018 with an associated Google form | that pairs newcomers with mentors. It has always been explicit | about its aims to provide resources to underrepresented groups: | "This matching form is intended specifically for [women, people | of color, LGBTQIA+ people, and disabled people] as a tool for | addressing structural inequities in the crossword industry. | Because our mentors' time is finite, if you're not a member of | any such group, we ask that you refrain from using the form."_ | | _The explicit intentions aren't enough, though, and in fact at | times the group has served the opposite purpose. When | professional opera singer Daniel Okulitch, a white man, was | inspired to try his hand at crossword construction after he first | started regularly solving them during the pandemic, he found his | way to the group. In response to a question he posted, Okulitch | was contacted by Brad Wilber, a longtime constructor (60 Times | puzzles since 2005) and an opera fanatic. A fan of Okulitch's | singing, Wilber offered his services as a mentor. Okulitch has | now published three Times puzzles, including two with solo | bylines._ | | On one hand, obviously people should be able to choose on | whatever basis they want where to concentrate their volunteer | mentoring efforts, and I appreciate the delicacy of their | discouraging phrasing. On the other, it seems remarkable that | they New Republic would appear to celebrate the restriction of | services on the basis of sex and skin color. Can you imagine the | reverse, where black women or disabled transexuals are | discouraged from applying? Is the article trying to call | attention to this tension, or are we expected to take it for | granted? | | And what's meant by "the explicit intentions aren't enough"? And | is the point that Okulitch ("a white man") doesn't qualify under | the "LGBTQIA+" heading? Are we supposed to assume that a white | male opera singer couldn't be Gay or Bi or Trans or | Queer/Questioning or Intersex or Asexual or "+" (anything else)? | Or that he is at least one of these, and that's we he was able to | participate? Wouldn't it be simpler (and better) to just let | people who are excited about crosswords post a message and see if | they meet someone interested in mentoring? | [deleted] | squokko wrote: | All of this is stupid. It doesn't matter who writes crosswords, | and all the rest of it, including this comment, and probably | mine, is pointless complaining, shouting into the abyss. | pvg wrote: | _remarkable that they New Republic would appear to celebrate | the restriction of services on the basis of sex and skin | color._ | | They don't. That's exactly the sort of tendentious detail- | plucking and overinterpretation the site guidelines ask you to | avoid. | unethical_ban wrote: | >The explicit intentions aren't enough, though, and in fact | at times the group has served the opposite purpose. | | The tone suggests "gosh darnit, a cis white man was able to | connect with a fellow hobbyist when he shouldn't have". | pvg wrote: | I don't think it suggests anything of the sort but even if | it did suggest it to someone - again, there's a guideline | and a million moderator comments about not looking for a | single irritant to respond to in an article. Especially if | the response to the irritant is essentially a trope in | itself. | Msw242 wrote: | The frustration you're feeling is that, no matter how | obvious the tone or implication, advocates will never | acknowledge that it is real because what you are describing | is a phenomenon that cannot exist. | | It's gaslighting. | danielfoster wrote: | This is just one group. Presumably mentors could connect with | mentees through other groups and channels. | conviencefee999 wrote: | Eh it's safe to say other groups don't exist this is pretty | common for many topics and branches for things. | danielfoster wrote: | Life isn't always fair. | ysavir wrote: | > And what's meant by "the explicit intentions aren't enough"? | And is the point that Okulitch ("a white man") qualifies under | the "LGBTQIA+" heading? Are we supposed to assume that the a | white male opera singer couldn't be Gay or Bi or Trans or | Queer/Questioning or Intersex or Asexual or "+" (anything | else)? Or that he is at least one of these, and that's we he | was able to participate? Wouldn't it be simpler (and better) to | just let people who are excited about crosswords post a message | and see if they meet someone interested in mentoring? | | I think the point is that despite the given disclaimer and | rules, disqualifying individuals are still making use of the | group and supporting each other. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | The author seemed to be trying to build an article partly on | a hook of "trying to be woke backfired" but in this segment, | he intentionally conflates the facebook group and the google | form for mentoring, which seems to have confused several | here. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | Why should they pay more if they already get 100x more | submissions than they need? It's clear that almost all | constructors do it for fun so paying more isn't going to improve | quality. For solvers the real value add comes from the editor and | selection process that ensures reasonable quality and | consistency. | | I'm also curious when we switch to AI generated crosswords. It | seems like it shouldn't be too long from now that they match | human constructors. | bobro wrote: | Why would you think AI would be able to make enjoyable puzzles? | Are there any examples where AI does a good job at the word | play and culture references that make crosswords so enjoyable? | thom wrote: | I have been back and forth, but I suspect this will turn out | to be one of those things people think is innately human but | then quickly move on from when models do it well in the next | 5 years. Culture references are just patterns in giant text | corpuses, as far as crosswords are concerned. | whateveracct wrote: | Our of curiosity, do you regularly do crosswords? Like the NYT | or otherwise? | Khannor wrote: | Note that the NYTXW is not the only crossword publisher out | there. | | I construct crosswords from time to time, and I always send my | best puzzles to the NYT first, simply because they're the most | prestigious and pay the most. (And you can't send a crossword | to two publishers at once.) | | On your other note -- it's really not difficult to make a bad, | or even mediocre, autogenerated crossword using pretty simple | software. There's several free or inexpensive programs out | there (I use CrossFire). The main obstacles for AI-generated | crosswords are: | | (a) the "theme", the 3-5 longer answers that the Mon-Thu and | Sun puzzles are usually centered around, most of which involve | wordplay and misdirection -- it's possible, I'd like to see an | AI reliably come up with those. | | (b) the clues, though I don't think these are intractable | either. | [deleted] | gergi wrote: | If anyone finds this interesting, I would also like to recommend | watching Jon Stewart's _Wordplay_. It is much more interesting | than it sounds. | jpmattia wrote: | Can confirm: If you're into crossword puzzles (and maybe even | if you're not) it's a fun documentary. | | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492506/ | jl6 wrote: | Diversity is what will kill crosswords, and I don't mean | diversity in the skin color or gender of the setters, but the | fragmentation of culture where nobody watches the same TV | channels or reads the same newspapers any more. We increasingly | hive off into our own bubbles of preferred content, tied only by | whatever cultural commonality we acquired in grade school. | | There's just too much art, too many books, too many TV shows, and | too much access to it all, to go back to the mostly-shared corpus | of mostly-mutually-understandable cultural references we had in | the 20th century. You would think that people would at least have | read the _really_ famous books, or seen the _super popular_ TV | shows, but I am regularly surprised to meet people who haven 't. | | Fair clues are foundational to crosswords, and foundational to | fairness is understanding what the solver can be expected to | know. | | A Guardian crossword last week referenced The Beatles, Anthony | Eden, and the Russian revolution. Fair game? All part of a | standard British upbringing, surely? Perhaps for now, but for how | long? | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Or, it'll lead to more micro-communities creating crosswords | that are topical and relevant to them, for example: | | https://www.private-eye.co.uk/crossword | | Private eye crossword, with downloadable version for use in | apps, which references british (and world) politics. | jl6 wrote: | Yes, probably. My favorite such example is this regex | crossword: | | https://jimbly.github.io/regex-crossword/ | yieldcrv wrote: | despite there being much more fragmentation for what a pop | culture reference is, than the 1900s, people still act | surprised when you aren't aware of a cultural reference from | their own little microcosm | | like the default isn't to just briefly explain it, the default | is to genuinely confused for the next 5 minutes and derail the | whole conversation | 8bitsrule wrote: | >foundational to fairness is understanding what the solver can | be expected to know. | | No kidding. I've been seeing puzzles lately where so many | answers are so completely obscure that finding half of their | letters isn't enough. Unsolveable. Which leads me to wonder ( | _who_ could _know_ all this stuff?) if the answers aren 't | being filled in by machine. | javajosh wrote: | quesera wrote: | It doesn't strike me as anti-anything to point out that | structural inequalities exist. | | Cultural divides are real, and standardized testing (or | crosswords) written by members of a majority culture are likely | to be inaccessible to some others. | javajosh wrote: | That's not what the TFA said. The "proof" for structural | inequality was that crossword puzzle authors are mostly white | men. That's it. There was no charge of rejecting women or | people of color from writing crossword puzzles systematically | or individually. And in fact the three black people | encouraged to write the puzzles quit because of "lack of | time". | | The cultural inaccessibility is not a problem, as you noted | in your (now deleted) anecdote about how you don't get | _Lemonade_. Not everything has to be accessible to everyone. | Audiences largely self-select, and it makes no sense to | attack something because the audience is all one color, and | even less sense if this only upsets you if it's one | particular color. | quesera wrote: | I deleted that anecdote because it was unnecessarily | personal and distracting. | | But yeah -- _Lemonade_ was not written for me. And as I | originally wrote, if it was the only record available | iTunes /Spotify, I would have no cultural connection to | popular music. (good thing, bad thing, you decide!) | | Crossword puzzle authors being only white men is absolutely | culturally separate from many people. | | And maybe that's OK. It's no one's job to be all things to | all people. Still, it's clearly structurally unequal. | | Now...whether it's important or interesting that other | cultures are denied the pleasures of crossword puzzles... | That's a good question. I'm of the general opinion that | those other cultures are not missing much. | | Crossword puzzles might just be an old white person | anachronism that will fade out in a generation or two. The | likelihood of that increases if crosswords are not | accessible to our future majority-minority population. | gsk22 wrote: | > The "proof" for structural inequality was that crossword | puzzle authors are mostly white men. | | If structural inequality is not to blame, how do you | explain the discrepancy between the demographics of puzzle | setters and the public at large, then? | javajosh wrote: | How do you explain the demographics of _anything_? And | why do you think it 's your job to "fix" all human | endeavor to reflect demographics? Why is that a good | outcome? How do you measure the demographic BTW? Because | if it's global demographics most human endeavors have not | near enough Asians, and far too many English speakers. | robertlagrant wrote: | > the artists, web developers, professors, and other titles that | imply a degree of wealth and elite connections | | Yes. You hear web developer, you think, "Probably knows the | Clintons." ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-06 23:00 UTC)