Comments on: On blogging, not blogging and commenting

By: muck

muck — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:32:06 +0000

Stuff happens, sure. And I am just happy to get through to 15sqd 99% of the time!

By: neildubya

neildubya — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:29:18 +0000

Well, the site does occasionally go a bit funny you know. Stuff happens.

By: muck

muck — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:02:21 +0000

I have had some recent instances of http://www.fifteensquared.net “not available”. I don’t think it is my internet connection (TalkTalk broadband in UK) since I can usually get gmail, and then 15sqd comes back on. Not really complaining.

By: nmsindy

nmsindy — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:10:47 +0000

The papers could object (rightly) on copyright grounds. A modus vivendi seems to be working for both this site and Peter’s Times one. The phone line is a commercial venture like any other - no one is obliged to use it, but some must be doing so - otherwise it would not be there.

By: Cruciverbophile

Cruciverbophile — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:47:47 +0000

I agree with Eimi that these blogs are a privilege rather than a right, and since we neither have to pay nor log in it is a little unfair to complain if the occasional puzzle isn’t blogged. I am interested in the apparent sensitivity shown to the premium rate phone lines, however. In my view premium rate phone lines are a rip-off and should be banned unless (a) the line is an “adult” chatline or (b) the money paid is donated to a charity. Unless the papers which run these lines have threatened legal action over a complete set of answers being published, or the money from these lines is indeed given to charity, I wouldn’t worry too much about providing an alternative to being ripped off when you’re stuck on a clue!

By: rightback

rightback — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:39:00 +0000

A reply to Fletch (comment 8): I normally blog the Guardian Prize Puzzles but knew I wouldn’t be able to post on the second weekend of September so asked if someone could cover it. On my return, I blogged that week’s puzzle but when I went to post discovered it had already been done! So it looks like there was a date faff.

(I’m afraid I’ve only today seen this thread, which has been dormant for three weeks, so I doubt this comment will be seen by its intended recipient, whom I would email directly if his email address were given!)

By: Paul B

Paul B — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:51:35 +0000

I was right to be envious then - that’s absolutely beautiful, Colin!

By: Colin Blackburn

Colin Blackburn — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:35:21 +0000

One of the days of charming rural existence when getting a paper was just out of the question. Though you can see that the phone line was still up at this point.

By: Don Manley

Don Manley — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:25:39 +0000

May I add my name to those who are grateful for this website and indeed for Times for The Times. On such websites the setter gets useful feedback - though of course a setter should also hope for feedback from more ‘ordinary’ solvers( e.g. friends and neighbours)in order to get a balanced picture. All that you do is a terrific bonus, never mind the missing clues and puzzles. Many thanks!

By: nmsindy

nmsindy — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:25:59 +0000

The reason for not explaining all clues is that the papers have premium line phone numbers you can phone for the answers so papers could justifiably be annoyed if all answers were given here.

But, in puzzles where this does not apply, the full answers can be given IMHO - this would include all AZED, Indy puzzles Sun and Sat, Times weekend - once deadline for competition entries has passed of course. Not sure about what the Guardian does.

From the blogger’s viewpoint, it makes the blogs longer to write - for me at least an hour if every clue is commented on. So even when the premium phone number factor did not apply, I tended to be selective going for the clues I thought were trickier.