The NYT Crossword Crisis

I used to write about crosswords for The New York Times at a blog called Wordplay. That job ended today so, of course, it’s not too soon for my first tell-all exposé that will blow the lid off that whole operation. Here’s the key question:

How early did I get access to the puzzles?

NYT Crosswords are typically published at 10pm Eastern time and Wordplay posts go live moments later. How is that possible? Some of the more clever commenters have suggested that I must get early access and I’m often asked, '”How early?” The full explanation is more bizarre than you can imagine. The surprising answer, and I swear this is true, is that the posts are written two to three months ahead of time, well before the crosswords themselves are constructed. Let me explain.

Budget cutbacks

Times at the Times were particularly tough in 2008 when Will Shortz got hauled in front of NYT’s Supreme Budget Committee to hear the bad news. The lavish “puzzle lifestyle” was over. Costs had to be slashed immediately and the first cuts were to be in the admittedly well-padded construction budget. One of the junior accountants, a kid named Bumfry, had downloaded a demo version of the Crossword Compiler software with the Grid Generator plug-in. He noticed a button called “Auto-fill” and asked the obvious question: “Why can’t we just use that?” Shortz was taken off guard. He tried to argue using vague concepts like “quality” and “innovation” but made little progress until he blurted out, “What if I could come up with a solution that would slash costs but actually improve the puzzles? I have a radical notion but I need two weeks to pull it together.” He was given three days. The race was on.

The free-market solution

Most people know that Shortz did graduate work at Indiana University on Machiavelli and Adam Smith, but few also know he co-owns three key eBay patents and one more that underpins Google’s auction-based adwords business. If only there were some way to apply that same thinking to crosswords.

Then he got an idea. An awful idea. The Shortz got a wonderful, awful idea! My phone rang immediately. Was I in? The concept was so wild, so crazy, so utterly insane, that I immediately agreed.

Constructor competition

Here’s how it worked. I wrote my posts describing each crossword and those descriptions were electronically distributed to constructors through a secret network code-named CRUCIVERB-L. Each post was attached to an interactive web page where constructors bid on how cheaply they could produce a puzzle that exactly fit those specs. It was brilliant.

So, for example, when budgets were particularly tight, I would write something along these lines: “This Tuesday puzzle has only three theme answers and displays little cleverness in the surrounding fill.” Veteran constructors would pass right over that one, knowing that competitive bids would drive the price down to just a few dollars. It was a godsend for newbies, though, who could try their hand at finally getting published without having to compete with Patrick Berry on the same day.

That saved enough money that, from time to time, I could be a little more creative. Sometimes, I admit, I was even cruel, using phrases like: “seven theme answers” or “every answer in this grid contains at least one B” or, in one particularly nasty case, “quadruple pangram.” It was great fun watching constructors struggle with how low they could bid on that one.

Reaction from puzzle authors

Immediate reaction from the constructor community was negative. Hostile, even. When I emailed Will Shortz to tell him the constructors were revolting, his quick response was, “Aren’t they, though!” I should have seen that one coming, I suppose. Many constructors dropped out in protest.

Those who stayed on came to appreciate the new system. Art thrives within constraints and crosswords had never been so thoroughly constrained. Although the average payment was substantially lower than before, pay for some of the more ambitious grids actually increased.

I sometimes got accused of playing favorites, particularly with visual elements in the grid. Descriptions like “connecting the circles in alphabetical order generates a reasonably recognizable portrait of Beethoven” became known as “Gorski Gimmees” because nobody but she even bothered to compete. Liz made out like a bandit on those ones. Quadruple stacks and record-low block counts weren’t nearly as lucrative, since Kevin Der and Joe Krozel kept outbidding each other. In other words, the system worked!

Puzzle of the year

There’s a particularly funny story about the crossword that I eventually named my 2010 Puzzle of the Year (Across Lite, XWord Info solution, Wordplay.) Francis Heaney apparently misread my blog description and, thinking it was a more straightforward normal rebus, opened the bidding at a ridiculously low $1,000. Of course, nobody else would touch it and he was on the hook to somehow put it all together.

The fact that it worked and ended up being such a wonderful puzzle completely validates the Shortz Strategy, as it has come to be known. Once again, free-market capitalism proves to be the answer to every question.

Comments

[Donald L Brooks]

Off to a great new beginning!

[Joe Krozel]

Great Scot! Why did you have to go and reveal all that, Jim? I was recently commissioned -- nay, prepaid -- to produce that ever-elusive 17-block puzzle -- as a black ink savings measure -- and I've already gone and taken my wife and kids to dinner at McDonalds with the money ... [gasp!] ... and guess what? The darn thing is just plain impossible to make. So I got on the phone with Kevin Der, and he's laughing and laughing at me -- saying he'll bail me out for a cool million bucks ... but I aint got that kind of money -- heck nobody does. So I've been skipping my day job for weeks now, not answering the phone when I see Will calling. Please, Jim, someone's gotta help me ... I'm just gonna submit a 19-block puzzle, but I need you to get on the old blog and tout it as a 17-blocker. My only hope is that ... that noone else will count the squares... Jim ... I'm pleading with you here!

[Lou]

Went to the NYT blog to check the Saturday answers only to find out you've written 3 posts beyond that and a post here-wow! This was hilarious-my husband kept asking what was so funny. Will look forward to future entries! (Like your new pic BTW.)

[Sara Kaplan]

I annoyed everyone around me by laughing very loudly as I was reading this - Joe Krozel's comment, too.
Nice!

[Todd G]

Joe...Jim didn't say the blocks had to be 1x1.

You're welcome.

By the way, you did notice that SEVENTEEN BLOCKS is 15 letters long, right?

Given all the out-of-the-box theme ideas Jim had to create over the past year or so, I'm surprised his brain hasn't exploded. I know I learned a lot at the foot of the master.

Happy retirement.

[Elizabeth Gorski]

Fantastic new orb! Jim, you are "off grid!" The original avatar makes this feel like "Home Cubist Home." You haven't skipped a beat . . . you, pianist, you!

Liz - via Blackberry from the Cayman Islands

[Chris King]

So, is this 'Shortz Strategy' still in play, or is the crossword payment system back to the way it was?

[PhillySolver]

Thanks for not revealing that I submitted a bunch of random posts and that you choose the one that you think best matches the puzzle.

PS Let me know when I need to send Deb some more.

[Deb Amlen]

Phillysolver, I'm changing the system a bit. Jim had a good thing going (did he mention that he got a piece of everything Will pulled in from us constructors?), but I'm upping the ante by charging for comments as well. Make the checks out to cash, would you?

[Deb Amlen]

P.S. Great post, Jim. I think I can speak for everyone when I say that we're looking forward to seeing more writing from you (no pressure.)

In fact, I don't see why we couldn't make this a challenge of sorts. You match me post for post, because after all, it's only eight little posts a week, right? ;)

@Joe: Math isn't my strong suit, so you're safe with me. Again, make the check out to cash.

[Stars at Night, Big, Bright, Etc.]

Funny stuff! A body could get the impression that you are a bit relieved to be free of the staid strictures of the Wordplay blog. I've always had a thing for Gorski but this is the first time I've seen a photo, and I still have a thing for Gorski.

[Finn]

Good stuff, Jim! Lots of LOLs reading your post and the comments! I really want to picture Joe and Kevin duking it out in some dark, locked room, hand-making the crosswords on those giant boards they use at the ACPT, each one given only 17 blocks to place on their grids.

Thanks for 3 great years of blogging! We all look forward to hearing more from you soon.

[Joe Krozel]

OK, so I got back on the phone with Kevin Der regarding the 17-block crossword, and he's a little more reasonable this time ... I mean, sure he's still laughing and mocking me, but he's willing to negotiate. First I remind him that his final bid for constructing the puzzle had been $40 -- and for some reason I edged him out with a bid of $39 -- so we go back and forth dickering over how much I'll pay him to take the onus of constructing that monster off of my hands, and we finally settle upon $500. That's a relief. I can live with that...

[Elaine]

Isn't it time for a new hoax?

[Joe Krozel]

Oh great! If I didn't think things could get any worse, well, they just did. Apparently it was no trouble for Jim to edit out my name from his writeup and insert Kevin's name instead -- a simple change in an electronic document -- but now I've got the crossword inker Garson Hampfield on the phone telling me he already inked up a grid which captured my constructing style and it's gonna cost him $400 to make a new one for Kevin. So now he's asking me to defray the cost because -- in his mind -- the fault is essentially mine because I didn't keep him in the loop when the change was made. He thinks I should put the old grid he already inked up for sale on EBay ... like that's gonna happen ...