July 16, 2013 10:54:25 AM
I've worked many puzzles in my life, but none with so much ambiguity as Cashwords.
Most of the answers are solely left up to the interpretation and questionable logic of the creator of the puzzle. In many cases, either answer will suffice equally well, only to be decided by this inane logic which is correct. The clues don't give a logical reason why either answer is more apt than the other. Last week's puzzle had no winners? Isn't that a little strange? I'm sure there are many people out there who were pretty confident they had won.
Which brings me to the prize money. At the top it says the prize is $2,050 and goes up $50 each week nobody wins. Then it says in tiny letters "see rules for complete details." Rule 2 says that each week's winner will receive $100 unless there is another winner, in which case the prize will be split accordingly. Nowhere in these rules does it mention does it tell how it will be decided who receives this award.
When I called The Dispatch the girl was nice until I pointed this out. She said if you get it right, you win $2,050. But when I directed her attention to rule 2, she said something like, "I don't know, whatever you think" and was clearly shaken and had a complete change in attitude.
I would appreciate, in the next puzzle how it's possible to win the big prize misleadingly referred to as this weeks prize. Thank you for the opportunity to give some feedback.
Editor's note: Rule 2 of the frustrating Cashwords puzzle states the basic prize is $100 but that the prize money will increase by $50 each week the puzzle goes unsolved. If multiple people submit a correct puzzle in the same week, the prize money will be split evenly between them. Once a correct puzzle is submitted, the prize money drops back down to $100. Both the puzzles and answers are created by a third-party company. About nine months ago a Dispatch reader won $1,550 from Cashwords.
1. Our View: IHL Board would be wise to reverse Jones decision DISPATCH EDITORIALS
2. Kathleen Parker: Inexcusable wackiness in the Senate NATIONAL COLUMNS
3. Our View: Starkville should approve garbage-rate increase DISPATCH EDITORIALS
4. Slimantics: Winners all LOCAL COLUMNS
5. Lynn Spruill: Garbage bags LOCAL COLUMNS