Dr. Sudoku Prescribes #109 – Sudoku
or solve online (using our beta test of Penpa-Edit tools)
Theme: 6/6
Answer String: Enter the 1st row from left to right, followed by a comma, followed by the 9th row from left to right.
Time Standards (highlight to view): Grandmaster = 2:30, Master = 3:45, Expert = 7:30
Solution: PDF
Author’s Note (spoilers): While there are no given sixes in the grid, did you notice that it is very easy to put two sixes into two specific spots?. Follow this link for other classic Sudoku. If you are new to this puzzle type, here are our easiest Sudoku to get started on. More classic Sudoku puzzles can be found in The Art of Sudoku, The Art of Sudoku 2 and in our beginner-friendly collection Intro to GMPuzzles by Serkan Yürekli.
I totally did not notice the locations until reading your comment after the solve.
You could create better than this one..Not really great when both “6”s not the only point I should get to solve this one..but hei, it’s free maybe you will just ignore my comment..thanks for the sudoku..
Comment ignored.
ahh..that’s very hurt me..never thought you will say like that for real..
The only thing about the Internet that’s better than the difficulty of conveying sarcasm through text is the difficulty of conveying sarcasm through text when one person speaks English natively and the other person is in Malaysia and is not so advanced in English.
(Just to be clear, I’m being sarcastic.)
Your comment didn’t offer anything constructive to respond to, basically saying I wasn’t trying hard to write a good puzzle.
I spent just as long achieving this unusual theme with hidden 6s inside big 6s without any other 6s in the grid as I have for other sudoku here. I was not trying to do less than my best. Perhaps you only like certain kinds of themes or lots of swordfish or who knows what else. But I will never appreciate nasty comments for a creative piece of work when you offer nothing in return. I will instead ignore them.
Or we can just read things Grant’s way and think I was being 100% sarcastic. I think it is a bit of both.
Why does this comment remind me of your first comment here a while back?
http://motris.livejournal.com/179789.html#comments
I doubt gunthedam was trying to be “nasty” with his comment, Doctor. I know you wouldn’t put out a puzzle that didn’t meet your standards, but it seems to be a pet peeve when people suggest a puzzle is less than great (or even just okay!). I don’t think it’s something to get too worked up over, but that’s just me.
I still need to solve this one to be honest. Sudoku isn’t my wheelhouse, and I tend to be slow at it.
Until someone is creating and sharing such quality content, they shouldn’t criticize those who are offering something to all. Every single post but one could be said to not be my best. This is not useful discussion.
Apologies for playing devil’s advocate here Doctor, but I don’t think a person has to have created or shared puzzles to make a valid point or state their opinion about a puzzle. A solver can make just as valid an observation about a puzzle as a constructor can, though the thrust may be different (a solver might talk about their enjoyment of a puzzle more, whereas a constructor might comment on how elegant the puzzle’s theme or solve is, for instance. If any of that makes sense 😛 ). Considering you have more than a few non-constructors among your audience, I wouldn’t discount their criticisms entirely, if they have any.
On the other hand, bluntly stating “I don’t like this puzzle” versus “I don’t like this puzzle because…” is a world of difference. The latter is more useful to the constructor in figuring out what they could do better. I can understand why you think that’s not “useful discussion”.
Basically, don’t forget to consider your entire audience, constructor and non-constructor alike. I’m sure you know this; I just don’t want to see people getting dismissed or ignored out of hand just for not praising every puzzle. I could just be paranoid for all I know.
No need for any apologies for playing devil’s advocate. I think you bring up good points and have added to the discussion and that is what I’d ask from any commenter.
I will say as a constructor (of any creative work), that negative criticism can be highly demotivating. The particular part of the message from “farfarawayfan” — as I’ll still refer to him from over a year of random messages — that bothered me was: “but he[y], its free” as if the fact this website is not charging for puzzles makes it alright to have a bad puzzle up here. I disagree with the premise this is a bad puzzle, but also that these aren’t worth paying for. Those words hurt in a way no solver should hurt a puzzlemaker who is sharing a gift. So I had to, and continue to, ignore them. I don’t want unhelpful discourse that says the time I spent making this puzzle to my standards was time wasted. That the effort I am making to build a new puzzle brand/website might be time wasted. You’ve never crossed that line in any comment Giovanni, so do not worry about holding your tongue in dialogue.
Just recognize your words can affect the constructors, and the consequence of negative words can be fewer puzzles and burned out authors. So I may seem to overreact, but it comes from trying to stem negativity at its source. Puzzle-making at the moment offers very few rewards, and the only obvious one is experiencing a reflection of the solver’s joy after completing a puzzle you wrote. This is taken away when a solver shares a different message (whether farfarawayfan meant this interpretation or not).
As a solver, I tend to appreciate the solving end of puzzles, but I also see other solvers dismiss any interesting constructive feat if the puzzle isn’t built specifically to optimize the solving experience. Anyway, I also very much enjoy constructing feats, so I liked the subtle theme (which I also didn’t notice until reading the note after solving). I’m amazed, Dr. S, by how many great puzzles you put out so frequently! Bravo!