From: MBaron1949@aol.com
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:29:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: UWS SURVEY SAYS...results
Message-id: <971009182732_-1929678936@emout02.mail.aol.com>
Dear CGPers:
Herewith are the results of the survey addressing a unified world word source (UWS), which was posted four times 9/30/97-10/8/97. The data is presented first by item, with my comments, and next consolidated in tabular format. I thank all 89 CGPers who participated, and look forward to the ensuing dialogue we may have.
1. I am in favor of eventually having some kind of unified worldwide word source (UWS) for Scrabble.
77 (90%) a. YES (Continue to next item.) 09 (10%) b. NO (Stop now. Thanks for participating.) 03 declined to choose YES or NO 89 TOTAL
An overwhelming majority (90%) of respondents are in favor of having a UWS. (Of the three not choosing a YES or NO response, two could be interpreted as qualified YESes and one as a NO.) All 9 NO respondents use the OSPD. Even still, 88% (69/78) of OSPDers were in favor of a UWS.
2. I would prefer to see such a UWS in place (pick one):
61 (79%) a. in the year 2000. 14 (18%) b. sometime between 2001 and 2005. 02 (03%) c. sometime after 2005. 77 TOTAL
About 4 of every 5 respondents are inclined to see a UWS in (or, in some cases, before) the year 2000. It appears these respondents are chomping at the bit. 3. I would prefer such a UWS be stabilized with revisions no more frequent than every (pick one):
47 (61%) a. 5 years 18 (23%) b. 10 years 12 (16%) c. other (specify:) ___ years [x,x,1,1,1,1,2,3,3,3,4,6] 77 TOTAL
About 3 in 5 respondents prefer a revision in a UWS no sooner than once every five years. One respondent offered 6 years, that being (3 full WSC cycles). The choice of an even number may allow for two, rather than one, years' acclimation to a revised word source before a WSC. Interestingly, the mean of all 75 respondents who indicated a specific frequency of revision is 5.9 years.
4. Tournaments in my country primarily use (pick one):
81 (91%) a. OSPD 05 (06%) b. OSW 03 (03%) c. SOWPODS 89 TOTAL
The heavy representation of OSPD users, while perhaps proportionate to CGP subscribers, is clearly disproportionate to OSPD vs. OSW vs. SOWPODS users. Tom what degree these results are reflective of various nations' current (or future) association membership opinion may be questionable, but clearly these results speak more to the sentiments of players who currently use OSPD than OSW or SOWPODS.
5. If a UWS is to be developed/adopted, RANK ORDER your TOP 3 choices (1 = top choice) of UWSs to be used: [Percentages are of vertical column totals.]
1st 2nd 3rd
37 (49%) 11 (22%) 07 (17%) a. SOWPODS = combination of latest
editions of OSW and OSPD
used in tournaments prior
to adoption of SOWPODS.
28 (37%) 22 (44%) 05 (12%) b. Revised SOWPODS = SOWPODS with
modifications first made by
an international dictionary
committee prior to adoption
of SOWPODS.
03 (04%) 06 (12%) 04 (10%) c. OSW + OSPD overlap = containing
only those words common to
both dictionaries.
01 (01%) 05 (10%) 03 (07%) d. Decide on ONE published dictionary
as the word source from which all
words would be chosen (e.g.,
Chambers, MW10, OED, NI3W,
Webster's Unabridged, or other).
07 (09%) 06 (12%) 23 (55%) e. Decide on TWO OR MORE published
dictionaries from which all words
would be chosen.
76 TOTAL 50 TOTAL 42 TOTAL
Nearly half of all voters chose SOWPODS as there first choice, and another 37% chose a Revised SOWPODS as their first choice. Of the 33 who chose either of these sources as a second choice, 28 (85%) chose the other as a first choice. The use of TWO OR MORE published dictionaries from which all words would be chosen was the most frequently chosen third option, a seeming default, as 22 of 23 (96%) who chose this option, had selected SOWPODS or a Revised SOWPODS as a first choice. With such strong support for these two options (86% combined favoring SOWPODS or a Revised SOWPODS), and such little support for the other options, perhaps our discussions hereafter are best focused on the SOWPODS-as-is versus Revised- by-Committee options. If there is any desire to see a UWS in place by the year 2000, as most desired (and especially if a Revised SOWPODS is pursued, which would require an international Dictionary Committee), now is none too soon to take the necessary steps to (a) further educate the various nations' associations about this issue, (b) attain some consensus within each nation, and (c) if their is consensus among nations to pursue a UWS, to decide which one it shall be. It would appear, within NA and any other country, the adoption of SOWPODS can be made much more readily than a Revised SOWPODS, as the latter necessarily will require the formation of an international committee and some degree of time to make its revisions. OTOH, some nations my wish to keep to the status quo until and if a Revised SOWPODS is adopted, rather than having a two-step process of adopting SOWPODS then its Revision. All this is idle speculation if the nations' respective associations' membership fail to adequately support such a move. My guess is if nearly 90% OSPDers here on CGP are so inclined, with sufficient exposure to the issue, a majority of OSPDers might opt for the change. It should be noted that the vast majority of respondents were believed to be rated below 1800, i.e., not the sort of player who would qualify to play in the WSC as presently structured.
BTW, if points were applied to 1st choice (3 points), 2nd choice (2 points), and 3rd choice (1 point), herewith are the results:
1st 2nd 3rd
140 a. SOWPODS 111 + 22 + 7
133 b. Revised SOWPODS 84 + 44 + 5
25 c. OSW + OSPD overlap 9 + 12 + 4
16 d. 1 published dictionary 3 + 10 + 3
56 e. 2+ published dictionaries 21 + 12 + 23
As I have previously posted, if the obstacle appears to be a legal one involving copyrights and international markets, I wonder what, if any obstacle would be present if Spear/Mattell countries use SOW-PODS with OSW words in the front and OSPD-only words in the back, and if MB/Hasbro countries use PODS-SOW with OSPD words in the front and OSW-only words in the back. We in NA are already accustomed to looking at two sources (OSPD and the addendum list) to resolve challenges. Perhaps this separate-but-equal approach to SOWPODS, while not pretty, can possibly hurdle the obstacles.
6. Even if a UWS is not adopted anytime soon by my country or all countries, if the World Scrabble Championship, using SOWPODS, were an open multi-divisional event (like the National Championship in North America):
62 (84%) a. I would participate if I could afford to attend. 12 (16%) b. I would not participate, regardless of expense. 74 TOTAL
Well, we can't say players aren't interested in such. :) And the event could be structured so as to assure the top division is still well-represented internationally and is a strong one (e.g., one player from each country; with more than one based on some indicator of strength like rating and/or prior WSC performance, with the very top players subsidized as they are now). Possible entry fees from all non-subsidized players may help defray corporate outlay, as is the case at the NA NSC. If the event can be done with no significantly greater corporate cost, with the advantage of having that many more goodwill ambassadors for the game, and possibly increased PR, perhaps this is an avenue which could be pursued in the future. It would appear that such an event would help bolster support for use of a UWS, but that is hardly an incentive for corporate sponsors.
7. If and when a UWS is adopted by my country or all countries, my preference, with respect to the challenge rule, is as follows (pick one):
16 (21%) a. single challenge rule (only player of challenged word
risks loss of turn).
41 (53%) b. double challenge rule (player and challenger risk loss
of turn).
18 (23%) c. first challenge by each player in game under single
challenge rule; all subsequent challenges under double
challenge rule.
02 (03%) [10 point penalty; not listed on survey as an option.]
77 TOTAL
While the majority chose the double challenge, more telling is a breakdown by word source presently used, with an asterisk provided beside those options representing a switch from player's current challenge rule:
OSPD OSW SOWPODS TOTALS (# switchers)
a. single 11* 4 1* 16 (12)
b. double 40 0 1 41 (00)
c. dingle 17* 0 1* 18 (18)
[10-pt] 1* 1* 0 02 (02)
TOTALS: 69 5 3 77
switching: 29 (42%) 1 (20%) 2 (67%) 32 (42%)
IF the option of a points penalty had been offered, perhaps more may have chosen such. However, even without that stated option, fully 42% indicated a preference to switch to a challenge method not currently used in the rerspondents' home country. Among OSPDers, the most popular switch was to the dingle (59%, 17/29). This bodes well for the eventual resolution of the disparate single vs. double challenge rule. However, I would advise that dialogue within and among various association members (including surveys within associations) separate the issue of UWS and the possible challenge rule
8. If I never see another post about a unified word source:
21 (31%) a. it won't be too soon.
10 (15%) b. I'll go into withdrawal.
11 (16%) c. I'll have a better chance to get a life.
05 (07%) d. I'll don my XENOPHOBE AND PROUD OF IT tee shirt manana.
20 (30%) e. I'll give up managing the pet shop and become a
lumberjack, 'cause I'm okay.
A subanalysis revealed that O% of the UK players chose their own Monty Python routine (option e). Maybe this bodes well for UK players considering an alternative to the single challenge rule? Was there any forethought in NA's selection, as site of the next WSC, the, ahem, Mayflower Hotel?
1. UWS?
77 (90%) YES
09 (10%) NO
03 declined to choose YES or NO
89 TOTAL
2. Year to implement UVS:
61 (79%) 200.
14 (18%) 2001-2005
02 (03%) after 200.
77 TOTAL
3. UWS revisions every:
47 (61%) 5 years
18 (23%) 10 years
12 (16%) other [1-6 years]
77 TOTAL
4. Current word source used:
81 (91%) OSPD
05 (06%) OSW
03 (03%) SOWPODS
89 TOTAL
5. Top three UWS selections [% of vertical totals]
1st 2nd 3rd
SOWPODS 37 (49%) 11 (22%) 07 (17%)
Revised SOWPODS 28 (37%) 22 (44%) 05 (12%)
OSW + OSPD ovewrlap 03 (04%) 06 (12%) 04 (10%)
1 Dictionary 01 (01%) 05 (10%) 03 (07%)
2+ Dictionaries 07 (09%) 06 (12%) 23 (55%)
76 TOTAL 50 TOTAL 42 TOTAL
If points were applied to 1st choice (3 points), 2nd choice
(2 points), and 3rd choice (1 point):
Pts. 1st 2nd 3rd
140 SOWPODS 111 + 22 + 7
133 Revised SOWPODS 84 + 44 + 5
25 OSW + OSPD overlap 9 + 12 + 4
16 1 published dictionary 3 + 10 + 3
56 2+ published dictionaries 21 + 12 + 23
6. Would attend a multidivisional WSC, using SOWPODS,even if
UVS not adopted by own or all countries, if affordable:
62 (84%) YES
12 (16%) NO
74 TOTAL
7. Challenge rule:
16 (21%) single
41 (53%) double
18 (23%) dingle
02 (03%) [10 point penalty; not listed on survey as an option.]
77 TOTAL
8. If I never see another post about a unified word source:
21 (31%) it won't be too soon.
10 (15%) I'll go into withdrawal.
11 (16%) I'll have a better chance to get a life.
05 (07%) I'll don my XENOPHOBE AND PROUD OF IT tee shirt manana.
20 (30%) I'll give up managing the pet shop and become a
lumberjack, 'cause I'm okay.
Too soon withdrawing to get a life, xenophobically yours,
your would-be lumberjack,
Mike Baron