Young, sionnach? For some reason I always envisioned him as ancient, quite bald, bent double by his hours over a hot keyboard, shuffling to the train muttering extracts from New York Times articles under his breath.
Oh, and blind. I'm quite sure he's blind. All the truly great seers and prophets are blind, aren't they?
Although I haven't paid close attention to the counting scheme, gangerh's extremely clear explanation of how it works is pretty much how I thought it did. And, as Pro said, it seems exactly right, i.e. it matches the way one feels it ought to work. That John is a smart young man.
Word count and why the s-udgeon word isn't yet 'most-Wordied'. My analysis is that you can add a word to ANY list once and you get 1 added to YOUR 'words added' total. If you subsequently add that word to ANY other list you get 0 added to YOUR 'words added' total. It's the Wordie who adds the word who gets the count, not the list owner. And every Wordie gets just one count for each word. You can't score more than once for the same word. And each word gets a score of 1 for every first time each Wordie puts it on ANY list. And 0 if that same Wordie adds it to any other list. If ANOTHER Wordie adds the word to ANY other list it scores 1 again. And that's why I haven't added schadenfreudgeon to every Open List! Clear as mudgeon really!
Should we infer from your comment r_t that if I were to bestow one of my priceless, uniquely wonderful, carefully crafted madeupical words on a list started by you (or anyone else except me), that it is your word total would be augmented and not mine?
I remember the harsh early days of Wordie, the kitties desperately trying to tap in my words in Morse code before the candle went out. Me desperately trying to work out the best orthographic representation of the coarse strangled grunts that formed the basis of our communication back in the old days. Walking uphill barefoot in the snow 5 miles to and from the one room schoolhouse every day.
Mollusque, the only way I "curate" my open lists is by deleting duplicates, and I've only done that maybe three times. I figure that since words added by a non-listowner aren't counted toward that person's total, it does no harm. (But I still feel a little guilty.)
I know what you mean sionnach. I've made only a few of my lists open because I want to retain control. But I've been happy with my open lists, especially Well-mixed metaphors, which has had a couple of dozen great contributions since I looked at it last. (Excuses started strong, but then died out.)
The creator of a list can delete off-topic or unwanted listings and comments (though it seems rare for anyone to delete comments, except duplicates). What do people think about the owners curating open lists? (I specifically noted that I might do that on Panvocalic polyglot.)
Don't know about anyone else, but I was agreeing to the idea of open lists and how smoothly John set up that function, not to having all open lists, all the time. I agree that it's nice to keep a few to oneself--nothing wrong with that. But there are times when it's just more fun having everyone pile on; don't you think? :-)
Where are all my fellow control freaks? I mean, I'd love to join in and wallow in this communal lovefeast dedicated to open lists. But the truth is, I don't want all my lists to be public. Because eventually there would come a day when some well-intended soul would add a 'word' like 'accomodation' or 'opthalmology' and not understand why I suddenly went all ballistic on their ass.
In a world where my cats mock me openly, it's important to know that I have control of my lists. Not all of them, but some, at least.
I feel the same way. Being a Wordie neophyte, I wasn't around for the era before open lists, and I find it hard to believe that there ever was such an era. It just feels so natural to collaborate on lists!
I remember the days before open lists. We discussed it on features, then John brought it in, then tweaked it a bit in response to feedback. I think the results so far have been very positive. There are many open lists and a lot of them have become very fun places. They're also lists that have a decent life, as it were, in the Wordiespan of attention, because of the collaborative aspect. Once again I thank John, because he got it substantially right from the outset and that is one of his (many) outstanding talents.