Seems similar to <a href="https://semantle.com/" rel="nofollow">https://semantle.com/</a> but backed by a different "similarity" calculation.<p>The "bar" visualization is also nicer to track how close/far you are.
Interesting. Took me way too long to realize that "close" is measured semantically, not lexically. A good strategy is to go up and down the ladder of abstraction, e.g. if "car" is close, try "engine" and "vehicle."
Few months back, I also tried to create a short puzzle game called Diffudle. The game was basically AI Art + Wordle. You were given an AI generated image and you have to guess the prompt for it.<p>Initially, I got some traction on the site and even some strangers started promoting it.<p>But I soon realized that there is very little marketing spend reward. The customers spend no money and ad revenue per user is abysmal. This means you can't use conventional channels and have to rely on people actually finding it fun and recommending it to others.<p>Although it was getting recurring traffic with zero promotion, it still couldn't reach a self sustaining level and I had to shut it down.<p>You can see Youtube video of it here: <a href="https://youtu.be/uLoMd0TkGKk" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/uLoMd0TkGKk</a><p>The point is: Getting the right puzzle formula is extremely hard and every puzzle will not grow like "Wordle".
Something is missing, I feel like.<p>The basic idea is sound, but it's painful to both start and end a game, and winning isn't very satisfying.<p>One of wordle's biggest flaws is "the opening". If you're going to have a daily puzzle, it shouldn't be exactly the same board to start every day. Games are so fast that this idea doesn't totally work there, but I think it would be better if they gave you a starting word every day.<p>The same rule applies here, I think. Your opening move set is basically fixed, and no one is really interested in learning the theory of that. Make the opening less tedious by starting with a couple of random words already played. This has two added benefits. The simplest is that it serves as a tutorial, in all likelihood, if you gave a list of prechosen words and their scores, and a textbox, people would already completely understand the rules of the game without any explanation at all. This is very valuable to a game like this, as it lowers friction.<p>The second benefit is more specific to this game, but it gives players a lot of hypotheses to test new words against from the outset. You want to reward play that deduces the next word not only from similarity to chosen close words, but also dissimilarity from chosen far words. In order to do that though, you have to choose a pretty large disparate set of far words. This hurts your score and is not particularly dependent on the days puzzle (ie you should pick about the same set every time). The game should probably do this for you, at the beginning.<p>Finally, you should reveal how many letters are in the target word. I don't want to just probe the model with synonyms. That's extremely tedious. give me enough information to make a plausible guess.<p>You could even consider a variant of the game where you're only allowed to guess words with the target number of letters, which might actually be mroe fun.
Got today’s word in 77 guesses. According to the game that’s not a good score, but I was impressed I was able to figure it out at all. Definitely much harder than Wordle.
I don't think it works very well. Trying not to give too much of a spoiler, today's Portuguese word is a noun. When I tried the "verb form" of that noun, I got a score of 207. This led me away from the correct word. I finally got it right in 30 guesses.
I find redactle and its clones to be better games than the context ones because the similarity measures are inherently without any sense, and so even if you guess the correct word it often feels like pure luck.<p>In redactle winning by pure luck still happens, but at least in hindsight you can tell where you went astray, in contexto the answer often turns out to be "because you aren't a high dimensional word embedding trained by Open AI".
I got red=12, blue=20 and magenta=9283.
Also, yellow=33 and orange=93, green=95 and pink=389 if that might help.
The word was "flag" but good luck if you are from Nigeria, Pakistan, Brazil, Libya or Mexico.
What does the error "this word doesn't count" mean? Should the word be countable? Is it known (because "I don't know this word" also exists as an error) but not on the top N list?
I find these to be less-than-ideal puzzles. For example, (no spoilers) today's puzzle answer is an abstract concept X, and two very common examples of X score both higher and lower (83 vs 7) than words that are much further away IMO (29).
I suspect like Wordle, or crosswords for that matter, it will take a certain amount of practice to get the hang of it. But! 43 guesses and I feel good about it.
<i>some word</i> -> a high score<p><i>another word with a meaning close to the previous one</i> -> this word doesn't count<p>OK, thanks for making this but I don't why I can't say <i>the_word_which_shall_not_be_named</i> - it is a perfectly valid word after all even if some feel offended by the mere mentioning of it.
First couple of words it converted to normalized forms, which I guess was intended to make the game easier? The third word I tried ("restlessnesses") it just said it doesn't know at all.
my word was "temperature" and my "voltage" attempt gave a distance of 46, so I was biased and finally gave up. I will try again another day
I got #2 as Humidity, #22 as Humid, Hint gave me #3 as Celcius, so I guessed Farenheit which was #484. Give up, answer was Temperature. Really? Celcius #3 and Farneheit #484? smh.
My best guess was Water too today. But Temperature as a solution was a way far imo. Can you align the similarity index somehow? Does it evolve? Is it GPT?
It’s a little janky. My word was “temperature”. I got to “water” (no. 29) and then got stuck. Words leading up to it were rain, cloud, storm. Hard to take the leap from there to “temperature”