Wordle

Filed under: Games
5 Comments

I feel like I ought to post about Wordle, a browser game by Josh Wardle that has become a huge fad in the last four weeks or so.

Except that… I don’t really have much to say about it. It’s a pleasant enough game (not new), but the interesting thing is how and why it became a fad, and that doesn’t really have anything to do with Words as such. Or stuff. Maybe stuff. Anyway, it’s a word-related fad, and maybe all y’all have something interesting to say about it.

I will add that as with every fad, there has been related stuff, jokes and riffs and parodies and whatnot. Some of those include Absurdle, Lewdle, Queerdle and Letterle. And lots of others.

Thanks,
-Ed.

5 Responses to “Wordle”

  1. -Ed.

    I should add dordle to the list. That one is double-wordle, guessing two words simultaneously, and I find it very interesting and difficult.

    Thanks,
    -E.

    reply

    • -Ed.

      And now Quordle.

      As friend of the blog irilyth observes, we can only assume this escalation will continue until morale improves.

      Thanks,
      -E.

      reply

      • -Ed.

        Daily 12-dle #0007
        18 : 14&6&7&13&8&11&18&9&15&16&3&17
        polydle.github.io

        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
        🟨🟨⬜⬜⬜
        🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
        🟩🟨⬜⬜⬜
        🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        🟨🟨⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        🟩⬜🟩⬜⬜
        🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
        🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
        ⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜🟨🟩⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜🟩⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜🟩⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
        ⬜🟩⬜🟩⬜
        ⬜🟩⬜🟩🟩
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
        🟨⬜🟨🟩⬜
        ⬜⬜🟨🟩⬜
        ⬜🟩⬜🟩🟩
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        🟩⬜⬜⬜🟩
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩
        ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
        ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
        ⬜🟨⬜🟩⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜🟩⬜
        🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
        🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
        ⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜
        🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟩
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜🟩🟨🟩
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟩
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
        ⬜⬜🟨🟨🟨
        🟩⬜⬜🟨🟨
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟩🟨⬜🟨
        🟩🟩⬜⬜🟨
        ⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜
        🟩⬜⬜🟩🟩
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜🟨🟩🟩
        ⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        ⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
        ⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
        🟨🟩⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨
        ⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
        ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
        ⬜⬜⬜🟩🟨
        ⬜⬜⬜🟩🟨
        🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

        reply

  2. nj

    “it […] doesn’t really have anything to do with Words as such” – this reminded me of something that is obvious, but that I think about once in awhile.

    There’s a book called “Making the Alphabet Dance: Recreational Wordplay” by Ross Eckler that I bought a long time ago on the recommendation of a friend who knew I was into words, puzzles, and recreational math. I liked the book, but when I read it I remember thinking that it wasn’t “wordplay”. The reason is that the book is purely “lexical”: it’s about things like palindromes, word ladders, uncommon bigrams within words, etc. In other words, it treats words completely non-semantically; all the same analyses could be done on any arbitrary subset of strings of any symbol set.

    But, of course, it’s only interesting to us *because* of our semantic connection to our language’s lexicon. The semantic content itself has nothing to do with the analyses in the book, but we wouldn’t find it fun or engaging to play with a lexicon if the words didn’t have some kind of meaning for us. (I could also be interested in seeing similar lexical analyses of a language I didn’t understand at all. But I have to at least *believe* that it is an actual language’s lexicon, and not a random subset of strings, because it’s the fact that this subset grew organically through additions and changes to a language that makes it seem worth analyzing.)

    And, of course, I’m being persnickety in saying this isn’t “wordplay”, since it is obviously a form of play with words, but to me “wordplay” means things like puns, which do involve semantics.

    In any case, I think about Wordle the same way. It’s not about words in the sense that it has nothing to do with their meanings; you can play the same game with abstract symbols (and in fact Mastermind, the 70s game it resembles, was originally a game with abstract colors). But it is about words in the sense that you have to be quite familiar with the lexicon and some statistical facts about it in order to play; and ultimately that lexicon was shaped by etymological transformations based on other linguistic factors like semantics, phonology, and orthography. Those ultimately only have a very convoluted connection with the positional and non-positional letter frequencies that are at the heart of playing Wordle, but it’s a little interesting to think about how they do connect. Might be an interesting topic for some analysis…

    reply

  3. Jessica Bernstein

    Just wanted to brag.
    Wordle 274 2/6

    ⬛🟩⬛🟨⬛
    🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

    reply

Join the Conversation