Although Josh Wardle and partner Palak Shah developed a visually appealing and very simple game to play, I don't know if that's the feature that most attracts me. I also don't think that it's just the idea of the word game. I like word games, but in recent months favorite Words With Friends became so thick with ads and did so little to screen those ads for legitimacy, variety or even working code that won't freeze your tablet I had to stop playing.
I think, in fact, I like it most because once you have played for the day you can go about your business until the next day. Wordle is a quick diversion that's not specifically designed to grab and hold your attention as long as possible. Unlike a big chunk of modern online content, the goal is not to monetize your blank unstaring gaze at the screen.
Technically, Wardle didn't have monetizing as a goal at all. And even though the New York Times purchased it from him, they have experienced a rare realization that something which the Times did not produce already worked and they didn't mess with the core of the game. They have tinkered with a few things, both sensible (fewer British spellings) and not (removal of words Times staff found uncomfortable, like "slave," "lynch," "fetus" and "Weiss.") Most of their changes have been outside the main game architecture and thus easily (and probably wisely) ignored.
And it's that one word, one day architecture that I appreciate the most. No algorithm designed to keep me scrolling, no emphasis on conflict to grab my eyeballs and chain them to the virtual galley bench. A quick, interesting, fun, satisfying and rewarding experience before moving on to the day's business. I think they once called it "play."
(P.S. - I have no idea if the word "Weiss" was ever a legit Wordle guess. But since it represents a modern NYT embarrassing failure, I thought it was a good joke.)
