[ISP] Not found in the kitchen.

[ISP] It might. But it is not to be found in the drawing room.

[Lib] Nor in the bathroom.

[Lib] Could be. I think "household item" was misleading, this is merely something you might have in your house. Or in other places.

That's all until this evening -- offline all day.

[Chalky] Not a barrel.

[CdM] You might, if you were transporting it somewhere.

[Lib] It could be of various sizes.

To recap and give a nudge into a more fruitful path: it's a container of things made of wood and metal, which features in a well-known simile, and which could be found in various places, including the home.

[Tuj] It holds one specific type of thing.

[Projoy] Er, saws don't contain anything.

[Projoy] Fair point.

[Projoy] *a ripple of interest in the audience* Not a saw, especially not a wise one.

.. or something like

[Projoy] Probably doesn't have a lid.
[Projoy] *applause* Yes, hardware.
[Projoy] Not a hutch.
[Chalky] *for a moment the audience thought you were going to get it* Not a box of tricks.

[Projoy] *the audience are excited* Not the sharpest tool in the box.

[Projoy] *applause* In a sense, yes.

[Cdm] Yes.

[ISP] None of the above.

Isn't 'not the sharpest tool in the box' more metaphor than simile?

Is it a container of things, made of wood and metal; or is it a container of things made of wood and metal?

[ISP] None of those either, including "not the sharpest tool in the box".
[ISP] It's a container of things made of wood and metal. What the container is made of isn't important.

[Projoy] "Tool" does not appear on the card.

There are four words, including the indefinite article.

[Projoy] You are sharp as a tack. A box of hammers is the exact phrase on the card.

---

OK, here's a chance to go for something better known and redeem myself. ANIMAL

Hmm, new one on me.

[Raak] Interestingly enough - googling " a box of ..." "simile" didn't produce 'hammers, which is a phrase I, personally, have never heard before [not that that is relevant because I've obviously led a sheltered life] - yet ... googling " as dumb as a box of hammers .. produced 1,040,000 results! < Thinks >*must learn to play this game betterer*

"A box of hammers" is not a phrase I have ever heard used by anyone in my long and not-exactly-sheltered life. Maybe the Yanks use it. Well, I'm not a Yank. As if there aren't countless other subjects that could have been used, the words of which exist in everyone's brain, it just being a question of having the inspiration to dig them out. The whole point of the game is that you don't have to Google it, the original game being live with no access to any source of knowledge. Box of Hammers. Stupid.

[Lib] Giraffe? NO
[Tuj] Primate? NO
[Chalky] Edible? NO! *considerable laughter*
[Rosie] Alive? YES

[Rosie] While I had heard the expression 'box of hammers' somewhere in the dim and distant past, enough for me to consider worth googling it for credibility before making my guess, you didn't actually have to have heard of it in order to get the answer. Besides, this game (as CdM once pointed out) is different from the original, and both google, self-education and working outside one's comfort zone are much more part of its fabric. If that makes it harder for those good at rote memorisation of canonical knowledge and easier for those good at on-the-fly research then perhaps that's an unhappy circumstance, but it is at least an index of changes in the world around us! I tend to think it's a good thing, myself, but then I have succesfully googled/guessed quite a lot lately. :) Definitely would concede, having tested it, that chronon was very hard to google up without a fair amount of specialist knowledge and probably therefore inappropriate, but a box of hammers is a concept available to anyone who's heard of hammers and boxes. That said, I would say that my current one shouldn't require google (unless someone asks the wrong question, causing me to give a truthful but obscure and therefore counterintutive and hard-to-synthesise fact about the subject under question).

(Not that there's such a thing as a 'wrong' question in this game, obviously)

[Tuj] Specific, unique? NO

[Chalky] Leggy? YES

Legginess quotient? Two possible sets of answers. Either (ignoring the answer to Tuj's question) YES, NO, NO; or - taking Tuj's answer into account - NO, NO, YES

[ISP] A grouping? YES, but not of the type given in your e.g.

Oh dear, did I cause some trouble? I'm confused, at least.

[ISP] Human race? NO
[Tuj] Group of humans? YES *applause*

Note to self: Read questions AND answers as answers alone may cause confusion.

[UK] A shared interest? YES

[UK] Political? NOT REALLY
[Chalky] Spiritual/Religious? YES! *applause*
[ISP] Furries? NO (my suspicion is that a lot of people would require google for furries!)

A specific sect?

[ISP] A sect? DEPENDS ON POV.

(I would say "no", tho)

(Projoy) If you have to look up the answer it's no longer a game but a research project brought about largely, I suspect, by the instant accessibility of Google and the desire of certain people to show their specialised knowledge. A bit puerile. It ought to be like the original, a test of general knowledge and the ability to quickly connect and recall what's already in you head. This is not the same as rote knowledge, BTW. So the game no longer depends on the ability to think but on the ability to look things up and is therefore no longer a game, or any fun, but tedious. I'll cross it off my list.

[Rosie] Whilst I am with you 100% in being irritated by the plethora of recent 'f**k me that was obscure' targets, I think that after you make your point, and people take it on board, you could enjoy the game once more and continue to contribute as fruitfully as you have in the past. (Hopes Projoy's religion is something that more than ten people have heard of). Please don't go!

[ISP] Scientology? NO.
[Rosie, simul'd by ISP, but since you commented again] I must admit that I find looking stuff up fun (and success in this is totally about ability to think), but I do agree that some of the reward of this game is in either making the right lateral connections to perceive what in retrospect is obvious. Perhaps it would jolly the game up if we swing back for a while to obvious subjects, having had some obscurities on the trot, but equally I can't see any harm in being a bit more tolerant of stuff that falls outside 'Rosie's general knowledge' but within, say, 'Raak's general knowledge' (a category of knowledge in which I for one have found much fascination over the years).