Loading Profile...
Display Original "Likelihood Percentages" on Question Page
A suggestion to add to your recent product enhancements on question pages: add a box that displays the beginning likelihood percentages (when the question was created).
The "history" information is usually helpful for the latest changes, but it would be interesting to be able to see where the question "started out".
For new questions, this would provide clear information on potential gaming questions. As it is, one significant bet on a new question can significantly change the displayed percentages, and it's not always clear where the question "began".
The "history" information is usually helpful for the latest changes, but it would be interesting to be able to see where the question "started out".
For new questions, this would provide clear information on potential gaming questions. As it is, one significant bet on a new question can significantly change the displayed percentages, and it's not always clear where the question "began".
4
people like this idea
I like this idea!
Tell me when this idea gets some attention.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
-
Inappropriate?I couldn't agree with you more TruthWrangler, this is a great suggestion. It might also be an indicator of the quality of the Hubdub community at predicting events.
-
Inappropriate?I didn't think of that Average American ... that would likely be the BEST reason for having this feature! -
Inappropriate?If the likelihoods aren't all equal, I'd also like to know why. This could have its own text box, or be required in the background text box. It should be easy to read/find. Then we can quickly flag bad odds. If the question is a good one otherwise, the odds could be reset by an editor (I guess you'd have to void all previous bets, but maybe not the question itself), and if not, then void (and perhaps a note taken by the admins to catch people whose likelihoods are always off).
-
Inappropriate?Infernal Machine, I agree that unequal likelihoods are, or can be, problematic ... and I sometimes wonder "why" a percentage is set the way it is.
OTOH, sometimes I can only go with a "gut feel" ... I may not know what the exact odds are -- but I do "know" they aren't 50-50. If I had to try to explain why I set the odds the way I did, they would probably all look like this (but with varying likelihood ranges:
<http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_H...>
... in short, I wouldn't be adding information of any real value.
Maybe there will be other suggestions that help with this. -
Inappropriate?But the fact you bother to try to explain your odds makes the question seem legitimate. That's all that's required. The viewer can think for a second, go "sounds fair", and forget about the initial odds - the market will correct them if they're off a little. But they aren't ridiculous (95% probably would be). Of course a question like "Will Obama be mentioned in Sunday's New York Times?" set at 50-50 should require an explanation too. The only difference is that the profit is restricted to 100% if you take advantage of the bad odds at 50-50, while 95-5 when it should be 5-95 or 1-99 allows a potential 1900% profit on the first bet.
The idea behind the explanation is to help the users decide if they think the question should be flagged for voiding. -
Inappropriate?TruthWrangler,
That question is top-notch. Many Hubdbbers put the fine print in the Settlement Details. Personally, I think that is okay, but I think many users never look at the Settlement Details 'til they want to settle. Putting the nuances into the background ensures nobody can say, "It was buried in the Settlement Details". Props to you!
TruthWrangler and InfernalMachine,
I'm opposed to the question creator getting to set initial odds. IMHO, it is antithetical to the concept of Hubdub as a news predictor to allow an user to set initial odds on a prediction, that could influence other users predictions/investments. This practice is ripe for gaming, and even in the most sincere of circumstances, can lead to some Hubdubbers gaining an unfair advantage.
IMO the only way to address this is by, either having HD admins preview, and approve, all questions prior to their being open for investment by the community, or the same thing via some mechanism of trusted users previewing questions
-
Inappropriate?I can see where this is leading (or maybe where I am leading it :P) On top of 60+ hour work weeks I'll be a "trusted user", and spend another 60 hours reviewing questions for Hubdub.
Story of my life (I mean lives ... only I can hear the voices 8^)
I’m happy
-
Inappropriate?I'm not sure if explanations should be enforced. I for one would step down with creating questions, if I'd have to explain why Bayern is the huge favorite against Aberdeen, for example, all the time.
Creators already can use the background informations if they think that it's useful. If odds are realistic or not, will be recognized by others who have the necessary knowledge in that case anyways. No need to describe the materia so that really everyone understands the pro & contra. -
Inappropriate?I see your point. Trusted question writers (like yourself) who create lots of questions at a time would find it very time-consuming. It's just that it's hard sometimes, just looking at a number, to see where the person who set the odds is coming from. So ultimately it comes down to some kind of reputation. But new users and untrusted users should have to earn that reputation, whereupon the explanation is not as necessary.
-
Inappropriate?That's correct of course. I just hope that the HD Staff comes up with some good ideas how to raise ( and afterwards how to use ) those credited veterans or powerusers.
I already mentioned my void alert level once, I could imagine some ways to enhance that. For example give those who made many many questions in a category and have a very high settlement quote, plus maybe even made very much money on that field a higer void rating power than the common user. Summarize it and after a certain limit cause an automativ ( temporary ) void.
Another idea - increase the informations given in the creator's box. Add why the questioners previous questions got voided. Was it impossible to settle, bad odds or whatever reason the could be. Just 3-4 categories should be enough, so that you know where you have to look for mistakes. And perhaps don't mention only the percentage of settled questions, mark quality by stars or colors for example.
Or an enhancement of InfernalMachine's idea: prevent extreme odds by newcomers. Till the users reaches a certain reputation it should be impossible for them to create quotes with less than 15% for example. If they still want to do so, they will have to offer explanations like suggested. That should help all sides, the vets, the newcomers and the gamblers ;)
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
