i'll be leaving the site....happy gambling

I admit I made a mistake, and this question should be settled on the numbers used at www.imdb.com, the settlement source stated in The Rules. This site quotes the US weekend box-office figures.

Sorry to see you go pisc4d!

First off, I'm sorry that you are leaving. I'll be the first to admit that we've screwed up a number of times in the past week so I understand the reasons why. I totally respect the amount of time and advice we have been given by you and other users on the site. The site is in beta but we aspire it to be a lot better.

On the clarifications we introduced that as early on a lot of users were getting frustrated about the number of questions that were getting voided due to vague settlement conditions. The clarifications were introduced in order to reduce that, however they are obviously introducing the problems. It seems like if there is any significant uncertainty then it would be better just to void the question. Do you agree?

On the speed of response, I wasn't aware there was an issue here. The contact form (http://www.hubdub.com/public/contact) is manned 7 days a week and in general you should get a response within hours (depending on the time of day).

Category editors only have one user name and that hasn't changed since the launch. Identifying editors is on the feature list but slipped in priority to get other elements out. I will re-prioritise it now.

I am sorry to see you go Pics4d. I completely understand your frustration. Voiding a question is a simple thing, it gives back those invested in a question thier original wager and if it is done within the 12 hours of question being submitted won't allow anyone to profit from cashing in from obvious gaming questions. I believe the priorities of this site simply need to reflect what the majority of users enjoy about the site. Most enjoy wagering on the questions not creating them, some users do an amazing job of creating questions (crudsy for one) does amazing job on sports questions. I believe that questions need vetted, this would solve 90% of the issues that arise. A person that creates question can't wager for 12 hours, a person betting on question can't cash out for those same 12 hours, so why not have a process in which questions submitted were vetted within 12 hours. We could allow questions created by category editors and certain users who have been vetted to have thier questions go live immediately. I also think we could have a wider range of pre-written questions for events we know will take place. We know the markets, we know the dates of sporting events, we know the olympics are coming up, questions could be generated and introduced as the time was appropriate.
As to how disputes should be resolved, I believe that the editors really want to do the right thing, trying to read what someone means is challenging. If a hubdub official makes a comment about clarification on a question, then that should be "official". When mistakes are made it should be fixed as soon as possible.
I have been having the same thoughts as pics4d as to leaving the site, but instead of just been participating less. I have been making far less money cause I am staying out of questions which could be controversial, just because it isn't worth the hassle.

Not happy at all that 4d is leaving.

I can't say I don't understand the frustration though. Here's a discussion, largely among HD editors and admins about the GTA IV violence question:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
I don't understand how that discussion is engendered by the actual question. Are they bored?

This is a very serious problem. Out of good manners, and also out of a worry about setting a judge against one, it's a serious matter to criticize the people who judge HD questions. But a game (and a market) relies on its rules and their fair and knowledgeable interpretation - there's a deep reason behind the saying "as sober as a judge". To their credit, this discussion is not on the comments tab of the actual question, but they seem to be saying that the question about GTA IV will be interpreted as about GTA in general. WHY?!?!?

Other than quitting (but not quietly) or staying but risking offending the people who judge the questions we bet on, how are we to indicate to HD a growing general frustration with the method in which certain questions are being settled, voided, or re-interpreted via comments?

The Spitzer issue was not about ambiguity of question or language. It was about a very small minority vocally claiming a case (again and again) for a clever re-interpretation of an obvious set of questions against a clear majority who thought common-sense was the way to go - that is, until the category editor suggested there really was ambiguity in common sense and they'd be siding with the minority, thereby changing the meaning of the question to something no-one had actually bet on previous to their statement. It happened, big deal. But it's going to keep happening (and currently is happening) until clear guidelines for judging are implemented and enforced. And the users can't do much about it except complain - it's a serious, but internal, matter. We can say how important it is, but ultimately it's like the addition of a feature - totally in your hands.

It can't have escaped attention that the people most concerned about this are among the group of users who have most participated in the discussions here at the forum, have solid records of successful questions created, and to boot are among the most successful at the game so far. We love this game, and we give our time to this game. There is also no personal animosity towards HD or any of its representatives expressed in our concerns. We are just responding to a "drift" in the affairs of the game, and are saying, "It really matters."

"and remember..i will get caught". Yes, but when. I have you down for getting passed in August. ;-) [Unfortunately, when I wrote the question you were $205 K ahead but now it's more than 225K!]

It is very clear we need to fix the process of question clarification. Within the next month we are planning on introducing functionality that allows power users such as yourselves to vet new questions.

However we need a short term solution. An alternative process on a cat ed finding a vague question would be:
1. Suspend the question
2. Post on the settlement details and comments that we are seeking clarification (also post to Get Satisfaction?)
3. Email the question creator for clarification
4. Post question creator clarification in comments
5. If there is consensus around the question then unsuspend with clarification. If there isn't then void

One feature that we will release early next week (deadline for Tom!) is the ability for question creators to edit and then re-publish their voided questions. That should make the experience of getting your questions voided less frustrating.

Thoughts?

As one of the few non-power (feeble?) users in the forum, I'd like to add my humble perspective:
a) agree power user vetting is critical. i think users should NOT be able to bid on the questions they vet (and possibly on the ones they write too although this is difficult for the really prolific questioners)
b) automated generation of the everyday questions would be really great and eliminate some issues

Short term solution comments:
a) definitely a question should be suspended during clarification. the spitzer question came down to betting on what ryan would do, not anything about the actual news case
b) certainly the question creator should get a bigger say in what he/she meant the question to be. too frequently they seem to be excluded from the decison making process.
c) '5. finding consensus' will be very difficult to define. do you take the first 3 commenters you get? all the comments in the first 2 hours of posting? 1/3 of the people who have bet on the question? even after 280+ comments on spitzer, do you really know what the consensus was on when he resigned? I don't.

Anyway, if its important to get some discussion going about a particular question, there should be someway to call attention to it. Because I'm very bored and find it amusing, I always read through all of the new comments posted so I notice when a topic is getting a lot of discussion. However, I'd like to think that most people have better things to do with their time. Maybe you could have another tab (besides newest, activity, closing soon, etc) that says "awaiting clarification or consensus" so people can see easily the questions that you're looking for comments on and see if they have a say in them.

I want to state what I think is a fundamental difference between what I see the value of this site and what others may. I enjoy the news, I am a news junkie, this site provides a great opportunity to use some of the knowledge I have about current events in order to move up the leaderboard, as well as learn about subjects that I may have not been aware of. I have learned a great deal about news topics I might not have been normally reading. I also found a group of people who were addicted to news like myself, were very intelligent, and that was enjoyable. Those of us that have been here for a while have seen the "gamers" come and go, we have weathered stormy questions before (ie.. wind chill).
I feel this site is great because it allows people to wager on news questions, I don't get excited about creating questions and seeing how they play out. I think most people that create questions do so in order to fill a void. Crudsy (sorry don't know your real name, nor will you add me as a friend), has been doing amazing job with sports questions, as has beezler and sdchargers. There are amazing people writing questions for the stock markets, not because they want to see how wonderful they can write a question, but becuase questions don't exist. I feel that the gaming of this site, the clarity of questions could be drastically reduced by having questions in advance of known events. We know there will be stock market questions each day. We know the major sports schedules, the entertainment shows, we can make these questions more standard and reduce some of the issues just by doing that. Secondly, vetting questions before allowing them to go live is a must. And once a question is vetted, allowing it to be fully functioning immediately. Today is good example we have a question about the market that is under the 12 hour rule and no one can cash in positions, therefore market is getting little play. I think if category editor or power user was to vett this question then it could immediately be open to wagering. I feel that power users and category editors vetting questions would make for a good win win situation. I would allow power users to wager on the questions they vetted, these people vetting them are only saying yes it is clear, no it is not clear, or it needs further analysis.
I think people would have more fun wagering on the questions that are created, knowing there were clear common sense settlement guidelines, than they do by creating questions.

You are right, it has been a bad week on the admin side.

We are really focused on opening up things like question verification and settlement to power users. Of course any functionality, we release will need to ensure a high level of accuracy of question settlement (we are still working on the design of that one).

If there are any specific exchange rule changes you would like us to make then feel free to suggest them (here or by email).

I am so happy to see pics4d back. I don't doubt that they will soon be back on top of the leaderboard, but in meantime, I am going to enjoy my number 5 status. Now I just need crudsy to have an off day. I am looking forward to being able to chat directly with other users, I have posted my email on here for others, feel free to send a message.

Thanks for your comments Destry and Anaverageamerican. You're absolutely right about ceding question approval rights to users. Power User vetting and Power User settlement have always been in the plan for Hubdub (since it was just a sketch on our kitchen table!). It is the only way we can hope to keep up with the growing number of questions. But it's going to take a little more time to implement it.

Assuming all goes to plan, the Power User vetting will be with us in a month which will help enomously in flushing out problem questions. Clearly, we couldn't have implemented it before now as we are ALL learning what makes a good and easily settleable question, and we are also learning what makes a good power user.

As you know only too well, the last week has thrown up a significant number of problem questions, all of which will be referred to as case examples by cat editors and future power users alike. So although it's been painful, it's also been incredibly useful.

Thanks again for helping us to make Hubdub better. We really appreciate your suggestions.

Hi jennieand boys - thanks for your input on this one. You're right about the power user vetting (See my reply below to destry & anaverage). Automated generation of questions would be a little tricky technically I suspect, but I think that as everyone gets more familiar with question creation, with the user vetting and the ability for creators to edit their questions after they've been posted, these problems should resolve themselves.

On your short term solution comments, your C) comment is a good point - I'm suggesting that we give it 12 hours from the suspend time and if no consensus has been reached, then we void it. What do you think?

I'll suggest the separate tab for questions requiring clarification to Tom, the Product Manager. Good suggestion.

Thanks again for your input, it is appreciated!

Lesley.