Incorrect Settlement

Being the question creator, I felt that I should respond to this. I attached a link to weather underground, not knowing that the rules stated that NOAA was to be consulted. In all fairness, I think that the question shoukd remain as it is, or if necessary, be voided.

[N.B. I lost $1600 on this]

I think any website (Weather Underground) that posts incorrect data against a renowned authority for the data doesn't qualify as reputable. If the sight was reputable, they'd have posted the correct data. I was under the impression that the rules for the site call for a report from a major, reputable news site such as the National Weather Service (NOAA). Weather Underground isn't major and isn't reputable in the US.

Jet lagged? Been travelling, or just staying up late settling Hubdub questions?

What is the basis for this comment? Can you provide a link to a NOAA site that you are certain is physically in the same location as the WeatherUnderground site?

I'm not being belligerent, if you have such a site, I agree you could make a legitimate case for challenging this settlement. OTOH, I don't speak for Hubdub (I'm just a humble participant)

Question was: Will the temperature at Washington D.C., USA fall below 0 degrees Celsius on Wednesday, 13th February 2008?

Answer was: YES. It reached -1.1 Celsius or -30 F.

This brings up a critical issue for the future of the site. Does inaccuracy count as valid?

If NFL.com reports Tom Brady passed for 210 yards, but Fred's Page.com said he passed for 180, or FIFA.com said Ronaldo scored 2 goals but SoccerFreak.com said only one goal, which one matters?

The site mandates data from a 'major, reputable news source.'

I submit that if the question is based on settlement from a non-reputable news source and the truth can be proven from a MORE reputable source, both sides should be declared winners.

Destry & AvgAmerican, Glad you won. This is far less about my useless 'virtual dollars' and more about ambiguity going forward. This issue requires addressing as it'll no doubt come up again and again.

PS: Destry, do you wear that tie in public??? ;-D

Why does it always feel like I'm talking to the wall? Can anyone possibly address the issue at hand instead of turning defensive? I'm seeking intelligent answers only.

I'll say it again:

This brings up a critical issue for the future of the site. Does inaccuracy count as valid?

If NFL.com reports Tom Brady passed for 210 yards, but Fred's Page.com said he passed for 201 yards, or FIFA.com said Ronaldo scored 2 goals but SoccerFreak.com said only one goal, which one matters?

The site rules mandate data from a 'major, reputable news source.' I thought the truth counts for something, regardless.

*** I submit that if the question is based on settlement from a non-reputable news source and the truth can be proven from a MORE reputable source, at the very least, both sides should be declared winners.***

Thoughts relevant to the above issue are welcome.

Rohan,

I don't think the rules existed, except as a concept at GetSatisfaction, when you created this question. I think it was a very interesting, well-formed, question (not to mention I made H$2K on it and my son made arond H$10K).

In my opinion, if blueseamiami can deliver a NOAA website linking to a sensor in the same physical location as the weather undergound's sensor he has a legitimate challenge to the Hubdub settlement.

Good point Destry. Blueseamiami what is your basis for condemning weatherundergound as not reputable?

I often find that the most reliable information I get is from non-mainstream media. I cite Michael Yon and Michael Totten as examples of this phenomenon.

its interesting that the temperatures reported on noaa were not accurate or reputable enough for miami when he won 20k and instead pointed out a local newscast, but now that he lost 20k he is holding them up to be the perfect arbiter of all things weather....i'm sure he'll just come back with something lame demeaning me as a person like calling me a terrorist or something because of my icon, not realizing or caring that i'll proly never look at this page again...
question: am i a prick
answer: yes
question: do i care
answer: no

not that i expect u to actually read this or think about what i say considering it's coming from me and u didn't even bother to contemplate what nigel said, but i'll try to explain....lets first deal with the issue of accuracy and reputation of the website in question...it is perfectly reasonable that both of these statements could be true....the temperature difference is probably simply due to the fact that the government usually takes temperatures at airports when possible, and the website could be taking a temperature reading from within the city where there is more concrete and less open ground....concrete has thermal mass, which means it collects heat and radiates it back out into the air...this is why temperatures are usually higher within the city than immediately outside of the city....so it is entirely possible that the reading on weather underground is both accurate and reliable, it is simply a reading from above some concrete instead of an open space....it could also be possible that weather underground takes a temperature at ground level, while noaa's thermometer is higher above ground...again same concept....as to why they would use the other site instead of noaa-it clearly states in the rules that if a settlement source is given, then that site will be the one used to settle the question, if none is given then they will use a mainstream, reputable sources...just because one thermometer in one place reads a given temperature, does not mean that all thermometers in the same city will read the exact same temperature...which brings us to which is MORE accurate-it is also perfectly reasonable that both temperature readings are accurate, however the settlement link was posted and if you had a problem with that source then you shouldn't have placed the wager....you lost on a technicality, just like you won on a technicality...i'd just call it karma and put your analytical mind to work next time to do something called critical thinking.

4d,

I was following the contrarian side of this prediction pretty closely, since that was my position. At 7pm the temperature reported by the site referenced in the Settlement Details was 9 degrees F above that site's forecast. That was when I decided to take a position on the "No" side.

The rules were under discussion at that point in time on the GetSatisfaction forum (where I think _you_ are participating now, props!) so rohan had no reason to select a NOAA site in his settlement requirements.

To my son's benefit BlueSeaMiami took a huge Yes position and drove No down to around 1%. Skipper took a H$300 position on No and settled for around H$8K. The little sh*t is ahead of me on the (not front page) leaderboard, but I'm proud of him ... not pissed. Maybe the family anti-fortune has a chance of turning into a family fortune 8^)

You'll never hear me whine and cry like you do 4d. If I'm wrong, I shake it off and move on. And that's exactly what I'm doing, even though I wasn't 'wrong.' For all your ramblings, you've failed to correctly address the issue which I'd stated.

A better policy ought to be in effect when conflicting data is presented, by multiple sites. This is a news wagering site. Truth ought to matter from ANY mainstream source. Just my view.