Loading Profile...
EMPLOYEE
Product development: Power user vetting and leaderboards
We are currently adding a number of small enhancements to Hubdub like making the suspend and settlement more transparent. However we are also planning some longer term releases. One of the biggest concerns raised to date concerns settlement times, poorly worded questions and gaming of the system.
In many ways Hubdub is a game. However it is one in which we collectively can set the rules. What we always wanted to do was create a game that identified people that were very good a predicting future events (including predicting price movements). Currently there are some ways for users to be succesful without being good at that, which we would define as gaming the system. If gaming becomes too prevalent then it negatively affects everyone. Therefore we are working on a bunch of ways to try to reduce it.
The three elements to this development are:
(1) Power user vetting - Power users get to vote up/down new questions before they open for trading. If a question gets three down votes then the question is voided and sent back to the creator (who can edit and re-submit). Three up votes opens it to trading. Non-power users can become a power user by successfully creating 5 questions which go through first time.
(2) Weekly leaderboards - Users are ranked on their % position improvement in the past week. Therefore each week everyone starts of level.
(3) Friend leaderboards - Users can select who they want to compete against. Think another user is gaming the system, then don't include him/her on your personal leaderboard. (We are really excited about this feature)
In many ways Hubdub is a game. However it is one in which we collectively can set the rules. What we always wanted to do was create a game that identified people that were very good a predicting future events (including predicting price movements). Currently there are some ways for users to be succesful without being good at that, which we would define as gaming the system. If gaming becomes too prevalent then it negatively affects everyone. Therefore we are working on a bunch of ways to try to reduce it.
The three elements to this development are:
(1) Power user vetting - Power users get to vote up/down new questions before they open for trading. If a question gets three down votes then the question is voided and sent back to the creator (who can edit and re-submit). Three up votes opens it to trading. Non-power users can become a power user by successfully creating 5 questions which go through first time.
(2) Weekly leaderboards - Users are ranked on their % position improvement in the past week. Therefore each week everyone starts of level.
(3) Friend leaderboards - Users can select who they want to compete against. Think another user is gaming the system, then don't include him/her on your personal leaderboard. (We are really excited about this feature)
6
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?Sounds very interesting, I like the idea of being able to eliminate the "gamers" from your personal leader board.
I am still curious as to why you cannot "police" the gamers more aggressively. Is this something the lawyers have advised against. It would seem to be very problematic to take winnings away from players to be sure, but banning them should not be a problem. It could be easily written in the TOS that gamers will have there accounts deleted if.... No need to try to ban their I.P. address, just keep closing accounts that game the system.
Also a "Court of Arbitration" could be set up of users to determine if somebody is gaming the system. But that would require a lot of work.
I say just keep throwing the bums out.
I’m confident
-
Inappropriate?I like the idea of power users. I feel there should be only a select view of them. I think we should have new questions reviewed by either category editor or power user, who can approve or veto the question. They can then set the values, and make the question live. I believe more people are interested in wagering on questions than creating questions, and if there was a delay between submitting question and it appearing on the site that wouldn't be a big deal. That would stop alot of the gaming of the system.
1 person thinks
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?For the vetting, could you have a text field for explaining why a down vote was given? These could then be sent to the creator as feedback.
Also, how does the power user handle questions that are unfamiliar to them, which might or might not be relevant to others in the community? Thumbs down for irrelevance, or just pass on it? Clear guidelines for the power user would be a good idea.
1 person thinks
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?What constitutes a power user? I'd like to be in that group.
Currently, whenever I come across a question that needs to be voided, I submit a settlement request and I explain the reason why the question should be voided. I also post my concerns in the comments section. I've noticed that most of my void requests are handled quite quickly.
Thanks guys!
I’m Steph!
-
Inappropriate?Non-power users can become a power user by successfully creating 5 questions which go through first time. This functionality will take a bit of time.
But tomorrow we are hoping to release functionality that will publish all the settlement requests. Therefore you can see when other people are requesting a question be settled.
2 people think
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?All three of those ideas are freakin genius. I love the weekly leader boards. Also the power user is good. You should get a reward for creating good questions. I think this site can run the way wikipedia does. That site is all user created content and if you put stuff on there that isn't true, other users can get rid of it. It worked well and I trust the info that is there. I think in time these hickups will work out. -
Inappropriate?The times they are a changing. Love to see all the feedback. In the old days before I was an artist I used to pound Customer Service into my employees heads all the time. You guys are doing great. Keep it up!
So your are up either very early or awfully late.
I’m off the hook!
-
Inappropriate?I've been thinking about this a bit, and have some contrarian views (like usual). I like the power user question vetting idea, which I think will take care of most of the "gaming" issue, but think it should focus mostly on the structure of the question, and whether the question _can_ be settled.
Other suggestions on the "gaming" issue are: not allowing the question creator to set initial probability outside of some (negotiable by the community) range, such as less than 40% or greater than 60%; a time period in which the question creator cannot predict the question they create, maybe .5 to 1.5 hours. This will dissuade users from intentionally "gaming " the system by lowering the payoff for doing so. The initial probability cannot be set in an unreasonable manner, and even if that is the case the user cannot cash-in immediately giving the market time to adjust to the unreasonable (within limits) initial probability.
The only downside I see, is that users that stumble upon someone else trying to "game" the game might get some tidy payoffs. Upon reflection, I'm pretty sure I did this, though I was not aware of it at the time (so maybe it's an upside, too)
I’m happy made H$, but sad that someone was "gaming" the system.
-
Inappropriate?One other thing, my idea does nothing to prevent users with multiple accounts, or users in collusion with one another, from "gaming" the system. Preventing those events would require more technical measures, and might require data mining technology.
Think about the last time the credit card company called and asked, "Mr AnAverageAmerican, did you just spend H$3,000 wagering that the Sunday Times' headline would begin with a consonant?"
I’m contributing to the community!
-
Inappropriate?Multiple accounts can be partially remidied by blocking multiple registrations from the same IP address. I have seen this process implemented on other sites. The ideas are great and while they may kill the weekly contests on the forum, I knew that it would be temporary anyway. :)
I’m enjoying watching HD grow!
-
Inappropriate?I think the requirements could and should be a bit higher for the status of a power user.
Well it really depends on the level of charge you'll want to burden onto those users. But just 5 good questions ? ... that can be done within 10 minutes, while it surely doesn't gurantee a users addicition to the right stuff after those 10 minutes ;) -
Inappropriate?On the other hand, multiple accounts from the same IP can be completely legitimate. One of my sons is also a user, and since we use the same cable modem we should expose the same IP address to the outside 'net. Should one of us have to sacrifice their account to satisfy this?
I’m enjoying being part of HD's growth!
2 people think
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?I understand this. However, in many sites where multiple accounts can cause gaming or cheating, only one account per IP/household is the norm. I am not saying this is the definitive answer and the fact is the old saying about one bad apple comes to mind.
I’m sorry there isn't a better solution.
-
Inappropriate?I agree to disagree. I do not think blocking multiple accounts from the same IP address would be in the best interest of Hubdub. It is imperative for a new site to build a community, and Hubdub is doing an outstanding job in this regard (as evidenced by this forum established by a user to facilitate communication).
In my opinion in a not-for-real-money game like Hubdub it will be impossible to completely eliminate gaming. The big casinos around the world, which are the commercial interests that allocate the highest proportion of their revenue to thwart cheating, do not achieve 100% success. Should we hold Hubdub to a higher standard?
I’m not _so_ concerned about gaming.
-
Inappropriate?Unfortunately I doubt anyone will want to continue to play when the cheaters spoil the fun for other players. Hubdub will not last if some effort is not made to thwart cheaters.
Vegas spends 100's of Millions of dollars in security and fraud prevention. I do not think that Hubdub needs to waste an inordinate amount of time with people "gaming the system. It takes away from more pressing issues like growing the site, making it fun for users and generating revenue for the Hubdub team.
The solution is quite simple, it is not to difficult to figure out who is gaming the system if you can see everything the users are doing. Devote someone on the staff who's responsibility it is for fraud prevention. When you find someone cheating give them a warning and if they do it again boot them the #$#% out of the game.
Of course if the system was completely transparent to the community the users would quickly spot the gamers and...well you get the idea...
I’m confident a solution will be found!
-
Inappropriate?I want to clarify that I was specifically recommending that Hubdub not prohibit multiple accounts using the same IP address, not that they make no attempt to prevent cheating. My wild-ass guess as to the number of legitimate multiple accounts using the same IP vs. cheaters would be 90%+. Using multiple accounts at the same IP is too easy to detect if you _are_ cheating, and it's easy to spoof an IP or to have internet access through a multiple IP's if you're serious about cheating.
As I recommended on a separate thread, I think all predictions should be confidential until they have settled. After settlement they should become public so users who suspect cheating can have access to the evidence.
Having said all of that, I do not think Hubdub will be able to police serious cheaters, and I think that at this early stage in the site's development it is in the interest of the Hubdub team to err on the side of allowing cheating if they cannot prevent it. In my opinion the site will lose more users as a result of Draconian rules than as a result of cheaters reaching the top of the leaderboard.
And the game the site creators are in is all about having users, and not registrations, but users who log on every day and participate, Build the community and the advertisers will come!
I’m wishing I had thought of Hubdub!
-
Inappropriate?"I think all predictions should be confidential until they have settled. After settlement they should become public so users who suspect cheating can have access to the evidence."
As I stated earlier anaverageamericans idea is excellent. Transparency is the key, but I think I have said that before. LOL
I’m confident
-
Inappropriate?Hey, I'm old! I can't remember everything everyone said in every thread! I am very impressed by the creativity, community spirit, willingness to participate and lack of animosity evidenced by the Hubdub community.
A forum in which folks can express opinions, disagree, negotiate, and not get flamed _really_ is the very definition of a community.
I’m LOL at myself!
2 people think
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?The problem with the %cap is there are legitimat questions that might have small percentages. As an example: Will parliment call for a no confidence vote in Gordon Brown by the end of 2008?
This happening is not at all likely but it is still a legitimate enws item and should be open to having a question made. Good starting odds for this might be 5% but probably lower. -
Inappropriate?The vetting process is a great idea. Along those lines, might there not be some benefit from establishing a reputation mechanic? In addition to general comunity builing and pride it might let you find the real power users and comunity contributers.
I’m looking forward to becoming a power user
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
