letmewinplees's dashboard

thanks it's nice to know that is being worked on – letmewinplees, on September 11, 2008 14:04

Hey everyone, Ive been reading this forum and I just wanted to say that rewarding the question creators is something I always thought should be a part of the site.
I think one way to do it would be to reward the creator at by the number of correctly settled questions. Maybe every time you reach a certain "level" throw in a bonus.
An example:
beginner
level 1 20 questions settled (and $H500 bonus)
level 2 50 questions ($H1,000 bonus)
level 3 100 questions ($H2,500 bonus)
level 4 200 questions ($H5,000 bonus)
level 5 500 questions ($H10,000 bonus)
You can have an icon similar to Super user indicating what question creation level each user is.
If you stress the fact that the questions have to be settled to count, this will help encourage quality questions.

Glad to hear something like this is being considered (thanks Nigel) and thank you IM for your comment. I really think everyone would benefit from it. As a creator, I would feel more confident knowing my question could be double checked by the admin team. I would be less apprehensive about creating them knowing there was a greater chance of my question not being "unpublished"(voided), flagged, suspended, etc. If I choose, my question could be placed in a review "bucket" and then returned to me with suggestions from the "Hubdub reviewing team". For those questions that I feel more confident in, I could just opt for it to go straight to publication. I think this could also help lighten the load for the staff. – letmewinplees, on August 08, 2008 18:33

I was just creating a new question and as I was about to push "publish question" or whatever that button is right before your question "goes live", something dawned on me. I was thinking about how I would really like someone to review it before I publish it. Why not have that as an option? Instead of all questions going live immediately, have an option for cat editor's review. If a question creator would like their question reviewed allow them to send it directly to the editors. Once reviewed, the creator can be alerted "changes have been made to your question" or "no necessary changes noted by editor" and the creator can then publish it. With this option, the creator can decide for themself if they would like their question to go in to "holding"
ANYONE LIKE THIS IDEA?
IS THIS OPTION POSSIBLE?

I understand the idea of question clarity and trying to come up with "common ground" for producing questions. I still don't see an answer to my question about drawing the line.

I came up with a scenario, hoping this will help get my answer(this I think would be a nightmare for admin):

Lets say I love American football. I love statistics, math and the excitement of it all. I decide I am going to create questions for each team (32 teams in NFL). Here are the questions:

How many total passing yards will the (team name) have this week?
How many total rushing yards will the (team) have this week?
How many total interceptions will the(team)....

Then after making each of those 32 times, I go on to make:
What will be the total passing yards for all games...
What will be the total rushing yards...

Ok so it will take me a while to make all those questions, but I do it successfully. Then I challenge all my friends to wager on it (I have 14 friends, no idea what the average is on that). Lets say 10 of them support me, want to see more questions like this...they love them, too! With all the brackets (starting % done very fair) the value of the questions are good. Lets say each of those questions get $4,000 on it.

These questions have met the criteria, the starting odds were perfect. There's sufficient user interest. I even check back periodically to see if there are comments. I post links to where the answers can be found...do all the responsible ("right") things to do as a creator.

What will the category editor do? mrperfkt said himself he still feels he should check the math before settling.
This is why I keep asking if new rules will apply. Tisha states "For now, we are not implementing any bans on question types, so my advice would be to keep trying new questions that hopefully meet the criteria above"

If Hubdub really takes off and the number of users increases in the way we are all hoping it does, I foresee huge problems. I think the start of football season will attract alot of new folks and settling questions will become more difficult of a task.

COMMENT PLEASE!!

aww tyvm – letmewinplees, on August 06, 2008 01:13

I agree with Nigel about the debatable question of having a "hold and vote" system. You could easily argue both sides. It probably is a good idea for Hubdub to take small steps and see if some tweeking of terminology and some streamlining solves the problem without drastically changing the site. Give it a little time to see if thats all we need.

I also think its great that Hubdub is working on some new sort of market maker to help things run fairly and hopefully there will be less questions with low activity.

I'm still not sure my question about "where to draw the line" with sports statistics, etc has been answered. As a question creator I want to make questions that get alot of activity, but there's no way of telling how its going to do until its published (a little trial and error). How do I know I am creating questions "worth the hassle" of the admin to resolve/settle. Its obvious some questions require more attention to answer (ones involving math and visiting more than one web page, etc).
Is Hubdub going to come up with new guidelines to prevent this type of question from being published? Will there be some new agreement implemented to where the creator agrees to help do the "tedious work" (onus)??

Idea for "approval period"-

(this doesnt solve the "extra time to settle questions" problem, but if there was an approval period maybe it should be something like this)

A user creates a question. Its made public, but not to wager on. Allow other users to give a simple "thumbs up" or down. If you pick down, you must indicate why(comment, ie -unfair odds). After a couple hours or so ( or however long you decide questions should be in waiting), admin or SUs read any comments on it and makes the final decision to let it open for wagering, if it needs editing or doesnt make it to publishing, the admin should state what was changed or reason for disapproval.

IDEAS? THOUGHTS?

In my last comment, I was trying to suggest some ways to deal with the upcoming "congestion" on Hubdub.

The first, creating a seperate page or link just for more "complicated" bets(this was with dieseldog's ideas of keeping them totally seperate). As he suggested, make it clear that these questions could take longer to settle. Is there a way to do that?
Could we also include some stipulation where the question creator agrees to help settle? Maybe the part where it says "as reported by mainstream news..." you can have some options and the creator must check off one of them.
ie-
-settled by direct link to outcome (creator must provide a link that brings you to positive settlement)
-question creator agrees to research answer and provide proof of outcome(anyone wagering on a question of this type agrees to let the creator do math, provide proof, etc)

something like that??

When Hubdubbers go to wager, before putting an amount on a question, it will state clearly which option the creator picked. This way the Hubdubber is agreeing to allow the creator to do the math, etc. In the end admin still has to settle, but maybe not do all the tedious work. Also, you can still keep the option of protesting an incorrectly settled question.

Would something like that work? What does everyone think?

Ive got a few ideas pertaining to the sidebet/statistic type questions.

One idea I thought of was to have a special page just for sidebets/daily settlements. This would be for the questions that take longer to settle, etc.(that require math or other extensive research). Have some guidelines for posting questions. For example, the question has to be posted for at least 24 hours before suspension. There has to be a minimum number of HDrs wagering (15??) or a minimum total wagers. Once the suspension is reached, if those are not fulfilled, void the question for "lack of user interest". Clearly state these questions could take longer to settle on the page.

Another idea I had was something similar but doesnt require its own page. Is it possible to implement an "approval period". Before your question is actually posted for people to wager on, it goes through a screening process (by admin/super users). The question would have to meet certain guidelines (whatever rules admin settles on). Once it gets approved it will be posted and open for wagers. A nice idea would be to reward the quesiton creators with some Hubdub $$ for creating such a worthy question. A little incentive to want to create "quality" questions.

My third idea was to just simply come up with new guidelines and rules about making sports question. Limit the types of questions that can be posted. Maybe just YES or NO (ie will giants win superbowl, will chargers beat 49rs...with good starting percentages). Anything involving math could be limited to game SCORES only. (no yards, # of interceptions etc) Just SCORES.

What do you all think? Any ideas or thoughts? Are any of these suggestions possible?

Is there a way the "admin team" can have their own seperate leaderboard? Where you just compete with each other and its available for common hubdubbers to view? Something that would keep track of your "Staff Cash" and not let it intermingle with hubdubbers. Not sure if this is possible, but its just an idea.

Thanks, NW, for your response. Yes it eventually was reversed and then settled correctly. Although your response was very helpful and informative, it would have been nice to hear from the cat. editor or admin. I'm happy it was resolved, but still wonder if flagging discrepancies are enough or if they should make an option similar to flagging for disputes only. In any case, thanks for your response and info! – letmewinplees, on July 19, 2008 16:00