Markov's dashboard

@Tom - How about "Average # of Individual Predictors per Question"? This would encourage interesting questions while simultaneously discouraging people from creating hundreds of 'narrow interest' questions just to get their total number up. Personally I would rather see people filling the question slots with 5-10 interesting question submissions per month rather than 200 questions about how fast some celebrity's toenails are growing. The latter simply serves to knock the interesting questions out of prominence and thereby reduces the number of people who see and wager on them. Maybe a minimum of 5 questions would have to be asked to qualify for question ranking and the ranking could be reset on the first of each month. Downplaying quantity to encourage quality would be a step in the right direction.

Good question, Bayoubear! I've been trying to figure this out myself. I noticed my site visits dropped off quite a bit a few weeks ago and realized I was losing interest in the questions in general. I certainly may stand corrected, but it seems over time a relatively small number of users were asking a disproportionate number of questions. That is all cool and kudos to them for doing it. However, it seemed to me to have precipitated two things: 1) a number of people were asking questions just for the sake of asking a huge number of questions, many of which had a rather narrow interest, and 2) the vast majority of users were not asking any questions at all for some reason. Why this may have been happening, I do not know. Somebody suggested adding discussion forums. That is a great idea and might fuel interest from some of our 'silent' members. Also, having a question leaderboard based solely on the number of individual users who responded to a question, rather than H$ wagered. I sense the general populace is losing interest. Again, great question!

I,too, fell victim to overzealous voiding on my question:
http://www.hubdub.com/m9328/MLB__End_...
and despite my protracted efforts was unable to find resolution to my appeal to the voiding authority. I remain convinced the question was improperly voided on a whim and my pleas for supporting reason fell on deaf ears. Frankly, it kind of sucked the wind out my sails for creating new questions.

My sentiments exactly. – Markov, on June 16, 2008 14:03

Skipper - Needless to say everyone except children knows the world isn't fair. I often have to remind my kids of this. However, the common theme to this particular forum site has been how to make Hubdub better and if you've been reading the posts for very long you would be aware that fairness has been a critical component of that effort. Perhaps my major failing in this thread has been my initial assumption that all of the participants' comments have been driven by the common goal of bettering Hubdub. My mistake. If we can't even agree that an even playing field will best serve the Hubdub community then you reading my comments is about as worthless as me reading your responses to them. How unfortunate. I guess I'm just going to have to ponder this awhile to see if I can handle it. – Markov, on June 16, 2008 14:01

Nigel,

That is a great idea! It removes all of the things that could skew the determination. Problem solved.

Nigel,

There is no way to remove the unfair advantage from in-running questions on indices or sports when it gets down to the last day. It's a totally different dynamic with requirements beyond the capability (sports and indices) and access (for the indices) of most users. The only solutions are to either put an end to it or have a separate Hubdub for it that does not registers earning towards the primary Hubdub site.

The excitement of in-running wagering can be maintained to some degree by continuing to allow questions with suspend dates like these two examples:

1) Week (or month or whatever) long index questions that suspend 24 hours before settlement date.
2) Week (or month or whatever) long sports questions that suspend 24 hours before settlement date.

This will allow for wagering on fluctuations yet substantially reduce sure bets placed by those with privileged access via real time business access and/or too much time on their hands. Additionally, it will add credibility to the top of the leaderboard and reduce the number of people who feel they are getting screwed. If I had real time index access and/or felt like hanging out at my computer every day between 3:30 and 4:00 I could jack up my numbers pretty quickly at the expense of people who are working or sleeping and grab the hollow mantle of victory. However, this does not strike me as fair to others, indicative of my prediction prowess, or fun.

If there was a site exclusively dedicated to such "day trading" it might be interesting to have a go at it once in awhile, but co-mingling this with the vast majority of other question scenarios on Hubdub seems to be like mixing oil and water. IMHO single event in-running questions simply do not belong in this venue.

I'm in complete agreement. – Markov, on June 15, 2008 19:56

It would appear nobody is cheating on the indexes as the rules clearly allow for in-running wagering in this category. However, I personally believe the current rule to be severely flawed and am hopeful it will be corrected soon. Until then, users wagering on the indices have every right to continue wagering as they see fit, if only to avoid falling behind others who take advantage of this highly questionable rule. Whatever damage has been done is water under the bridge. I respectfully challenge the Hubdub admins to take action as soon as possible to clear this thing up. It strikes me the best arguments for both positions have already been made and this contentious issue is ripe for a ruling. Fairness to all and consistency relative to other rules should be paramount to the final decision. Let's just take a good, objective look at the facts and arguments and put this thing to bed.

Skipper:

I believe the analogy with respect to the context provided stands on its own merits.

At risk of pissing some people off (though I sincerely hope not) I offer out the following:

According to the rules:

"All user-created sports questions should suspend prior to start of the event."

This is common sense for individual games since there is a very high risk that at some point in the game a situation can develop that will make the outcome a near certainty. By suspending prior to the start of the game the integrity of the "prediction" spirit of the site is maintained. This gives no advantage to those who are glued to their computer or awake at 3 a.m. nor does it disadvantage those who are not. This is a good rule.

Conversely, the DJIA/Nasdaq in-running rule:

"No user-created in-running questions are allowed APART FROM on the DJIA and the NASDAQ."

serves the reverse, negative function of that above and appears wholly inconsistent with the just motivations that precipitated the implementation of the sports rule. This is likely further exacerbated by the fact that some users have real time access to index information whereas others do not.

By allowing in-running wagering on index questions users who are staked out at their computer, users with business real time access to the indices, and users who are awake at 3 a.m. (depending on where they live) are at profound advantage, to the detriment of those who do not meet that profile. Additionally, as the day progresses the wagering transitions from prediction to an almost (but not quite) sure bet on an almost certain outcome. Needless to say, this is not fair to a large number of users and, I believe, would meet with a strong majority disapproval if the facts were known and the question posed to the general body of Hubdub users.

That having been said, it strikes me the fair and obvious action should be to end in-running index questions and implement question suspension at the time of opening bell for the day.

Good points!

BTW, I stole this question from one of kruij's comments on a question a few days ago.

Thanks, kruijs!

Nigel,

Any decision yet? Maybe give it a test run on a sample group?

Option 3

Great idea!