Loading Profile...
Recent activity
Subscribe to this feed
Nigel Eccles replied on April 05, 2008 13:35 to the problem "Greatest problem of Hubdub, which needs immediate action" in Hubdub:
Thanks for letting me know. Not sure why these fell through. I'm sorting them out now.-
Nigel Eccles replied on April 05, 2008 13:29 to the problem "I am on STRIKE" in Hubdub:
@ Mork
That is because all Hubdub questions are restricted from moving to the front page. They are totally incomprehensible to new users and have no news value so we placed a restriction on them. Financial index questions are also restricted in the same way. -
Nigel Eccles replied on April 05, 2008 13:02 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:
Just to be clear, what I am proposing above is still for discussion. What I would like is to get input from more users whether this is the correct way to deal with this or whether we should take a different course of action. Hopefully, we can produce some sort of consensus and then we will take the appropriate action on Monday.
Rules and decisions of this importance always have been and will remain up to the broader Hubdub community. -
Nigel Eccles replied on April 05, 2008 11:39 to the problem "I am on STRIKE" in Hubdub:
Proposed resolution on this thread: http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top... -
Nigel Eccles replied on April 05, 2008 11:25 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:
Thanks for the comments. Sorry about being slow getting back to this. I posted this up last night before I went to bed.
Some very good points made above which I will try to summarise:
1. We should provide more information about the gaming activity
2. Cheating shouldn't be rewarded & Satyaki should be banned
3. Is it possible to fine a user down to H$1,000 without causing havoc in the markets (I guess you could call this the Bear Stearns problem)?
4. Gamers should have their ability to create questions restricted on the second offence
Answers:
1. Agreed
Rohan pointed out several questions which we investigated:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/ICL_Ti...
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/ICL__H...
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/ICL_Li...
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/ICL__G...
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/ICL_Ti...
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/ICL_Ro...
We found that the starting prices were set at 48% for both Badshahs and the opposing sides in all instances (and 4% for no result/draw). On further investigation we found that the Badshahs are a team of internationals and that these starting odds are heavily at variance from the true prices.
Satyaki made large predictions in all the questions (apart from the Rockets question) predicting the Badshahs to win. That netted him a profit of H$8,350.99. From this activity one can infer that he knew the original starting prices were not accurate.
2. I think yes and no
We didn't have an agreed procedure in place to deal with gaming and I feel it is unfair to apply rules retrospectively. However cheating shouldn't be rewarded and I propose that we fine Satyaki his winnings in these questions. I don't think banning is appropriate at this point. If he repeats again then he will be fined down to H$1,000 and have his question creating ability temporarily removed.
3. Very good question. I don't know but I will check with Chris and Tom.
4. I think this is a very good suggestion. We will need to develop that functionality and put that in the process.
One last point, we are now working on functionality that means that new questions have to go through a verification process. That process will most likely be by power users although the details still need to be worked out. We expect that will *significantly* reduce a users ability to game the system. -
Nigel Eccles replied on April 04, 2008 22:41 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:
Currently the plan is not to apply the rules retrospectively. That just doesn't feel fair. Satyaki is already having the pleasure of being placed on the public watch list. Any further transgressions at any point (even after the two weeks) and he will see his entire worth reduced to H$1,000. -
Nigel Eccles started a conversation in Hubdub on April 04, 2008 22:12:
Proposed new procedure for dealing with gamingTo date we have dealt with gaming on a case by case basis. However it has become clear that we need to have a defined process for dealing with individuals that game. Therefore this is our proposed procedure:
First identified instance/set of instances: Email warning
Second identified instance/set of instances: Email warning, user placed on public watch list (for 2 weeks) and fined 50% of worth
Third instance/set of instances: Email warning, user placed on public watch list (for 2 weeks) and fined down to H$1,000
Any subsequent instance will result in their ability to create questions removed and potentially suspension of their account.
We propose to apply this procedure for all new instances of gaming however some users are on their first warning and one user is on their second warning. -
Nigel Eccles replied on April 03, 2008 09:07 to the discussion "Participation declining?" in Hubdub:
One thing we currently not happy with is the ordering of questions on the home page. It currently gives too much emphasis to questions closing very soon and also has a tendancy to drop good questions into the nether regions from which they are never seen again.
An idea that I have had is to order questions based on their absolute increase in activity compared with the previous 24 hours. Therefore a question would gradually rise as some one picked it up, then it would go into a virtuous circle as more exposure would create more activity until the point where it maxes out and activity drops and it would fall back down the list. That would then create room for other questions to rise up. I thought 24 hours was the best time period because if it is shorter when everyone in the US wakes up they might find the site full of Indian and European news!
Any thoughts? -
Nigel Eccles replied on April 03, 2008 08:42 to the question "Proposed rule amendments" in Hubdub:
@Destry
Very good point with regards the use of the term by. Is the common understanding that if 'by' is used with reference to an hour/day/month that it means on or before? However with reference to a year it means before? I'd rather have a common understanding rather than banning a common term however if a common understanding doesn't exist we should then insist that all questions are phrased either 'on or before' or 'before'.
@Orlin & sd
We have plans to allow users to localise time to their time zone. Let me find out where that currently sits on the roadmap.
@All
The specific banning of Roadies questions was my poor attempt at an April Fool's joke. Obviously too subtle. -
Nigel Eccles replied on April 01, 2008 23:47 to the question "Proposed rule amendments" in Hubdub:
Ah, we have that one already covered in 2.2.10:
The term "by" will be considered to be inclusive of the date referenced. E.g. "Will the satellite hit earth by March 25th?" will be settled as a "Yes" if it hits on March 25th or on any date prior
I think that is in line with the common understanding. -
Nigel Eccles replied on April 01, 2008 23:39 to the discussion "Participation declining?" in Hubdub:
On the first part, participation was down last week. I think there seemed to be a bit of an Easter holiday effect combined with a slow news week. Taking a quick look at the stats for today suggests that we've bounced back a bit this week. I expect we'll have some ebb and flow over the short term. Over the medium term we really want to ramp up the amount of activity on the site.
On settlement, the resounding message to date is that people want early settlement based on common sense decisions. Therefore Edwards is out as is Romney. Freakish things could happen but in that case we would just have to resettle but it is better to get it settled early 999 out of a 1,000 and wrong once than to wait to settle all 1,000 correctly. -
Nigel Eccles asked a question in Hubdub on April 01, 2008 15:12:
Proposed rule amendmentsWe haven't updated the rules for a month now. We've had to escalate a number of questions in that time and I thought it would be a good idea to build the resolutions to those questions into the rules. Most of these are common sense but I think it helps to formalise that. The proposed additions are:
2.2.3 Time, Time Zones and Geography
• Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period to which the question refers begins from the date of creation of the question
2.2.5 Types of question
• Questions should have a clear resolution and not be open to gaming. Questions that have failed this criteria include number of Google search results for a certain term (varies by user), eBay listings, home page tickers and whether a particular picture will appear on a news site’s home page. [last part added]
2.2.7 Disputes
• In identifying the common sense meaning Hubdub admin may draw on the final resolution of previously disputed questions
2.2.8 Voiding Questions
• A question will be considered a duplicate if its true forecast probability is 95% or greater similar to an existing question (e.g. ‘Will candidate X drop out of the race by March 3rd?’ would generally be considered a duplicate of ‘Will candidate X drop out of the race by March 2nd?’)
2.2.10 Gaming
• Gaming of the system is explicitly not allowed. Gaming includes creation of multiple accounts and creation of questions with deliberately inaccurate estimates however we cannot provide an exhaustive list of what is considered gaming. As a guide, if you believe the wider Hubdub community would consider an activity as gaming then it probably is.
• In the event that user is considered to be gaming he/she may receive a warning, get publicly named as a gamer, get their account fine and/or have their account closed. In general, users will receive a warning before other measures are taken.
2.3.1 Politics Category
• Unless specified otherwise, a question asking when a public figure will resign will be settled on the date the figure announces their intention to resign rather than the date the resignation becomes effective (the Spitzer clause)
2.3.3.2 TV Shows
• Questions may be asked about television programs where results are announced live, for example, American Idol. Questions may also be asked on television programs which are pre-recorded, but for which the outcome is not known (for example, if two different outcomes have been recorded). However, questions related to pre-recorded shows were the result is known are banned.
• All questions relating to the show "Roadies", spin-offs or variants of it are banned outright
• Settlement will be based on the final outcome of the Show as televised either as live or recorded on the official associated television network.
That's it! Any comments, suggestions, amendments or additions? -
Nigel Eccles replied on March 30, 2008 22:30 to the problem "Bug: Display of Challenge Response Incorrect on Friends' Profile" in Hubdub:
I think we have now fixed the date bug but I'll check these all over now (or what I will really do is ask Tom to do it :-) -
Nigel Eccles replied on March 30, 2008 22:20 to the question "Reset Money" in Hubdub:
Unfortunately you can't reset your money. When it is gone, it's gone. However you do get H$20 per day every time you log in. -
Nigel Eccles replied on March 18, 2008 09:07 to the question "Contentious questions: Proposed resolution" in Hubdub:
Thanks for the input. I was at a journalism conference on Friday which had about 30 professional journalists in attendance. I had a chance to present Hubdub and the question was raised about whether we should censor questions. We took a straw poll and it was about 60/40 against.
Following the above consensus we will take no action in the short term on any currently open questions (we will get working on the long term fix). However, I do want to re-iterate that the editorial bounds of Hubdub is set by the community (as it should be). If in the coming weeks someone demands that a question be voided on moral grounds then I will escalate it to Get Satisfaction for review. -
Nigel Eccles replied on March 17, 2008 23:42 to the problem "i'll be leaving the site....happy gambling" in Hubdub:
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). -
Nigel Eccles replied on March 17, 2008 23:34 to the problem "Incorrect settlement" in Hubdub:
I've dropped a note to Andrew to review this. He should be on to it fairly soon. -
Nigel Eccles replied on March 17, 2008 09:27 to the problem "i'll be leaving the site....happy gambling" in Hubdub:
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? -
Nigel Eccles replied on March 16, 2008 22:46 to the problem "Consistency in settlement" in Hubdub:
Yep, you are right on this one. It was a mistake to settle this one now. We do have a 99.9% rule that we would settle a question if it was 99.9% certain. However as they say "a week in politics is a long time", this would be far off that. I'll speak to Ryan to see what we can do to re-open this question. Sorry about that. -
Nigel Eccles replied on March 16, 2008 22:11 to the problem "i'll be leaving the site....happy gambling" in Hubdub:
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.
| next » « previous |
