NewsWrangler's dashboard

Heh ... don't wanna be "pushy" ... (but ;-) is there any chance there could be an option for a user to directly enter the URL of an image when creating a question? (in addition to the upload from hard disk option.)

I think this would result in many more users including a photo/image with their question -- rather than have to go though the multi-step process of saving the image to their disk, then browsing through to find it (where many users likely don't know where that image was saved).

Just trying to "make it easier for the users" ... ;-)

Another terrific upgrade!

I've noted that some significant number of users don't insert commas between keywords, resulting in terrible news-feeds for that question.

I really dunno how to improve that situation ... maybe emphasize the instructions (or the word, "comma") in larger point, and/or bold.

-- just a habit of mine, sʎoqpuɐıuuǝɾ, no discomfort intended ;-) – NewsWrangler, on June 22, 2008 23:29

I agree with JenniAndBoys -- in my view, these are no different than other markets that "last a season" ... even in other categories, such as "Who will be President of the US?" -- that was created way before the first primary, and continues, today,"in-play".

In my view these questions only need to be edited to remove the words "in play", and they will be fine.

If more news sources are needed to confirm Kevorkian obtained the necessary signatures, other than the two I provided, they are readily available

AAA -- I saw that market, or perhaps another, and had a similar thought. Props to you for pushing this forward.

As the electoral vote is, at the end of the day, what "counts", and what may drive many "battleground state" markets, I agree that the electoral college vote ought be the default by which markets are settled.

Yes, I know.

Ryan's "last post" was a copy/paste of my earlier comment (which was asking for clarification).

He introduced it as "Actually newswrangler clarified this best very early on so go by this descriptions which I think is very clear and seeing as my clarification are just making things worse this should do it. "

When he said "this", he was referring to my post/comment.

Unfortunately, as I said above, that was an earlier message (#3), and I would have used #21.

Skipper -- I would not have selected that post of mine as the one that would provide the most clarity. I agree that this last message is (still) confusing.

That was Msg #3 in the comment thread, made almost 3 months ago. At that time there was still the possibility of "do-overs" in Florida and Michigan.

When the possibility of do-overs was deemed to no longer be viable, there were further, updated clarifications in this HD market.

I would have chosen a post of mine from two days ago (Msg #21):

In order for this to settle as "Yes", the votes from Michigan's January 15, 2008, primary (which did not include Obama on the ballot), AND the votes from Florida's January 29, 2008 primary have to be counted, and based on that count, delegates are awarded to the convention.

If the Rules Committee allocates (any number of) delegates from Florida and/or Michigan based on anything other than the counted votes from those two primaries, this settles as "No".

Ryan, have I (still) got that right?

Ryan confirmed my understanding of that, yesterday, in Msg #24:

Yep your right on the money newswrangler.

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub Category Editor

I had the (whimsical?) thought that this market has, to some degree, mirrored what has happened in the "real world" with the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

The market was created ... way back when ... there was still the possibility of do-overs ... The possibilities for what could happen with Florida and Michigan seemed to grow exponentially as both campaigns, replete with attorneys, maneuvered to "define" the outcome of the states -- and the nominee.

This market has evolved in some ways, in a somewhat similar manner.

I dunno about the HubDub Rules Committee though -- maybe it won't be that long that these discussions are also televised live ;-)

I note that Get Satisfaction's time is off as well ... Get Satisfaction says my initial question from March 9th was created "3 months ago". [sigh] – NewsWrangler, on May 26, 2008 23:34

Hmmm ... I first asked about this on March 9th ... the beginning of Daylight Savings Time in the US.

The question, and the response from Chris is here:
<http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...>

Back then, I said, "Ideally, the board would be configured for user-preference localization (user settings) such that any user (world-wide) could set their own time-offset from GMT (or UTC). I dunno how much of a hurdle that would be for HD to implement."

Much to my pleasure, I noted, soon thereafter, in the "create question function" that there was a user-configurable option to select the time zone for "Suspend Times".

Unfortunately, it didn't work, and trying to create an accurate Suspend Time was worse than ever. I sent a "Contact Us" message or two about it, but never heard anything.

Notwithstanding that all of the US isn't on Daylight Time (in some states, EST and EDT is done county-by-county -- Canada also has different and individual area observances), I agree that the absence of correct, accurate time is highly annoying, and I would cheer lead for this major glitch to be addressed quickly.

I'm glad to see the editing glitches have been fixed.

Suggestion: Transpose the Delete and Edit buttons/links ... and increase the amount of space between them.

I think (but am not sure) that "Edit" used to come before "Delete" in the previous version ... in any event, I'm of the view that "Edit" is used wayyyy more than "Delete" -- and anything you can do to assist in reducing user error is a good thing!

I'd be [cough] unhappy to lose a finely crafted message due to hitting the "first" link.

Of course, a Preview Function ;-) would eliminate the need to do much of what is now done via the edit function.

Thanks, Jenni And Boys, for creating this topic!

Duplicate markets have bugged me too -- and I've commented in threads, sent flags ... and now, if I do flag a market, the flag, more-often-than-not, expresses the sentiment of "I think this is a duplicate -- unless, of course, it's not".

I don't know how this needle gets threaded -- and I don't think I have any particular clarity on how to thread it ... however, hopefully, because you created this discussion we can get a lot of input, and eventually sew something together!

First -- regarding the DJIA markets that you asked about ... personally, I like (read: sometimes predict on) the "simple up/down" market. I don't have time, talent, or the interest, really, to participate in the other.

But can I argue against a position that those aren't "duplicate markets"? No.

Matter-o-fact, likely anything I say in these comments "for" or "against" a particular "duplicate" market, could be re-worded to support or not-support that same position.

In brief, the type of "duplicate" markets that bug me the most are:

"Will Hillary Clinton drop out of xxx by April 27, 2008?"
"Will Hillary Clinton drop out of xxx by April 28, 2008?"
"Will Hillary Clinton drop out of xxx by April 29, 2008?"
"Will Hillary Clinton drop out of xxx by April 30, 2008?"

The current slew of "Olympic Torch" questions is another example of "duplicate markets that bug me" ... I made predictions on two of the early ones ... but now just pass the rest of them by, without even reading them.

Sports questions: one can create, probably fifty (50) separate markets for each and every MLB (baseball), NFL (football), NHL (hockey), NBA (basketball), etc., etc. individual game.

Who will win?
How many innings/periods/overtime?
What will be the point spread between winning & losing team?
What will be the total points (runs/goals) of both team?
Will the final score be odd or even?
Will player x play?
Will player z steal a base?
How many foul balls will be hit?
What team will hit a foul ball first?
What team will hit the fourth (4th) foul ball?
... ad nauseam.

The Olympics questions are just starting -- and I don't look forward to it.

In my view, Hubdub is fast becoming overrun with sports questions, vs. "news" related markets, however that's a topic for a separate, thoughtful, forum topic.

As it is, the number of markets currently in play (suspended) about The Masters and Tiger Woods is, well, amazing. (And I'm a fan of professional golf -- and love Tiger Woods!)

And, like the DJIA question(s), while the multitude of "Masters/Tiger Woods" questions bug me, other users, no doubt, like them.

Then ... there are the "duplicate markets" that I have created!

There are a wealth of "Who will be the next Vice President" questions -- even within the same party. Well, one of those was mine:
<http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_J...>

I was interested to see if either of two, specific, candidates would be chosen by John McCain.

Is it a "duplicate"? I think, yes.
Does it likely "bug" some other users? I think it might.

So ... I get annoyed, and annoy others. ;-(

Moving on, to a different, related, point, Nigel posted, above:

• 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?’)

95% about right? Too high? Too low?

What I don't know about this is how a "duplicate question matrix" is created and how ranking points are assigned to the variables, such that one can "decide" if a question is a duplicate. (95% sounds OK to me -- but I'll defer to others on that.)

While things of that nature are definitely not my strong suit, I can see how it may be easy to apply rankings to the "different date" question examples you give (and that I commented on earlier as "bugging me the most".

That said, as we try to gain some clarity on the more complex "duplicate/similar" market questions, it may be beneficial to try to determine how to rank these other questions, and arrive at a more comprehensive solution.

Thanks, Leslie, for creating this topic.

In short, I agree completely with the three posts from An Average American, and the post from Boston Graf, in this topic thread.

For emphasis, I'll repost all of them in their entirety, in this post:

;-)

I do hope you will re-read them, however.

As you know, I have been frustrated by the ongoing arbitrary way Suspension Dates have been applied by Category Editors. My most recent (and perhaps most telling) comment on that is in this comment thread: <http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_D...>

Hopefully, resolution of this issue will also result in consistency by the Category Editors.