NewsWrangler's dashboard

I agree "contest" is an ambiguous term -- however it may also be exceeding clever based on past difficulties in differentiating between primaries, caucuses, straw polls, etc. ;-)

That said, I also think this is at the 99.9% stage, and the market can be settled as "no".

[Disclosure: I have no predictions, past or present, in this market.]

While it's great that this discussion topic was opened, it's disappointing that, once again, there's no mention of it in the comments thread for the market in question.

I have an account with Google AdSense.

If a Google AdSense account holder cheats, or breaks any one of numerous, somewhat complex rules, they are banned. For life.

One fraudulent click, and the user is banned for life.

I don't click on any of my colleagues AdSense links. They don't click on any of mine. I'm not concerned that I will be caught -- rather I don't want to do anything that might, in some possible way, harm them.

Google could give people 5 chances, or 3 chances. They choose to have a business model where an individual/business entity has one chance.

In doing so, they have also created an atmosphere where many account holders care about other "users" such that they won't do anything that could cause them harm. That's pretty amazing for a multi-billion dollar business model.

One observation I have made while tripping through life is that if someone does something once, it's likely that they will do it again.

Of course there are, thankfully, many exceptions to that. And that doesn't mean that I don't believe in second, or third, or nnn chances. What it means is that my anticipations change based on experience. I can also, usually/often, distinguish between a person, and that person's "act", i.e., what they do, as opposed to who they are.

My sense is that "gaming the system" is addictive. If "it worked once", I hold the view that a user will "try it again". If someone can do it once, and are warned about it, then that warning either serves as a wake-up-call, or it doesn't. The proposed penalties strike me as less of a "wake-up alarm" -- and feel more like HD wants to continually hit the "snooze" button.

All of that said, I feel the proposed multiple warnings/penalties are counter productive, and work against the viability of the HD site, and the experience of the user base. I agree with the sentiments expressed by crudsy, in this forum, and in several of the market message threads, on that subject.

I would support one email warning for suspected gaming, and an immediate, lifetime, ban for actual gaming, or a second occurrence of "suspected gaming".

With regard to the "user in question", I see little to no reason not to delete that user's account. If HD wishes to persist in granting additional warnings because you don't wish to "apply banning retroactively", then I would suggest, as a one-time action, that HD restore that user's status to the initial H$1,000, and void all questions created by that user (balancing markets if you can). Notwithstanding that exemption, I would implement the new (aforementioned) suggested rule immediately.

I feel it is important to keep in mind that the timely banning of a user is not against the user, as much as it is for the Hubdub site.

NEED FOR PROMINENT DISCLOSURE & INFORMATION

1. I would cheer lead for Hubdub to have a separate screen containing the most recently revised "HD Rules" that all new users are required to "Accept / Not Accept" as part of the "establishing an account" function. I understand that the TOS / TOU likely incorporates this already, however it is important that all users have the opportunity of understanding the rules, and a separate page would call attention to the rules, and allow HD to emphasize any particular rules they wish. The penalty for "gaming" ought be emphasized in the rules that new users agree to.

2. When new rules are promulgated, I suggest that an email be sent to all existing users, advising them of the new rule(s) (and highlighting what is "new"). This would, I believe, add value to both users and HD.

3. I suggest the permanent link to the "Good Question Guide" that is currently on all market "summary pages" ("newest", "most active", "closing soon", "recently settled", "recent comments"), be expanded to include that this is a link to the Hubdub Rules.

To help stem duplicate account abuse, I suggest that HD no longer accept new members with email from Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, GMail and other freebie, throw-away email accounts -- as is the practice of many top-drawer user sites. Other news prediction sites require full name, address, city, state/province, country and phone. While that requirement may be too high a barrier vis-a-vis privacy and spamming concerns, requiring a prime email address, IMNHO, is both reasonable and necessary.

HALL OF SHAME AND OTHER ABUSE

In my view, ad hominem attacks, name calling, (potential) libel, and the calling-out of users in message threads, forums, and/or on profiles, have no place on Hubdub. This applies to HD users as well as HD staff. While a "Hall of Shame" may titillate the senses of some users, I would offer a reminder that it is Hubdub's walls that are being decorated. I have no framed portraits of OJ Simpson on the walls of my home or office -- why would I want to look at shame when I can look at glory or beauty?

I guess I have to add that this presupposes users caught gaming the system are banned, as suggested in this post. If they are not, I have diminished interest participating in a watered down community whilst looking for scarlet letters.

In my view, users who spam message threads and/or hijack message threads for their own purpose are spewing abuse on other HD users, as well as degrading and devaluing the Hubdub site. In my view, these messages ought be immediately deleted from the system, and the user immediately warned not to engage in such activities again. If they persist in repeating the offense, I suggest they be immediately banned/deleted, without further notice.

If users don't want to use the established channels of "Contact Us", or creating a thread in the Get Satisfaction forum, then, in my view, they are free to go and create the type of site they want to have elsewhere on the web.

In short, users have choices to participate in ways that have been established for the benefit of all users on Hubdub -- or in new ways that they may suggest (by offering suggestions), however hijacking message threads to seemingly advance their own personal agenda isn't, IMNHO, "what HD is about". If a user ultimately doesn't like "what HD is about", then they are free to go elsewhere and/or start their own site, but trashing the existing site with their litter ought not be condoned. Once again, this is not against the user, rather it is for the growing HD community.

In order for this to work, however, Hubdub needs to immediately clarify the purpose and intent of the Get Satisfaction forum. As it is, I have come to discover that the Get Satisfaction forum is an integral component of decision making involving users -- when Hubdub decides it wants it to be.

When users create a thread on Get Satisfaction, it is, currently, not necessarily an integral component of decision making. User issues may receive the attention of staff -- but not necessarily the action of staff. This was made clear in a recent response from a HD admin in a Get Satisfaction thread:

"The original idea behind us using getsatisfaction was as a forum for users to discuss problems and ideas amongst themselves, and as such I will admit that our involvement/response times has been a little sporadic or slow at times. The quickest way of getting a response from us directly has always been to use the "Contact Us" form on Hubdub (at the foot of every page).

"However, in light of these discussions, we've changed our internal processes which should now mean that we will be more responsive on this forum."

I'd cheer for HD to make an explicit statement of the purpose of the Get Satisfaction forum -- however they wish to use it -- so that users know if they will receive an action-step, or not, when they post a specific request in this forum.

I also suggest making the existing link, captioned, "Active customer service discussions in Hubdub" (on the Public Help page), look more like a link, and include instructions that a new, separate, registration is required to post to the Get Satisfaction forum. In short, eliminate as many barriers as possible to reach user support.

CONCLUSION:

Gaming is known to exist on Hubdub. Other users in this forum thread have detected it. I have detected it, in the past, and sent along the info to staff, who confirmed it was gaming.

Given that users can detect it -- without the ability to look into accounts as admins can -- it seems somewhat reasonable to think that HD staff needs to do more than it's currently doing to both detect and eradicate gaming.

If there are 5,000 users, and two are known to have gamed, Hubdub is looking at "protecting" 0.04% (4/100ths of 1 percent) of the users with the HD suggested "multiple warnings". This strikes me as HD bending over backwards so far that they lose sight of the other 99.96% of the user base.

Ditto the above -- (I sent a bug report via email about this Friday night or early Sat -- don't remember.)

Now that this market was finally settled, yesterday, it is my hope to close this topic as well.

I made a specific request in the initial post of this topic, and made a specific follow-up request a few days later: "A response to my original request would be helpful.".

While there were comments left from users, as well as staff, what I anticipated was, after a suitable period of time had elapsed, an official response to my initial, specific request.

Something, perhaps, along the lines of "... after considering ... we don't think ... so we aren't going to void the market...", or, "... after consideration/discussion we think ... so we are going to void the market ...".

Aside from the mild annoyance I experienced, this lack of response heightened my awareness to comments ("complaints") that have been voiced by other users, both in this forum, and in market-comment threads, that have the sentiment of "I posted something in the Get Satisfaction forum ...", or "I asked a question ...", -- and didn't hear anything.

Indeed, a cursory look at just a couple of (somewhat) recent posts in this forum hint at a trend of staff not replying to users' specific questions.

The legend at the top of this Get Satisfaction forum declares "Hubdub is here! 10 employees are listening and participating".

I would cheer-lead for staff to respond, specifically, to user posts, rather than take a dilatory approach and allow the posts to languish into obscurity. To not do so, in my view, is to dilute and diminish the value of this forum, and create user dissatisfaction.

"I wish Hubdub could show the number of participants in a market, that would help the question creators, know which markets were popular and which weren't."

Someday-maybe I was gonna make a suggestion that in the question "box" -- maybe next to the graph, or somewhere in there, have a line of text saying "nnn Other users have made predictions in this market"

Ideally, the number of users ("nnn") would be linked, and clicking on the link would show those users that have chosen to make their predictions on that question public.

Ideally ;-) the text would also include the total H$ predicted on the market (which, as we know, is different from the "Total Activity") -- so the ideal text would be:

nnn other HD users have made predictions in this market, totaling H$nnn,nnn

Similar to InfernalMachine's comment, I continually get "script stopped" or "scripting error". Let me know if you want the error, and I'll send it to you.

While the features of the sorting are great, the function is rather crippled by not being able to refresh the page (perhaps more important for "Closes In" than any other column).

It has now been two weeks since the last poll from ARG.

As JenniAndBoys commented in the thread of the market, "No, its not what he intended. It was meant to give us something to do while we wait for the PA vote -- and he thought the ARG poll would be coming out on Monday -- we have both asked Ryan to unsuspend this until the poll comes out. ..."

Restating part of my initial post in this forum:

After making that comment, I noted that the market had "mysteriously" resumed.

One user, jenniandboys, commented yesterday, that "maybe since we don't know when the next poll will come out we could unsuspend this question until then and let it play out?"

Absent that, there was no notification or communication in the comments that this was officially being considered -- much less that such an action was either going to be done -- or had been done!

In my view, this lack of communication, seriously undermines the integrity of this market (and the site as well).

Users in this market can cash out at a profit, or at a loss, and/or take "better" positions, or hedge the market -- IF they happen, by some chance to notice that there was a change. Those users whose attention drifted elsewhere while this market was suspended and awaiting settlement may likely get screwed!

Ryan did leave a comment, above, "I usually leave a comment or clarification but I just rushed through this one.
Apologies for the confusion caused."

In my view this is not "confusion", rather the unannounced resumption of this market, destroyed the integrity of this market. Imagine, if you would, in a real-life trading market, that the market suddenly resumed trading -- and only those who happened to have not left the trading floor for the day knew about it. Indeed, this is why the "opening bell" and "closing bell" ring so loud.

Since the market resumed, the market has fluctuated widely, during the few times I have looked.

We are now coming up on yet another suspension date for this market -- with absolutely no idea of when another poll might be released -- this in a state (Pennsylvania) where significant events are occurring each and every day.

While there have only been two posts from other users on the original request I made in this post, both have, to my read, supported voiding this market.

A response to my original request would be helpful.

Obama did win the most delegates on Feb. 5.

If the totals you researched indicate, as it appears, that Obama won both the most delegates from only the February 5th contests, and also had the total lead from all contests up to, and including February 5th, then I'd go ahead and settle the appropriate markets.

I didn't look at the reference links, but presume there aren't, somehow, enough "not-yet-allocated-pledged-delegates-from-Feb 5th" that could change the result.

Props to you, Ryan, for wading through all of this!

[Disclosure: never in any of the markets.]