Will The Hubdub Team exclude themselves from making predictions?

Now this will really "bake your noodle" is it ethical for the Hubdub team to void this question?

:)...i was just looking over the "who will john edwards endorse" question that ends in a couple hours and saw all the reactions people had when they found out the team was playing too...while i think it would be unethical for them to vote on this particular question, i don't have a problem with them playing too, as long as they can clean up the "gaming" of the system soon. some questions and wagers i've seen have been real shady, but they seem to be making ok progress. i was aware that they played when i first signed up, the article i read telling about hubdub stated so and since it came about because of the fact that they liked gambling and the news, or so the article read, i think it would be unfair to ban them from playing....also, i do like the idea of a "big book" of accepted conditions, such as all temperature readings of the united states are in fahrenheit and from other countries are in celsius, altho that question posed a bunch of problems, as long as it doesn't grow too big to be unwieldy to learn for noobs. by the way, as for the edwards endorsement question, i thought rule 3 under predictions meant that once the end time passed, the question would be settled according to the news as of the end time...ok i'm done with my opinion...hopefully not too many people listen to me tho ;)

Now since I am not allowed to place a prediction on this question for 12 hours shouldn't I be allowed to make a provisional prediction of some kind? As more people predict yes, my chance for a big windfall diminish.

If you are going to allow people to make a prediction on their own questions (which I think is problematic to say the least) it really isn't fair that they cannot benefit to the maximum amount. If one is allowed to create a question, one presumes that they have some intention in trying to win as much as possible.

One solution would be to not allow predictions by the questions creator, but instead create an algorithm which rewards questioners for creating an exciting, dynamic question which "pays out" based on the amount of cash put into the prediction pool. Meaning if you create a question in which hundreds of thousands of dollars are wagered the questioner scores big time. If your question flops they get nothing.

Another solution is to have a "vetting" of the question by an impartial group, say the Hubdub Team (if they of course are not allowed to make predictions) during this vetting a question cannot be predicted on by any member. Therefore once "vetted" it cannot be removed. No flagging needed.

Another variation would be a 12 hour provisional period in which time a question can be flagged and removed. Allowing predictions during that time would keep the system lively, but if a problem were found only the amount staked would be returned to the predictors.

I am sure there are many other creative solutions out there, so lets here them.

In the mean while will someone bet $662.00 on this for me cause the odds keep changing. LOL

"One solution would be to ... create an algorithm which rewards questioners for creating an exciting, dynamic question which "pays out" based on the amount of cash put into the prediction pool."

Nice suggestion electro!

i know i suggested a wait of like two hours because someone posted "will the asteroid hit earth" and put the starting percentage at like 95% yes, then bet an obscene amount on no. as far as the vetting, i think that would take too long once we get more users on here and then they'd have to get people just to vet questions, and who would want to do that and not play or get paid? maybe let like 5 different users vet each question for a set number of h$ and as long as the questioner's id was anonymous and the reviewers agreed it was ok, then it could be voted on by anyone. then if they see anything ambiguous in the question, they could send it back for rewording or what not. i love the idea of the questioner getting a small percentage of the placed bets, it would create even more of a focus on good questions. also, about the team playing, i think since they're just doing this for fun, it should be allowed, but if they start making advertising revenue or the like, then they should stop...it's kinda like their little game and they're letting us join in is how i see it...again, don't listen to me, i'm crazy :)

one thing i noticed is even have a question has ended, if it's not settled yet you can cash out in the my hubdub screen. i think that should change, if you can't bet on it, you shouldn't be able to remove your money.

does everyone know that theres actually a forum... http://www.hubdubforum.com/

why not just take people betting on a question as a sign that it is valid, and once 5 people bet the questioner can bet. This encourages good questions and removes the temptation to create asteroid question scams since a few other people would get much more benefit than you.

I have no problem with them playing, and if you think they're NOT going to plug some google ads on here in a week or two your crazy. So they will be making money at some point. But I still think its ok for them to play because we're not making money on this game and they should value our happiness and addiction to their game more than getting high on the scoreboard. If they clearly tell us who is an editor and who isn't, then we'd know if they were dominating the leaderboard and we'd simply stop playing.

Its all about having the right incentives.

Despite the obviously terrible initial pain they will suffer, I think they will. If you made something that was fun as hell you know you would want to play it. However, we wouldn't all be here if these folks weren't smart and savvy to business so I'm guessing that they will hide their own prognostications and scores so they can beat each other up over them in the privacy of their own pub and will leave the rest of us to our own slightly late-coming devices. Look at it this way, at least they didn't demoralize us by shading their profiles from the outset and setting us to wondering if the dreaded 4 hour erection truly does deserve emergency medical attention. But I digress. Cheers!

ratel,

I like your idea of x number of people placing predictions and opening up the question to the author. There is still the problem of the odds being significantly changed before the questions author gets in on the action.

When I posed the question the percentage in favor was set by me at 5% now it has increased to 10%. I am being penalized for submitting the question. Maybe that is the price of posing a question, I hope more people will put in their 2 cents.

And remember to put in my $662.00 on this one as well. LOL

electroaffinity,

Thanks for putting in a great question! It was necessary and you did it. However, the "12 hour no author rule" is a good idea. If not for that people can jack the system by putting forth inflammatory questions that will garner a huge majority for a given response and simply set the initial percentage artificially low and grab the best position immediately. Unfortunately, the situation can persist if persons of questionable ethics set up more than one account and spoof the system by authoring from one and betting from the other. That could be stopped by logging static IP addresses except for the fact that many ISPs use dynamic IP addresses which cannot be controlled and that would simply put those, who are prone to malfeasance, with dynamic addresses at am advantage. I'm not tech enough to know how to stop that but I'm sure it will become an issue. Best regards!

from nigel: With regards to category editors playing in the markets; while category editors have been totally objective in settling markets, I can see that some users perceive that might be otherwise. Therefore I am going to place that under review. I'll put up a question on the Get Satisfaction notice board and you can comment there if you feel strongly one way or the other.

I Said I Wouldn't Participate Until They Stopped But This One Time I Can Make Thee Exception!
I Think It's Incredibly Unfair To The Rest Of Us Not Knowing If Questions Are Being Settled Appropriately!
I Know If It Were Real Money It Would Be Illegal What They Are Doing So Why Do They Think It's Moral, Even If It's Just For Fun?

By The Way I Got This Email From Them Concerning The Question That Exposed Their Fraud:
"Thanks for creating the following question on Hubdub:
Who Will John Edwards Endorse, After Dropping Out?

This was a great question but there was confusion about the
implications of the end date. We are trying to fix that now.

Please do create another question with a clear end point.

Bye for now,

Nigel

Hubdub Category Manager"

The Question Should Be In More Categories Though Since It Is "Politics", "Technology", "entertainment", And "Business" Of Sorts.
And Would Get The Attention It Deserves There!

won't they have to just to be fair?

IT WOULD SEEM LIKE THEY SHOULD, THIS IS KINDA CONTROVERSIAL!
THE SOONER THEY SETTLE THIS THE BETTER WE ALL WILL BE!

agreed thats not right

We are now at 60/40 and I still cannot place a bet...Remember it started at 5% for yes 95% for No...

I am really locked out from profiting on my own question so the new system is working. But if this was not a test on my part I would be very frustrated that I cannot place a bet.

Again I will suggest that there needs to be a way for good questions to be "profitable" to questioners, see comment #3 in this comment queue.

they participate too, are you guys sure about this?

shouldn't there be an end date?
what if they just never settle, in hopes it will just go away?
and how will we even know for sure they will tell the truth anyway?

yes kitty apparently they got caught.

pics4d are you one of them?

i put all my money on yes even cashed in thousands of dollars from other questions at a loss to do so, because if they don't it won't matter to me how much money i have i won't be betting any more!

you should weigh in on the question @ getsatisfaction by clicking help then the getsatisfaction link the question there is:

"Should Hubdub insiders who settle questions be allowed to make predictions?

To date, Hubdub staff who settle questions have also participated in making predictions on those and other questions. We have strived to be as objective as possible on every settlement and settlements are regularly cross-checked. However some users perceive that this conflict of interest may cause us to incorrectly settle questions for our benefit. We can change the rules to:
(1) No restriction (status quo)
(2) No predicting on questions within their category
(3) No predicting on any questions

Thoughts?

I Was Waiting For The Bugs To Get Worked Out Here, Before I Recommend This Site To Friends, Family, and Co-Workers, But I Definately Won't Now, At Least Not Until They Make A Commitment Not To Participate!
I Really Like This Sites Very Idea, But Had No Idea This Was Going On, So In A Way I Am Glad I Created A Question That Exposed The Controversy!
Please Hubdub Do Not Hesitate To Settle This Quickly!!!!!

hmm i found this quote in the news story attached to this question, but just how much do they "obey" these laws?

"Hubdub is aiming at the huge US market and is being careful to obey the nation's laws regarding gambling, according to Eccles.

The website is a frugal operation backed by investors and is relying for now on online advertising for revenue."

no, i'm not one of them..in fact if you go here: http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/should_hubdub_insiders_who_settle_questions_be_allowed_to_make_predictions you can see that i've changed my mind about the subject because of decisions they have made...what i meant by i hope you guys dont listen to me is that i bet they would stop placing their own bets. i did however know that they were doing so when i first joined up...actually i'm surprised they haven't banned me, because i've been a bit harsh with my criticism.

Well now my question sure has caused some controversy, you can easily see how misinformation can cause people to panic.

1.Nigel and the gang have always been upfront about the Hubdub Team participating in the Game. But as we can see even being upfront with everyone leaves some places in the dark.

2.This is a beta test.


3. I am finally able to place a prediction on my own question some 12 hours later, but at much lower odds, so we know the 12 hour rule is working and is very effective. I think this rule is helpful but needs tweaking, see comment #3 by me.

4. It is clear that The Hubdub team should not for ethical reason participate.

HD has an incredibler opprotunity to be extremely popular. I hope that the team will not have any time to place bets/wagers, because they are so busy working the tremendous volume of increased users.
I think there should be a limited number of real bonafide questions released each day by the team and by the team ONLY,with suggesrtions for Q being submitted by users within a time frame, that way no gaming the system could happen. perhaps short term Q (daily stock closings)mid length Q(will sattelites crash to earh and where) and far out time frame Q's.

my noodle has baked and without question this forcast should be void purely from the stand that 10% starting yes has no basis in reality. where does 10 yes come from? this will cheapen the site tremendously if Q/forecasts are placed with willynilly and silly percentage starting points.

Well I Am Very Sorry For Accusing You pics4d Of Being One Of Them, But It's Hard For Me To Know Who's Who Anymore, What Surprises Me Is The Comments From People Saying They Knew When They Joined, I Never Saw Anything To Indicate That, I Must Say I Just Logical Assumed A Gambling Site (All Be It Not For Real Money) Would Follow The Rules Of A "Real" Gambling Site! We All Know The Practice Of Gambling By The Judges Involved Would Be SCRICTLY Prohibited! Even A Bingo Ball Caller At A Church Couldn't Also Play, And What An Uproar It Causes If Anybody Finds Out A Bingo Player Is Even Close Friends With The Caller.
It's Just Not Fun To Me When I Feel Suspicious Like This, And Definately Takes Away From My Game!
So For Me Even If It's Just Monopoly Money, Why Would I Want To Play With Cheaters?

I Am Confused Shadowfax Are You Saying 10% Yes Answer For This Question Is Inaccurate? I Think That 10% Yes Is A Good Starting Place For This Question, Because If These People Were FAIR Game Players They Would Have Just Added This As A Rule Immediately, Instead Of Having It Play Out, Seem Suggestive There Is About A 90% Chance They Will Just Continue To Cheat!

I think that whoever is adjudicating the question should be prevented from betting on the outcome of the question. Thereby eliminating the appearance of conflict of interest. Even the best written questions may have some room for interpretation which would require a judgement call on the adjudicators part. If the adjudicators judgement is clouded by their participation, the quality of the decision falls into question. This leads to the feeling that the outcome of a given question is arbitrary rather than objective.

In lieu of making this rule change than they should display the judges name under the question and disallow the judge from hiding their predictions. This would level the playing field somewhat with questions which have a less than objective outcome.

to clear the confusion 10% is way too low for this because HD admin. would not want to cheat IF they want this to be the success that it likely will become. I figured the admin. was betting and honestly wagering right from the start of this BETA test site. No Uproar has ever happened from a church Bingo Caller being close friends with the winners. Church Bingo Callers and Players are encouraged to be close friends, its Church for heavens sake.

well done grueller! lets make some hubub about hubdub by going here www.hubdubforum.com and helping to create a
viable news forecasting fun and informative (infotainment) site!

The end of the day, if they are developing this, they are hardly going to cheat at it, plus whats the gain for them being top?

Remember if this were a "real" gambling site it is unlikely that regulators would allow the
Hubdub team to "wager".

I am sure during the closed beta the team needed to participate because the number of players was limited. Once the beta test is over I cannot foresee how they can possibly continue. It is just not ethical...

Yes Having All Questions Reviewed First To Extract Any Errors Is All Thats Nessecary For Them To Extract Rigged Questions. But Thats The Point If They Get To Vote They Can Trigger A "Panic Market" Any Time They Want By Simply Placing A Bet With Their LEADERBOARD Sums Of Cash, Come On These Are Also Polls, We Want To Know What Other People In The Public Think Not "PROFESSIONALS", Obviously They Need To Set Odds That Should Be Their Only Involvement As A Suggestion If Someone Suggests A Question You Could Simply Send Them By Email A One Time Use Link To Place A Bet At The Original Odds Your Team Determined, It Is Play Money Afterall And If You Happen To Turn Internet Users Into Pros, They Would Be Much More Likely To Traffic Your Site, Lets Be Real That Makes You RICH (with some advertising..based on site traffic) And Not Just Play Money Either! Compliance With U.S. Gambling Laws Seems Shaky If You Bet, Don't You Think? If Not Simply UNETHICAL, To Say The Least!

shouldn't the gains be based on the number of voter and their votes, instead of letting how much they wager affect the outcome so much, isn't this really the point, the editors have money and are therefore able to affect our wagers drastically when they make bets, is it even fair that another user should be able to affect everybody else's odd's so drastically, Wouldn't this make far more sense based on each user geting just one vote instead of giving leaders lop-sided chances to begin with?
regardless of how much money you have don't change everybody else's chances, moderator or not!
an acceptable compromise is changing the structure more in line with that and presto it becomes disadvantageous to RIG the system and cheat, WOW Problem Solved In 5 Minutes Flat!

Thanks for everyone's responses on this. A couple of you have also brought up the issue of gaming which we are looking into and should have something to share with you by Monday.

With regards to settlement, it feels to me the general rule should be that no one person should be both referee and participant. That obviously creates a conflict of interest.

However in resolving if the people who settle questions can make predictions I want a solution that scales. We've always known that having a team of administrators settle every question does not scale and had planned to open up this process to trusted users (we've thought up a few ways to ensure accuracy and timeliness). If we decide now that anyone who settles any question shouldn't be allowed to make a prediction on any question then users who wanted to settle questions could not make predictions. I don't think we would have many volunteers.

Therefore I propose that category editors will not make predictions in their own category. As I am a point of escalation across all categories I will bar myself from predicting in any category (I was falling off the leaderboard anyway!)

Additionally it should be transparent to everyone which user ids are part of the Hubdub team. Therefore all user ID's from Hubdub team members will be clearly indicated.

Over the next few weeks we should be able to start to share with you how we plan to open settlement up.

so, they're going to start showing what categories the questions are in on the question page? and who bet how much?

Does This Mean You Will Not Be Participating As Status Quo? Can You Lets Us Know Exactly What You Mean, At Least At The Time You Settle This Question?

Very good Nigel, I am very happy with progress we are seeing. I am glad I can be a part of this process. Thanks for listening to us. The "customer service" on this site is awesome.

As to this question it is going to be a draw is it not? You have stopped the Hubdub team from participating in their own categories. So the question has passed the "yes" aspect since the Hubdub team cannot make predictions. But since it is structured in such a way that they can still make predictions in other categories this question should be voided and only the stakes put up should be returned.

Issuing a yes or no on this question is not possible so it should be voided.

if predictions are being made by staff which affect my wagers momemnt by moment i won't participate, the reason i feel strongly is i think once you guys publish a question, any and all major forseen disputes should be settled, then ONLY users should Participate, unless you intend to follow the suggestion to not allow wagered amounts to be so affected by new wagers which may come from staff which can drastically change the data!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

honestly i wish i could give hubdub editors so much credit for their opinions but i cannot, i am here to find out what other users think not hubdub insiders!!!

What Exactly Is This Questions Outcome?

why not find out what hubdub insiders think? they're people too
nigeleccles indicated that they plan in the future to let normal users volunteer to be editors for categories of questions. Would these people then be hubdub insiders?
It seems the consensus is becoming that anyone who decides the fate of a question should not vote on it, this seems fair and allows them to expand to large scale community editing in the future. Just an idea, perhaps users who have passed some threshold of trustworthiness could get access to a an editing area where they could claim new questions. To encourage participation they could be given a flat fee in H$ for successfully editing the question (maybe if the users complain about the decision too much they don't get the points and it hurts their trustworthiness). This user/editor would then not be able to vote on that question of course.
This way you don't even have to assign people to entire categories, you just let them to any individual questions they like.

Idea for trustworthiness measure:
if has been a hubdub user for > 1 months and
voided questions/total questions < .05 and
num of created question > 20
num of posted comments > 20 and
net worth > 4000

I don't see why the administrators should not be allowed to wager as long as they do not settle question in which they had a stake. Also, I know that regular users have attempted to game the system, and if users are going to be banned from wagering there isn't going to be hubdub.