Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes
Hi everyone, there's a big event in the Hubdub calendar coming up (quarter end) and I wanted to get your feedback on our suggested leaderboard changes that will come into effect then.
There are a number of problems with the current situation.
1. New users are discouraged from joining Hubdub by the dominance of the leading players. Fewer users motivated to compete is bad for everyone.
2. The large amounts of cash at the disposal of some Hubdubbers makes it easy for them to move markets significantly. This is bad for them and everyone else, and reduces the accuracy of the site's forecasts.
3. Excessively large amounts of wealth become increasingly difficult to manage.
4. The challenge of a level playing field for users at all levels to compete on skill alone is removed by vast differences in worth. We want to make Hubdub as fun and exciting as possible for everyone.
We're eager to take the opportunity of the end of Hubdub's first quarter to create a solution which solves these problems, but which also:
i) Recognizes the incredible achievements to date of our top predictors, the time they have spent nursing their portfolios and the skill they have demonstrated at predicting
ii) Creates a weekly incentive to, on some level, 'start over' if you had a bad week previously
Here's our proposed solution.
a) The leaderboards we will have are:
- All Time Earnings (the combined gains a user has ever made in any quarter determines their position here)
- Quarterly Gains (as now: the gain made by users in the current quarter) [also available historically, e.g. for Q1 2008 too]
- Weekly Relative Gain (all users ranked by the percentage increase of their net worth since the start of the week)
The most emphasis will be given to Weekly Relative Gain, to encourage weekly play and to allow users at all wealth-levels to compete head to head.
b) All leaderboards will have multiple pages allowing you to browse everyone's position, and jump to your own page so you can compete with those around you.
c) We cannot allow users' wealth to continue to grow indefinitely over months and years. The problems we have now (discouragement of new users, massive market movement, difficult portfolio management) will only increase over time if we do. Quarter end seems an appropriate time to recognize and reward our top performers, but scale back everyone's wealth in a fair and reasonable way. We didn't want to scale everyone to the same amount, because better predictors have earned their right to a head start next quarter. Instead, we're proposing to scale back cash and predictions (proportionately) in the following bands:
Users with quarterly gain 20k or more will begin Q2 with 20k (combined cash and predictions)
Users with quarterly gain 5k or more (and less than 20k) will begin Q2 with 5k (combined cash and predictions)
Users with quarterly gain 2k or more (and less than 5k) will begin Q2 with 2k (combined cash and predictions)
Users with quarterly gain of less than 2k will begin Q2 with 1k (combined cash and predictions)
Users' profiles will be awarded an icon show which band they started in that they'll keep for the rest of the quarter.
We know this rescaling could be contentious. We've worked hard to come up with a solution that's fair to everybody, and is in the interests of the Hubdub community as a whole.
For our top predictors, rescaling doesn't penalize the skill you've shown. It allows you to prove your prowess again, against Hubdubbers of similar caliber from the same start point. I imagine the excitement to see who emerges top early on from you 20k'ers will be immense! And remember, your progress to date will put you top of the All Time Leaderboard and the Q1 historic leaderboard right away, so Hubdub immortality is yours. You can continue to build on your All Time Leaderboard position in successive quarters. In future, you may also be able to 'pimp your profile' by buying stuff with the cash represented on the All Time Leaderboard.
For our new predictors, it will give you a chance to make your mark on Hubdub right away and not be at the severe disadvantage that currently exists.
And for those of us in between, we'll be able to have weekly face-offs no matter what our worth is on the relative leaderboards.
Please let us know if you have any feedback or suggestions on the above. We're open to ideas for the fun icon titles given to users in each band, no modesty necessary :)
Tom
There are a number of problems with the current situation.
1. New users are discouraged from joining Hubdub by the dominance of the leading players. Fewer users motivated to compete is bad for everyone.
2. The large amounts of cash at the disposal of some Hubdubbers makes it easy for them to move markets significantly. This is bad for them and everyone else, and reduces the accuracy of the site's forecasts.
3. Excessively large amounts of wealth become increasingly difficult to manage.
4. The challenge of a level playing field for users at all levels to compete on skill alone is removed by vast differences in worth. We want to make Hubdub as fun and exciting as possible for everyone.
We're eager to take the opportunity of the end of Hubdub's first quarter to create a solution which solves these problems, but which also:
i) Recognizes the incredible achievements to date of our top predictors, the time they have spent nursing their portfolios and the skill they have demonstrated at predicting
ii) Creates a weekly incentive to, on some level, 'start over' if you had a bad week previously
Here's our proposed solution.
a) The leaderboards we will have are:
- All Time Earnings (the combined gains a user has ever made in any quarter determines their position here)
- Quarterly Gains (as now: the gain made by users in the current quarter) [also available historically, e.g. for Q1 2008 too]
- Weekly Relative Gain (all users ranked by the percentage increase of their net worth since the start of the week)
The most emphasis will be given to Weekly Relative Gain, to encourage weekly play and to allow users at all wealth-levels to compete head to head.
b) All leaderboards will have multiple pages allowing you to browse everyone's position, and jump to your own page so you can compete with those around you.
c) We cannot allow users' wealth to continue to grow indefinitely over months and years. The problems we have now (discouragement of new users, massive market movement, difficult portfolio management) will only increase over time if we do. Quarter end seems an appropriate time to recognize and reward our top performers, but scale back everyone's wealth in a fair and reasonable way. We didn't want to scale everyone to the same amount, because better predictors have earned their right to a head start next quarter. Instead, we're proposing to scale back cash and predictions (proportionately) in the following bands:
Users with quarterly gain 20k or more will begin Q2 with 20k (combined cash and predictions)
Users with quarterly gain 5k or more (and less than 20k) will begin Q2 with 5k (combined cash and predictions)
Users with quarterly gain 2k or more (and less than 5k) will begin Q2 with 2k (combined cash and predictions)
Users with quarterly gain of less than 2k will begin Q2 with 1k (combined cash and predictions)
Users' profiles will be awarded an icon show which band they started in that they'll keep for the rest of the quarter.
We know this rescaling could be contentious. We've worked hard to come up with a solution that's fair to everybody, and is in the interests of the Hubdub community as a whole.
For our top predictors, rescaling doesn't penalize the skill you've shown. It allows you to prove your prowess again, against Hubdubbers of similar caliber from the same start point. I imagine the excitement to see who emerges top early on from you 20k'ers will be immense! And remember, your progress to date will put you top of the All Time Leaderboard and the Q1 historic leaderboard right away, so Hubdub immortality is yours. You can continue to build on your All Time Leaderboard position in successive quarters. In future, you may also be able to 'pimp your profile' by buying stuff with the cash represented on the All Time Leaderboard.
For our new predictors, it will give you a chance to make your mark on Hubdub right away and not be at the severe disadvantage that currently exists.
And for those of us in between, we'll be able to have weekly face-offs no matter what our worth is on the relative leaderboards.
Please let us know if you have any feedback or suggestions on the above. We're open to ideas for the fun icon titles given to users in each band, no modesty necessary :)
Tom
Follow this discussion to get notifications on your dashboard.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?Tom - I can only believe I'm the first to comment here since no one else has noticed this thread yet. You should go shout at some of the higher ranked people.
I'm really torn on this one. I agree you need to do something to level the playing field a bit. However, I would be crushed to see the (small amount of) $ I've worked to accumulate gone.
On a more practical side, how do you plan on scaling the predictions? If we consider one of the leaders who might have 200,000 in predictions when you take him down to 20k will his 100$ predictions become 10$? I'd really like to hear more details about how you plan on implementing this.
PS when is the quarter cut? April 1?
I’m wondering if its possilbe to triple my money before April...
-
Inappropriate?Will the funds adjusted away from the 'scaled-back' predictions be added to the accumulated funds in the 'All Time Leaderboard'?
Or is it better to be 'cash-rich' at end-of-quarter?
I’m looking forward to "pimping my profile"!
-
Inappropriate?I had suggested to Tom by email that we be scaled back to 1% upto 5000 and minimum 1000. Like this better however(Its obvious why...)
I can't be happier.. I have nearly $250,000 in cash and have no clue whatsoever what to do with it..(maybe jenniandboys would like some, along with some more for her 'little leaderboard's' members?)
I wonder what it will be..going back to putting $100 predictions, from $5000...lol..
I'll get back to you on the band names..I gotta think..
I’m thankful to be rid of the cash
-
Inappropriate?I don't like the idea where my predicitions get sold by force :(
-
Inappropriate?No need to share with the rest of my leaderboard - I'm happy to take it off your hands! :)
-
Inappropriate?hey krujis,
Your predictions aren't getting sold. What it means that is that they are all scaled down. for example, a 500 dollar prediction becomes a 50 $ prediction at the same odds. If your wealth is 50K, everything proportionally reduces by 20/50*100=40% so, a $100 bet goes to a $400 bet and $10,000 in cash goes to $4000
I’m still thankful
-
Inappropriate?Ok; so what the swiss bank account number?
how about this- you give me 1 % of the H$ I give you in real cash :-)
I’m gonna get RICH
-
Inappropriate?isn't that fairly the same?
I mean maybe it would be better to buy "stars of fortune" for the $H you left over - just as you sayd. -
Inappropriate?how about you consider it a charitable donation and take a tax writeoff?
I’m wishing on a star
-
Inappropriate?but suppose I have a bet at 10000 which will earn me 13000 ...does that mean that my bet gets reduced 100 . If so then my earnings too will decrease right ?
-
Inappropriate?Think of it this way: Your predictions get scaled down, but the more the wealth now, the higher you rise on the all time leaderboard
-
Inappropriate?Tom - Scaling back all of the users at once seems like it will cause absolute havoc in the markets. That's kind of what I was getting at with my first question about implementation details... Have you given thought to freezing the markets for a little while or not letting people cash out for 5 hours or... something?? It seems like it will artificially change all of the markets.
-
Inappropriate?im not fully getting this..does this mean i will only get 20k in the next quarter and if i lose it i'm out?..or am i getting another 20k every quarter until my dollars run out if i lose it on a quarter?
-
Inappropriate?Your actual earnings decrease, but % earnings reman the same
-
Inappropriate?at the end of each quarter there is reevaluation like this:
Users with quarterly gain 20k or more will begin Q2 with 20k (combined cash and predictions)
Users with quarterly gain 5k or more (and less than 20k) will begin Q2 with 5k (combined cash and predictions)
Users with quarterly gain 2k or more (and less than 5k) will begin Q2 with 2k (combined cash and predictions)
Users with quarterly gain of less than 2k will begin Q2 with 1k (combined cash and predictions)
Lose all your cash in one quarter, get 1000 the next.. -
Inappropriate?i know i've been a proponent of a scale down since i won alot of money thru a bug and can easily see where it discourages new users, plus when i was #1 i found it's alot harder to make money percentage wise because you either make large bets which in turn skew the markets or hundreds, eventually turning into thousands, of smaller bets on Q's that u really don't want to bet on....something HAS to be done in order to prevent such huge amounts of money, the question is what?...something i just thought of is maybe just scaling back the top 20 or 30 leaders, or maybe everyone over a certain amount of money, while still retaining those winnings on some board somewhere...this would allow all the new users and the not so active members to keep their winnings and level the playing field a little...as i said, i just thought of it, so feel free to comment on or trash my idea
-
Inappropriate?suppose I have all my money on predictions.so in that case my predictions worth 250000 will get scaled down to 20000.But that is gonna make a huge difference . Suppose I actually have a worth of 230000 but through 5 questions I put in 20 bets of 1000 each and raise my worth my 10000 so in that case when the predictions are scaled down then all the $1000 bets will be worth $80 . so my worth which had been artificially raised will go down by a few thousands . Now what am I supposed to do?
I don't like the idea I think that rather hubdub should have reduced all players above 40000 to 10% of their worth , below 40000 to 5%of worth and so on. What do you think ?
I’m confused
-
Inappropriate?ok..i get it now..so we get money like when we first signed up every quarter if we lose our stake..is this for new people as well as people who have already been on site?..this is probably the only way for the site to continue and as long as i will have some cash to keep myself busy im ok with whatever..i told everybody id be off the leaderboard eventually...ha
-
Inappropriate?supposed to be a maths genius, but acts like an idiot. gimme a call and I'll explain.
-
Inappropriate?that is a known side effect of placing multiple bets on the same question...if placed on same option, your net worth increases because it raises the original bet, on differing options, your net worth decreases, but in the end it'll even out....the second part might work, but i would suggest the inverse...if the higher players get a greater percentage it'll make the lower players even more behind
-
Inappropriate?i like 4d idea but i guess if the top people keep getting 20k it will be the same as now but on a smaller scale and if we could dip into our funds it still wouldnt be a level playing field..aahh..i will have to visit my past on the old boards i guess
-
Inappropriate?Somehow I get the feeling that you'll remain on the leaderboard anyway.
-
Inappropriate?another question..if im placing wagers now for after this quarter will i still get the full amount if i win the bet in the next quarter? and is there an official date when this process will begin
-
Inappropriate?Rohan's got it - but to thrash out his example a bit more, if your QUARTERLY GAIN is 50k you're heading for the 20k band in Q2. This means your cash and predictions will be scaled to 40% of their current amount (20/50 = 40%). So, if wagered H$100 on a question and it's currently worth H$200, your stake will be reduced to H$40, and its worth will correspondingly be H$80. At the same time, if you have H$10k cash, that will be scaled back to H$4k as well.
-
Inappropriate?Correct Rohan, thanks. sd - hope that makes sense.
-
Inappropriate?Technically, we'll ensure the scale back mechanism doesn't affect market prices. However, it's unclear how people will behave re: buying/selling approaching the deadline which could cause a lot of volatility. I was hoping for some clues on what tactics people will employ at that point from you guys...
-
Inappropriate?i was wondering that too...i thought the payouts would go down too because it would be based on the revised bet, but not sure
-
Inappropriate?I've placed 99% of my $H into positions in the market.
Does that mean that I will get only 1% of the $20K ($H200) as cash at the start of the quarter?
I’m unsure what to do with all the cash!
-
Inappropriate?Just wanted to stick my nose in and say the band boundaries and amounts may be subject to change in future quarters but yes, you're right, crudsy will get a starting amount based on the previous quarter only. And crudsy - you're too good to wipe out anyway!
-
Inappropriate?when i first heard about it, i went thru and cashed out all my bets that were going to finish after the new quarter
-
Inappropriate?so at this point im locked in to the 20k spot for the next quarter..after that my amount to wager is based only on my earnings for that quarter..so in essence there is no reason for me to continue to wager or cash out at this point because it wont do anything for me anyway except in the history files..is that accurate?
-
Inappropriate?well, actually i meant for them to just reset those players above a certain amount and keep their score on an all time leaderboard...or maybe put it in a vault to where if they went broke in a later quarter would be the only time they'd be able to get some of it back and it would decrease they're all-time score....if they could just dip into it at any time it'd be kinda pointless
-
Inappropriate?Correct.
-
Inappropriate?Additionally, consideration needs to be made on the following :
Under the proposed scenario, long-term predictions would be continually rescaled each quarter, until the value of the wager is >$H1.
I think that once a position is rescaled, it should not be rescaled again in any subsequent quarter.
I’m worried sick over this
-
Inappropriate?Seems like 5k to 20k is a pretty big jump... Maybe add another level at 10 or 13k? Having a 15k advantage over every one else it seems like the same group will continue to dominate.
On to the next important discussion... what do we call the bands?! -
Inappropriate?Hey crudsy, yeah, I'd say you're looking good for the 20k band. It's worth continuing to increase your worth between now and quarter end for a number of reasons. 1) it'll increase your lead on the All Time Leaderboard. 2) It'll set a harder record for others to beat for quarterly earnings for next quarter. 3) It'll give you more cash to pimp your profile with later.
-
Inappropriate?You'll win a scaled down amount, as if you'd originally staked 20/(your current quarterly gain)
-
Inappropriate?sorry, that's 20,000/(your current quarterly gain).... on condition that you'll be moving to the 20k band.
-
Inappropriate?It's true rescaling will reduce some wagers to below H$1. This will happen this time for some people, not just after many quarters. We're considering what a reasonable cap would be to just cash out automatically such bets as part of the rescaling process.
The continual 'attrition' of long term predictions is a side effect of the system, but users will have the 3 months in between to reinforce predictions they feel strongly enough about between rescales. -
Inappropriate?But then, long-term predictions continually lose their value throughout the life of the prediction. What sense would it make then, for anybody to place any wager on a market that might not get settled for years to come.
First wager = $H100.
After first quarter, scaled to $H20 (optimistic)
next qtr: $H5
next qtr: $H1
next qtr: 'just cash out'
I would not reinforce the wager regardless of my strong feelings under this scenario.
I understand that not rescaling causes the same problem down the road, but some consideration needs to be made or nobody will wager on the long-term markets.
I’m confused
-
Inappropriate?kasulked
Pics I tried to respond but it wouldn't let me sign in (said it didn't know my e-mail or password) and when I tried to create an account it wouldn't let me because my e-mail was already used. so here is my response and you can post it for me
4d did a shout out to me to join this discussion. I agree with all of you to some point. I like 4d's suggestion to scale back those over a set H$ point, but I also agree with Jerry that once a wager is scaled back it should not be done again in another quarter. I also like the idea that you can bank your previous earnings but only touch them if you are down to zero and that would reduce your amount on the all-time board. I know it's all proporation but I have worked really hard to bring myself back from the brink of nothing (early Feb. markets killed me). It be nice to know that I can keep my modest 11k to 16k (depends on today's close) and give me a chance to compete with the top dogs. I hope they go with the suggestion to scale back those that are over 20k and leave us that's under 20k alone so that it can be more competive. And don't forget that you get that additional H$20 every day you log in. Just my .02 worth.
sent 1 min ago -
Inappropriate?i have noticed a definite difference of opinion between those with more cash and those with less cash, not only on here but the comment boards as well.....the less active/less cash people are probably going to feel alienated and wonder why they're even trying and those with more cash aren't going to mind as much with one major concern being jerry's which i agree with also...it'll add more fun and competitiveness for those in front, but if everyone is subject to it you might end up alienating people more than the huge amounts on the leaderboard would...whatever happens is fine with me, but i just hope it doesn't turn off a greater percentage of people than doing nothing would
-
Inappropriate?Something just doesn't feel right about this whole idea. A system that penalizes winners, rewards losers, seems wrong. We all started wtih 1,000 and some of us were able to spend considerable time and effort to grow that money. I have to say that while I haven't given this alot of thought, I just get a bad feeling about it.
-
Inappropriate?the only problem i have with this is that if i lose the 20k in one quarter im down to 1000 bux the next so i basically have nothing to show for all the time i put in...could the top people just get the 20k a quarter and the next tier get what they are going to get etc. and when somebody new gets to the next tier thats the amount they get per quarter and have the leaderboards broken down that way either by earnings or percentage and possibly create new tiers as needed..people would have incentive to get to the next tier reagrdless of what they have now and it might be less intimidating..u could also track how long it took them to get to the next tier from when they started
-
Inappropriate?@jenni - I understand 5k-20k is a big jump but isn't 6k to 240k a larger jump. which one would you settle for ?
-
Inappropriate?I am not sure if I should keep posting my thoughts as I have them or wait a day and post them all. I know for me having a large amount of cash means I have bigger wins and bigger losses. I really am giving this alot of thought and really think resetting or rescaling everyone every quarter seems to be wrong. I just assumed that at the end of the quarter we would continue on, but the leaderboard (quarterly gain) would show the profits we had from April 1st on. I assumed we would be able to see the previous quarter results, as well as an overall leaderboard. Speaking of leaderboards, why have a friends leaderboard if it is limited to top 20 people.
-
Inappropriate?satyaki - obviously the 200k+ to 20k drop most of you guys (gender inclusive slang) are taking is big...
... changing direction of thought ...
I was just thinking that the huge drop only effects a tiny percent of the hubdub population and will bring you guys back more in line with the rest of the crowd. Maybe that's not an accurate assumption... I'm guessing you admin types have looked at the distribution of wealth already? Hopefully you have used the current distribution to come up with your 1,2,5,20k divisions?
I’m thinking this thread is getting unwieldy!
-
Inappropriate?i thought that by adding the top users and then my friends who don't have alot of money I could keep track of them all, but leaderboard doesn't allow that. And without being able to shout to people who aren't on friends list, another reason to add them.
-
Inappropriate?I have been harping on destry's point for weeks ...ever since
I recieved a email from tom for suggestions. I think everyone on top of the leaderboard has worked hard enough to be there and if someone's still in the 1000's its not our fault . Once this reset thing is effective it might dishearten many top users . I'm sure that with a little hard work the users at the bottom can reach where we are in a few weeks. They should be given incentives for that...we shouldn't be penalised .
in addition check this out -
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
A total scaledown will go against this hubdub policy as stated by a admin in the officil reply - http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
I still feel that users should be scaled down % wise to just decrease volumes and nothing else. -
Inappropriate?I like the idea of quarterly scaling. It opens up the competition to every hubdubber, rich and not so rich. I like the idea of scaling tiers, so I don't have to fall too far down. However, I'd also vote for an across-the-board scaling back to $H1k.
I like even better the concept of competitive tiers, where it would be a challenge to move from one tier-group to the next. You would be promoted/demoted by your quarter end results. Each tier having their own leaderboard.
But I just got to have the "once a position is scaled, that position never gets scaled again option.", for the reasons stated above.
I’m excited about this?
-
Inappropriate?Absolutely. The numbers look like this (as of yesterday when we did the analysis):
20k band: 66 users
5k band: 171 users
2k band: 547 users
1k band: everyone else. -
Inappropriate?Absolutely. The numbers look like this (as of yesterday when we did the analysis):
20k band: 66 users
5k band: 171 users
2k band: 547 users
1k band: everyone else.
We looked into a 10k cut but there are fewer users between 10k and 20k than above 20k. This cut divided users appropriately, enabled us to use the boundaries as the starting amounts, and are nice round, understandable and memorable for everyone. -
Inappropriate?I was just gonna suggest that....have 4 separate levels of leaderboards . This way the person on top of the lower level leaderboards will never be too far away to reach and a large no of users will be motivated to reach the top of their leaderboards. The ultimate competition will be on the level one leaderoard
I’m excited
-
Inappropriate?I don't know where this discussion is headed....is a case where there will be a different case of scale down or lower scale down still in the offing or are we arguing about something else????
I haven't seen one reply from a Hubdub admin indicating that they may change their plans yet . All they do is clarify doubts on what will happen in case the scale down occurs. They're speaking like its already been finalised and they are just informing us.
I’m frustrated
-
Inappropriate?are we reset..i am showing no cash and no prediction money
-
Inappropriate?20 people on friends leaderboard bug now fixed.
-
Inappropriate?no i'm still doing good
-
Inappropriate?why has crudsy's account been frozen?
-
Inappropriate?well then ive been robbed..im showing all zeros
-
Inappropriate?sorry crudsy, it's a small display bug with a release that just went out. You'll be good in a couple of minutes.
-
Inappropriate?I don't know where this discussion is headed....is a case where there will be a different case of scale down or lower scale down still in the offing or are we arguing about something else????
I haven't seen one reply from a Hubdub admin indicating that they may change their plans yet . All they do is clarify doubts on what will happen in case the scale down occurs. They're speaking like its already been finalised and they are just informing us.
I’m frustrated
-
Inappropriate?So maybe what they are looking for is alternate proposals. So here goes. I propose that we simply leave things the way they are. When the new quarter starts the quarterly leaderboard shows gains or losses, accrued from April 1st on. I would like a leaderboard that showed total from all quarters, current quarter, and friends (as many as I can sucker into accepting the offer).
The effort of those who have spent countless hours building thier wealth shouldn't be reset or rescaled. I haven't placed a single wager today because I am not certain I will continue using Hubdub with these new guidelines that are being proposed.
I remember when I started with my account and the top of the leaderboard looked a mile away, but through smart play and lots of time and effort, I built my way toward the top. If we so worried aobut them seeming overwhelmed, why not just increase the starting amount of cash and scale up everyone to that level. Maybe we start everyone at 10k, and those users who are already members just add 9k to thier account to even it up. That way everyone can have cash to push markets around if they want. -
Inappropriate?Hi everyone, the purpose of this discussion was to gather feedback from (typically) our top users as to whether this solution would be acceptable. You've all done a great job of helping us there so far, so thank you.
To start to draw things to a close I'd like to ask explicitly: on a scale of 1 to 10, how acceptable is the solution as it stands?
10 = I'm totally excited about the new challenge, bring it on!
1 = I hate it, I'll never play again (being serious)
(newcomers to the discussion, feel free to post but do so as an answer to this question)
We've spent a lot of time and energy on the proposed solution so we'll take your comments and look to see what amendments are appropriate given the above discussions. Thanks all. -
Inappropriate?I proposed that any new user should start with 1% of the net worth of the highest person on the leaderboard . But eventually over time due to increase in volumes that 1% may seem too little and in that case we can have a scale down of every user to say about 20 % his/her worth or increase the starting figure to 2%.
If the objective of the scaledown is to encourage new users then this will meet those demands.
The separate tier leaderboards can also be put into place.
I'm with destry
I’m looking fo a silver lining
-
Inappropriate?thanks..done
-
Inappropriate?3 on ten. Not well structured...your mathematics department @##$@%$@$...you're undervaluing hours of hard work.
-
Inappropriate?if you'd prefer to do this in private, just email me (tom@ [you can guess this bit].com)
-
Inappropriate?I'm not Getting any Satisfaction here =(
-
Inappropriate?I'd like to put in my opinion in this matter:
Do _not_ take away the money from the people who earned it with very exhausting and long term dedication without any acknowledgment.
Why has this game nothing such as many other portals have: Bronse, Silver, Gold Status of users? Or maybe something like Starts you can buy, each for 10K?
You will see people decorating their accounts with Stars very much. Possibly it can be show with the name of the user like the admins are marked.
The longer the user is in the game, the better his predictions were, the more money he earned, the more stars he could buy: It would be visible to any user at any time.
Don't underestimate the vainness and the will to swank of us users! See how coool it is to use the FONT-Styling as long some people don't know how to do it ... it makes me unique, and others go green with envy :=) -
Inappropriate?Id like to post "1", but you'd call me 4d afterwards .. no just kidding: I give it a "3" because I don't like the mechanism but agree with the goals.
-
Inappropriate?i guess a 5..ive always said to have a leaderboard tiered by when people started or by gain by quarter either by money or percentage but i guess the fact that the people with the money can manipulate markets comes into play..as destry i havent really wagered at all since this announcement because i am still not sure how this will all play out and don't really want to put in the time right now..i understand the need for newcomers to not be overwhelmed and this site needs new people but is there a way to do it without having people who have built up their money just have their assets and future assets reduced to basically 20k and then 1k if they lose the 20k..the fun for me was building enough dollars to wager to be entertained for what i thought would be a while but i could lose it in 1 quarter and continue to try to make the site better at least sportswise in terms of questions..i dont really know if i would even be able to go back to wagering 50 bux on a question..i already did that..do i really want to do it again?..i don't know..another issue is the gaming issue needs to be enforced better if this goes through..people wont have the backing to withstand someone making a mint because the backlash on some elses money will be felt much more
-
Inappropriate?i just got back...one thing i thought of was that i have heard about pimping out our pages...why not open a hubdub emporium where the top users can spend cash to pimp their profile and then a hubdub pawn palace in case someone runs out of money, they can sell back their bling for like 20 or 30% or something....inevitably, there will be the bill gates or warren buffett's of hubdub with no bling and no friends(read crudsy :P) and then the gangsta's or whatever
-
Inappropriate?wtf do you think this site is for ???
-
Inappropriate?u apparently think its for gaming and meeting chicks since it's soooo imperative for u to be able to tell who's a female
-
Inappropriate?for god's sake you're here to predict and win ....not to build a house with a swimming pool...and have two flashing ferraris
I’m amazed at your imagination
-
Inappropriate?this coming from the person who felt the need to cheat
I’m amused at your undervaluing of people's egos
-
Inappropriate?outside the scope of this debate - no more of this ..i apologize pics
-
Inappropriate?In reply to Toms question and ignoring the pics - sd back and forth, I am at a 2, I am rounding up, I think I am like a 1.6 but will give it the benefit of doubt.
-
Inappropriate?3,3,5,2 thats an average opinion of 3
-
Inappropriate?I would say a 3 to 5, because of all the reasons stated above.
I’m feeling mischevious
-
Inappropriate?I am in complete agreement with the 'overall' plan.
If a guarantee is made that once a position is rescaled, it will not be rescaled again, then I vote 8. If not, then I must vote 4.
.
I’m ready either way. Bring it on!
-
Inappropriate?if you agree to being scaled down once then it is only practical that you agree to being scaled down every quarter.
-
Inappropriate?i'll take that as a four from kasulked....and a 6 from jerry.
so the average is 4 -
Inappropriate?tnx for the realtime stats :)
-
Inappropriate?can somebody open up a market on this one?
-
Inappropriate?he means multiple scale downs on one and the same single prediction, i think
-
Inappropriate?Plus your daily H$20
-
Inappropriate?yes, as kruijs. Once an individual prediction is made, it can be rescaled at the next qtr-close. After that, it can not be rescaled again, and again, until it's value is >$H1.
-
Inappropriate?I hope you do realize that this will bring in complications.
-
Inappropriate?Tom,
Sorry I'm coming into the discussion late, and not just giving your proposal a rating on a 10-pt scale, but you posted the question before the US workday began and at least some of us Hubdubbers have demanding careers that prevent them from checking Hubdub and GetSatisfaction too much during the day (thanks for the shout 4d).
I'd like to suggest an alternative way of leveling the playing field at the end of each quarter. I'm fairly certain that my proposal will be just as contentious as yours, but I think it levels the field far better. Why not cash out all the markets, add everyone's quarter-end total net worth to their All-Time Leader Board total, and then set new H$ cash positions for each user either tiered or not?
That way all the markets return to their initial odds, and everyone gets to start over at the same time, possibly still with differing amounts of H$.
As to my opinion on the Hubdub proposal, I'd say 3-4. It wouldn't have too much impact on me, particularly if it is based on quarterly gain rather than net worth, but I agree with Destry that it punishes those at the top of the leaderboard, and rewards those at the bottom, too much.
Okay everyone, how do you like the AverageAmerican proposal on a scale of 1-10.
AnAverageAmerican (donning flame-retardant suit 8^)
I’m _not_ arguing, I'm discussing!
-
Inappropriate?similar to what destry said..why couldnt we dip into our funds so we don't have to be in the 1k tier if we have enough to put ourselves into the 20k tier...it would keep those of us who built ourselves up still involved at a high enough level to keep us still interested while keeping the integrity of your tiering for each quarter..if we ran out of our original funds then we could be put back to 1k..i know if i was allowed to keep my funds to dip into so i don't have to go back to 1k unless i have to my interest would still be pretty high
-
Inappropriate?I didn't propose that you would be able to use funds earned in previous quarters. In my opinion the proportional rescaling of the markets is going to wreak havoc, and as jersjusttrolling pointed out it will make long-term predictions pointless.
My proposal is that the markets are cashed out and restored to their original odds. I imagine that an incredible trading frenzy would ensue ... and the next day the top of the leader board would probably include crudsy, rohan, infernalmachine, satyaki, jersjusttrolling, destry and maybe 4d.
I’m just kidding about that last part, well no, not _really_
-
Inappropriate?Cashing out markets would create serious problems, there are alot of longer term markets that I am in with huge investments (20-30k) that are greatly undervalued, because when I buy in I move the market up, and simply cashing in those positions would net me a huge loss even though there is high probability I will be able to wait to settlement and profit.
I think what we are seeing on here is that those at the top of the leaderboard are active on the site, therefore they are commenting and overall not liking the idea of being reset or rescaled. I think that punishing those of us who worked very hard, made some great investments, didn't game the system, seems very detrimental to the site. When I signed up I the leader had a great deal of money, many others have come and gone since. I worked hard and am extremely frustrated that there is even consideration of taking away the fruits of my time and energy.
There are several things that would happen if things were reset, either the leaders would re-emerge because they are actually participating and know what it takes to make money, or some gamers would be able to make some quick cash, move up leaderboard and then the whole community gets to be reminded daily of why gaming stinks. The site already is set up to reward smaller bets rather than larger ones. Take questoins with 10 different options, a person can "wheel" all the options for $50 or 100 dollars on each and end up regardless of outcome making 10% or more on thier money. But if I do that with $1000 dollars on each, because of the percentage market movements with a bigger investment I can't guarantee a success. Having more money just means our wins and losses are bigger. I enjoy competing, and I think this site would be greatly diminished by resetting accounts, or scaling accounts. I also can't believe we are waiting til 11 days before month ends to have a discussion about this. -
Inappropriate?I have one other important concern about this whole quarterly reset, particularly this time, since it is the first. The Hubdub admins _must_ make a decision _prior_ to the end of the quarter. I'm not trying to take shots at anyone, I just think it is important that a definite policy is communicated to the Hubdub community that permits enough time for each user to determine how best to take action to preserve their Hubwealth (C 2008 AnAverageAmerican).
4d posted that he cashed out of positions that will close in Q2. I'm considering the same thing. I have significant potential profits in long-term predictions, in which I invested, because I _thought_ Hubdub was all about predicting the news. If those positions are going to be re-factored, I might want to bail on those in which I have a profit. OTOH, I suppose I could look forward to my potential losses being reduced.
I’m thinking this is as important as the method of resetting H$
-
Inappropriate?i dunno how to vote...i can see destry's point where it penalizes the top people and jerry's about the multiple downgrades of the original wager...i think if you set the weekly gain as the default leaderboard it will help the morale of newcomers...as to average american's suggestion, if you cashed out every position, you'd have to do them all simultaneously or else then you get into who gets to go first and such....(not that i'd do this, but for ease of explanation) if i knew the cash-out was coming, i could go ahead and cash out all my positions, then find a Q with a 0% odds and just keep placing $100 bets on it...this would artificially raise my net worth because of the multiple bets and when cash-out would happen i could have increased my worth alot....also, if we do get scaled down, then go broke later without an option to use any of the old quarter's money how many people would stay and keep logging in each day for $20? i think most people would just wait until the new quarter for the next reset....that's a long time to wait and we could lose some of our best people....needs some tweaking....guess i'd give it a 6
-
Inappropriate?at the time, yes i cashed out of all predictions that ended conceivably after april 1...later i cashed in every prediction when i went all psycho and threw my temper tantrum, but have since re-joined some that end in april, but i'm not touching any after that...it does cut down on the long-term bets tho because we join those based on the end result and if the wager is getting scaled down, especially multiple times, i'd rather have the cash and hope i can get in at a comparable percentage later
-
Inappropriate?I could go with anAverageAmerican's idea as well. I give it a 6.
I can fully appreciate destry's comments as well.
Dipping into 'saved' funds does not sound like a good idea. Heck, I'd simply get all (or a large part) of my cash back and viola! I'm back on top.
The long-term holdings are the real stickler here I think. Rescaling every quarter makes long-term markets uninteresting at best, totally foolish at worst.
I’m unsure what to do with all the cash!
-
Inappropriate?thanks to pics4d for the shout.
i missed this discussion (sleep) and then it took me a while to process it.
thoughts
1. it's too complicated
2. it ruins the market for long-term questions and thereby discourages the asking of some of the most interesting/challenging questions
3. if the point is to return to "initial conditions" every quarter, why have tiers?
4. questions about financial quarters and month-ends that coincide with Hubdub quarter ends are sort of ruined
5. what exactly is the benefit of past performance?
Rating: 2.5 stars
Suggestions:
1. how about tagging questions by the quarter in which they were posed? at end-of-quarter if a question is not settled it's suspended as is, but no rescaling of bets is done. subsequent results on the question are processed as usual, except that they only affect performance and cash totals for the quarter (past) that they belong to. so, in effect, a quarter is not over until all its questions have been settled or voided. a request can be made to ask a "new" question in the current quarter which is identical, starts with the odds at time of suspension of the old one, and runs through the current quarter. this could even be automated for questions whose suspend date crosses one or more quarter-boundaries. NB winning money on a previous quarter's question has no effect on this quarter's stats.
2. pick a quarter end for hubdub that is NOT exactly at the end of a month (ie March, June, etc). this will help with the problem around the collection of month-end questions that are "damaged" by occurring at current quarter-ends.
3. no tiers. whatever the reset is for the quarter, it's either a fixed amount of cash, or a fixed percent reduction (ie you get 1% of your previous quarter total or $1000, whichever is greater). Starting with 20K versus 1K is not going to change much on the gain leaderboard (20K is near optimum for %growth, I found, so it may even allow the 20K club to dominate the weekly percent board at first)
personally, i prefer restarting all even, but if we want to stagger the start (like pole position in auto racing) then either make it a function of previous quarter's position or net gain (but such that the difference between first and last in the new quarter's start is not all that discouraging)
4 if you use suggestion #1, then people start a new quarter with only cash, no open predictions (for that quarter). the question then is where does this cash come from? is it taken from their previous earnings or does it come from hubdub? the reason this may matter is that it has an effect on total net worth.
5 the in-game bonus or bling thing: are these awarded or purchased? if bought, how does this affect total earnings. i mean, are you potentially exchanging your place on the ladder for bling-display or not?
6. maybe you could be able, if you go below a certain amount (1K?), to "purchase" from your previous earnings a limited amount of new cash by paying an upwardly-increasing penalty (starts at 50% or 100%?) for the transaction. So if you want 5K of cash, you can get it by paying 7.5K first time, 10 K next, etc.
7. you need to compensate or balance the effect of resetting H$s with tangible rewards for past performance. this should be at the same time as the quarter end, not in the indefinite future. this is very important, because not only does it compensate for any current bad feeling regarding these new and somewhat out-of-the-blue changes, but also it addresses the central issue of incentive in the game. why bother spending lots of time playing, researching, etc., if two weeks from now it doesn't count for anything at all?
I’m underwhelmed by this proposal
-
Inappropriate?Wow, a lot of money and maneuvering discussed here!.. I give the general concept a 9.. I especially like proposal b), and all that numeration conversation about c) really does make sense... I adore my pink cupcake logo, so keep the confectionaries.. Perhaps expand to donuts or cookies?
Kudos to yous for figuring all the figures out!
I’m amused
-
Inappropriate?4d,
I'm interested in the future of Hubdub, as I know you are, since despite your "temper tantrum", you came back. I don't have the time (or maybe the brains) to invest in Hubdub to reach the top of the leader board, but I'm enjoying playing the role of "make-believe" venture capitalist here on the GetSatisfaction forums.
In my opinion there is a balance to be attained between attracting new users and maintaining community involvement. Since many at the very top of the leader board are finding their wealth to be a hindrance, and those at the bottom find their relative lack of wealth to be a hindrance, I'm going against my political principles in advocating a redistribution of wealth, or at least a leveling of the playing field.
The main difference between Hubdub's proposal and mine are that Hubdub wants to refactor markets based on participating users' net worth (or quarterly gain, that has never been clear to me) and I'd prefer that all the markets settle open positions at their current value. If all the markets are completely settled the odds revert to their initial position, all users have some amount of H$ available, either tiered based on their performance the previous quarter, or not.
Lastly, each user's quarterly gain should be added to their previous total should be added to their all-time leader board net worth based on their worth after allthe markets are settled and before the addition of the next quarters' cash position.
I’m getting tired of typing
-
Inappropriate?I couldn't agree with you more. If Hubdub is _really_ about predicting the news, long-term positions are very important. The quarterly re-factoring would make these investments moot ... at least until the quarter in which they settle.
-
Inappropriate?Destry,
I appreciate your point of view, and part of the reason I made my proposal was your concern about punishing the successful to the benefit of the less-successful. I'm thinking maybe my proposal has it's own set of problems and I'm totally open to alternatives, so here's a well structured Hubdub question for you. "Assuming Hubdub insists on some form of quarterly redistribution of wealth, what is your ideal form?"
I intend no disrespect, I took a shot at what _I_ thought might work, but as you point out, it has it's own flaws (I didn't don the flame-retardant suit for nothing 8^)
I’m looking for constructive ideas (and I really should be working ... I work 24/7 these days)
-
Inappropriate?I've discussed my disagreements with the proposal above. But if it's adopted anyway, I have a big question about the open proposition rescaling and its effect on those questions/markets.
As an example, crudsy has approx. 600K while I have approx 400K. So crudsy wagers are discounted 30x and mine 20x. So their $300 on Yes (say) is scaled to $10, while my $300 on No scales to $15. But this doesn't leave the odds on the market unchanged. The rescaling is going to have drastic effect on some markets. In the above example. crudsy's $10 might then go down to $5 while my $15 goes to $20. This is not only unfair, but it also seriously ruins the integrity of the market.
The only way to to preserve the integrity of the market is to divide all current worths (or shares held, as I understand is how markets are internally managed) by the same amount across the market. Since all questions are theoretically equal, the divider should be equal across all questions.
This is the benefit of rescaling by a single factor, rather than creating tiers. You could use a divider of 100 for everything, or you could set an amount you want the front runner to start at (like 5000 or 10,000) and calculate the divider from that at reset time. I doubt there is any real opposition to bumping up the new total of cash and predictions for players who end up under 1000 after division back to $1000. -
Inappropriate?I've had a new thought on this topic, but I'm not totally satisfied withit. Hubdub has had a policy of rewarding, and not penalizing, users when settlements have been incorrect, etc. Perhaps the initial quarterly cash-in of all open questions could provide profits to those ahead on investments, and restitution of original investments to those in the red.
I don't think this is a great solution to Destry's legitimate concerns, but it might mitigate the negative effects of my original proposal. -
Inappropriate?hmm...i was thinking about this before when i cashed all my later ending positions out...lets say i have 100k and i bet 5,000 at 12% that bush would attack iran by the end of his presidency....on april 1, it gets scaled(lets assume by 5 each quarter) down to 1,000...july 1, its at 200..oct.1=40...jan1=8 and then he attacks on jan 3 instead of 40k, i only get 64...this is why i cashed all those bets in....if you cash them in at end of quarter(per AAA hehe), this would also screw this position up because it's not very popular...either way scaling may just kill all the long term wagers
also, would this change the percentages of markets?...lets say there's 3 players in a market that started 50/50...players 1&2 each throw 2,000 on yes and player 3 throws in 1,000 on no....the percentages should be around 80/20 now....if player 1 is scaled 50%, player 2 scaled 75% and player 3 only 20%, there's now 1,000+500=1500 on yes and 800 on no...wouldn't this change the percentage to roughly 67-33, thereby giving the lesser scaled players an added advantage?
hmm...i may have to change my vote...i dunno, i'm wishy-washy
I’m undecided....i just want more hubdubbers!!!!
-
Inappropriate?InfernalMachine,
You've stated my reservations about the re-factoring of the markets very concisely. That is exactly the issue that led me to propose a different (but also flawed, see Destry's concerns above) quarterly restart.
I'm certain that the Hubdub refactoring scheme is rife with problems, there are legitimate concerns about my proposal (hey, I predicted that, I should get some H$ for that prediction 8^) as well.
Come on community, we're a smart bunch of Hubdub addicts, we should be able to figure this out (as long as we don't over interpet the problem). If I knew what the possible answers were I'd create a question on Hubdub about it. -
Inappropriate?4d,
After reading this entire thread twice I'm convinced that the Hubdub refactoring plan will completely distort all of the markets, or at least all of them that have any sizeable activity. I thought my proposal was a good alternative, but Destry raised some concerns that seem legitimate.
I urge all Hubdubbers to voice their opinions in this forum, I'm confident that collectively the community can arrive at the optimal process for quarterly resettling.
Am I reaching you guys (gender neutral)? Maybe I should start a new thread for user discussion of the quarterly resettlement. -
Inappropriate?good mix of people..i dont get the math stuff but most of u do..from what i gather if the long term predictions are watered down this much noone will wager on them and this will become more about short term gain questions..then people will stop creating the long term questions and people will create questions which must end in the quarter which would take alot of the fun out of it..but alot of times the best bets for good odds are the long term ones..i just think that the people who are used to betting at least 1k on a question will not come back if they r ever forced to go back to 1k for a quarter..but thats just my opinion
-
Inappropriate?lol...yeah, this topics gunna be LONG...that's why i shouted to all my friends, i figured the more people we got on here the better...i think infernal's idea of scaling by a common factor is best if they must do that, but still need something to compensate all the top players because all that does is make them easier to catch which shouldn't be the only reason for doing it
-
Inappropriate?4d, AAA - I did ask Tom about this (somewhere up above) and he said they 'were taking care of it'. Its worth asking for more clarification but clearly they want to make sure the market doesn't shift artificially due to the scaled h$.
Tom - I'm in for a 7
I’m exhausted after catching up on this thread
-
Inappropriate?I am no where near the heavens so I can't say how angels feel about having their wings plucked quarterly. Could the High HubDubbers be ego tempted with some sort of astericked, color highlit, gold-edged ID thingamabob whenever they speak, create a question, or make their views known? It can't be really a $$ $ thing since we aren't in real bucksland, so there has to be a brag brightspot, right?
I’m unsure
-
Inappropriate?my problem isnt some kind of bragging right or glory..i don't care about that..my thing is if i start out with 20k and have a bad quarter ill be at 1k for the next quarter like im just starting again..my gains should at least allow for me to compete at the 20k level for the quarter if i have the assets to put myself there..to have anybody who has even a 100k have to go back to 1k because they have a bad quarter i don't think is right but the bottom line is the adm will do what they think is right for the site..the question is will they gain more people than they lose doing this the way they are proposing..if they keep peoples original gains seperate from whats shown on the leaderboard people will still see 20k or 10k or whatever when they see the leaderboards and it wont look intimidating but there should be some way for the people who have made these gains to use them to continue to compete in some way close to the way they have
-
Inappropriate?Good point. Trouble is, they're all good points- Finding room for Newbees, honoring great moves from High Hubdubbies... Balancing the making of gains, while retaining old growth rings.. As I shared before, I respect the powers that be who make the call on this one.
I’m undecided
-
Inappropriate?anyone who wants a smaller thread, AAA started one at http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
what does everyone think about this: everyone gets scaled by a factor of 20....this will put crudsy at about 30k and everyone below 1,000 gets pushed up to 1,000....but i think we still have to save that money somewhere where it can be tapped if you go broke because i know if i was crudsy and went broke like a month into the quarter because i got down-scaled i proly wouldn't come back after a two month wait for the end of the quarter...or even 10, that would put him at 60,000 -
Inappropriate?First and foremost what hasn't ever been talked about here is what did Hubdub plan on doing at the end of the quarter. Did they not envision that some users would pull out to large lead? I feel like we are trying to come up with ways to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Part of me wants to believe that we are using this quarterly change over as a way to put everyone back on even ground. I am opposed to taking away the earnings of anyone. I am less than half of what crudsy has but I still get on here everyday thinking that with hard work, little bit of luck, I can catch up. I think the chase is part of the fun.
I want to say that I am against all plans for scaling, resetting or otherwise. If Hubdub wants to do that and feels it is in the best interest of thier website, then they are more than welcome to. The admins at hubdub have to do whatever is best for the overall progression of thier website. I won't be a part of it, but losing one user and gaining thousands more is a worthwhile trade off.
I have stated earlier that I just always assumed at the end of the quarter the quarterly leaderboard would just have my profits from the beginning of that period. I figured there would be an overall leaderboard. I like the friends leaderboard, and would hope that it can be viewed quarterly and overall. I will still only concern myself with the overall leaderboard. When looking at the reasons stated by tom in original post, I don't have a problem with having large amount of cash, I have gotten use to the market swings when I put down a bet.
I admire that level of thought and effort that most on here are giving to come up with a plan. I wish you nothing but the best. I will be staying on the sidelines for next couple days just watching to see what happens. I will be happy to chime in where asked. I am sad to see that there was no plan for this event.
I am shocked we haven't seen more admins weigh in on this. -
Inappropriate?i totally agree about the absence of admins....i was surprised to see such an important discussion brought up so late in the day for them...i dont think they planned on quite such an explosion of wealth either, we're all just too good at prediction :)
-
Inappropriate?Scaling down: 10
How to scale down(ie. method):1
I've been reading the entire thread and I've realised that everybody is really concerned about this;these many viewpoints are helpful; infernalmachine, i thought, has good ideas. I doubt we are going to reach a consensus on this, and most users joined after Jan 28th; therefore I propose a four month quarter followed by a two month one as long as this remains undecided.
I’m amazed: 110 new emails from getsatisfaction since I went to sleep?
-
Inappropriate?The crisis (if one exists) is as a result of bundling the quarterly shift with Das (H)Kapital. The quarterly shift is easy - zero the quarterly gain figures, maybe also add the weekly % gain leaderboards and certain other features. Done. No controversy.
Perhaps there really is a need for redistribution of wealth, but as destry says, managing large amounts is an adaptive skill which you can figure out, so it's not really a good reason for changing things. In fact, it may be a good countervailing argument for leaving things as is, as the problems involved with large portfolio management may actually slow growth at the top, allowing people to catch up.
Xbox Live (those vicious capitalists ;-) ) do not worry about such things as achievement point redistribution, and yet people somehow find the courage to play, even though they are far behind (perhaps hopelessly behind) on leaderboards. It's something to shoot for, an incentive rather than a discouragement.
It's curious how amenable the majority of us are to having our wealth disappear. Surely this differentiates H$s from real $s! Only destry has directly objected - I can definitely see his point btw, and wonder if we aren't going to regret being so "nice".
Anyway. Wealth-redistribution is a BIG idea, and difficult to implement. Quarterly change is simple. But if you do both at once, you make the deadline for deciding and implementing an enormous philosophical shift in the game really sudden. As rohan is suggesting, slow down. If you're sold on doing both at once, rohan's 4 month first quarter is not a bad idea. Otherwise, why not implement them separately, or even see how destry's idea works over quarter #2, continue this discussion here, and come up with plans for Q3?
It's not as if starting a new quarter and having a weekly percent gain board, as well as the ability to see where you are (ie paging of leaderboards past the top 20) aren't going to have any positive effect on the game. -
Inappropriate?Hey,
Since Hubdub started, a majority of the earl;y user's have made large amounts of money with illegal questions(ie. before the 12 hour and the cash-out when suspended restrictions). Those gains then are used to make even more. Consider pics: he made his money(a lot of it) from a bug. Now that the bugs are being ironed out, it is time for everyone to be put back to lower amounts so that real predicting can go on. The all-time leaderboards will maintain this gamed wealth, but no one is going to last long on them if they make their cash from gaming instead of predicting. there is no question of being "nice". You have to be reset. Accept it, and instead of objecting, constructively think of a way of how to reset.
I’m amused
-
Inappropriate?Thats a completely different viewpoint......and I don't like it . If there were 5 bugs in the system in Q1 then there will surely be 5 more again in Q2. So people who took advantage of those early problems will now take advantage of new problems that pop up from time to time . That is an inevitable process ..you can't stop that . If we are to follow your logic then it would mean that everytime a new bug is removed people should be reset .
-
Inappropriate?I am not totally against rescaling but I know that due to problems arising from it a few smart people will get ahead . Even if we think our process is flawless ...the scale down would be like starting afresh and Hubdub would be facing new problems.
If however the scaledown does take place I think that the procedure should be -
1. Freeze everyone's account for 5 hours from 7:00pm PST a.
2. Take out every prediction that a question has.... in order .
3. Turn all predictions to cash.
4. Then rescale the cash and then proportionally invest it back in the respective questions in order. -
Inappropriate?Hi everyone, I wanted to let you know that even though we haven't been responding to every post, we've been watching this discussion closely and are finding it very useful for refining our plans. Thank you all.
I’m grateful
-
Inappropriate?Hi everyone, thanks for all your efforts and comments. Please see the new, revised solution here: http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
Loading Profile...


EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE






EMPLOYEE

EMPLOYEE
