I tend to trust markets more when there have been a large number of traders, since a greater number of people have added information to the market.
A similarly important metric is the number of views or unique viewers a market has had, as it implies that viewers who saw the market but did not trade were comfortable with that price.
This would be really helpful info to have and would be great for the Manifold team to add.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ593 | |
| 2 | Ṁ164 | |
| 3 | Ṁ78 | |
| 4 | Ṁ75 | |
| 5 | Ṁ27 |
We actually do now - although it's very hidden. If you go to someone's market, click the three dot menu, and click boosts, u can see the number of views it has (regardless of whether it has been boosted or not).
Or actually maybe the impressions is different and is just from the feed - I'm not sure because I think we changed it? But even if it's not I'm pretty sure we will add views by the end of 2023 as it's been discussed.
@DavidChee Under the boost it tell you the analytics for the post and has for a while I think? I would love if those metrics were more clearly defined. Also would be cool if they could only claim bonus after betting. Or maybe give trader half of unique trader bonus. I would opt into that for every market.
@Sinclair ok well I guess we'll just have to add it asap so this market isnt misresolved 😆
I think the information provided here still fits with the spirit of the market?
If I was asked in the comments whether "Impressions" would count for purposes of the market, even if that included times when a market appeared in someone's feed but it was not provable that the market was "viewed", I would have said yes.
There's a lot more factors that can influence the decision to participate in a market, beyond simply being comfortable with the price. There could be uncertainty in the resolution criteria or the reputation of the market maker. Also, my understanding of the market's topic may be low enough that I'm not comfortable staking some of my finite mana on the topic, but that shouldn't be considered an endorsement of the current probability level either.
Also, even if I'm wrong and non-trading views are always an endorsement of the current price, the number of views could be misleading on markets with significant fluctuations in probability. To be useful, you'd need a more detailed analysis, such as a graph that shows when the views occurred in relation to changes in probability, but I don't think even that would carry the meaning you're looking for.