Wow, look at my calibration graph! When I bet YES or NO on something at 50%, it only resolves YES about 20% of the time! Clearly anytime I bet a market to 50%, you should just bet it down to 20% and you'd be profitable.

...no, wait, that's just because I made a lot of large bets on The Market (which resolved NO) when it was around 50%.

I'm being a bit snarky, but a lot of calibration graphs, even of users like me who've made tons of bets, aren't super helpful because they're weighted by bet size. (Note that profit is already a somewhat good metric of calibration weighted by bet size.) There's been some debate over whether you truly want a calibration chart that's unweighted by bet size, since maybe M$1 bets are more likely to be throwaways that you don't want to count against you. I think I'd probably support some kind of logarithmic weighting, but honestly I think if every bet or every market counted the same, that'd probably already be an improvement.

Manifold calibration now is cool, and I'm not sure that it's the highest-priority thing to improve, but I'd love to see calibration graphs that are less skewed by single markets, and actually answer classic calibration questions like "When I bet YES around 70%, how often does the market resolve YES"?. This market resolves YES if, by July 31 at 6pm PT, Manifold offers calibration graphs that are much more useful at this, and NO otherwise.

General policy for my markets: In the rare event of a conflict between my resolution criteria and the agreed-upon common-sense spirit of the market, I may resolve it according to the market's spirit or N/A, probably after discussion.