🏅 Top traders

I think there's a decent chance it's a subtype of numeric markets instead of its own type.

@MichaelWheatley Surely this would count as positive resolution, no? OP?

@sbares The description says it has to be an "explicit answer type" and the second market on this question, linked by Ben, seems to explicitly exclude it.

@NickAllen ?

@MichaelWheatley negative, see the "this question resolves negative if..." write-up for this question. A new subtype would resolve positively though; anything that allows a new option for dates or date ranges for the answer, as a specific type.

@NickAllen >see the "this question resolves negative if..."

What I am asking is, if it is implemented under the hood as "n days after d" or whatever, but what the user sees is a "bet later/earlier" and a graph that says "January 1 20xx, ...." analogously with "bet higher/lower" and "1, ..." (i.e. essentially a reskin of the numeric markets). If that doesn't count as "explicit", then I don't know what does...

@sbares I think that if earlier/later are the only options visible then negative, but if the user can pick dates or date ranges then positive is in keeping with the gist of this question. Does that help?

Under the hood is irrelevant to the resolution; the crux is whether the user sees something allowing clear choices of target dates and/or date ranges.

Related:

@bcongdon oh, whoops. I searched for dupes....

What's the right move here?

@NickAllen There's no harm in having duplicate markets, and everyone betting here has thuswise indicated that they want to participate in this market... I'd just leave it.

It'd be bad to make it a habit, but as a one-off it is harmless.

It shouldn't be too hard, honestly. Just have a small skin that translates it into Unix time under the hood