(Pictured: @strutheo making @chrisjbillington's words 90% more eloquent)
What type of market are you tired of seeing? Submit topics that you think are over-saturated on Manifold (or under-saturated). In the end, I will create a poll asking whether there are too many, too few, or just the right amount of each type of market. This market resolves to whichever type has the largest net proportion of people saying it's over-saturated (i.e., the largest percentage of people saying there are too many minus the percent saying there are not enough).
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ141 | |
| 2 | Ṁ88 | |
| 3 | Ṁ72 | |
| 4 | Ṁ65 | |
| 5 | Ṁ61 |
17 total responses. Net scores for each option:
Markets without resolution criteria and/or descriptions: 14
Crypto: 12
Jimmy Carter: 11
Poorly defined subjective: 11
Stock close higher: 10
Spam: 7
similar binary markets: 6
Stonk: 5
Intentionally misleading: 4
Near-duplicate: 4
Resolves to poll: 3
Meme: 1
Pivot: 1
Sports: 0
Personal opinion: -2
Prop bets: -2
2024 election: -3
Meta-markets: -3
Whalebait: -4
Rationalussy: -4
Any topic: -5
Møøse: -5
Politics: -6
Last chance to take the poll. I will close it in ~a day.
Holy fucking shit! This market is back online without any application errors, and the poll is ready: https://forms.gle/surogpwKSEPqpSdF9
@PlasmaBallin It may be advisable to vote "just the right amount" on options if you don't know what they are, to prevent an option from winning with only a few votes on it just because no one has any idea what it is. Besides, if you don't even know what an option is, then presumably there are not too many of them.
@PlasmaBallin These sorts of markets ("close higher"):
https://manifold.markets/browse/for-you?q=close+higher
not to be confused with these sorts of markets ("stonks"):
Can someone explain how to interpret the graph of the 'Stock close higher (not stonks)' %?
I seem to be stuck in simple 3 dimensional thinking and I think I might need 4 dimensional thinking to understand
@Nat It's quite simple, really. Someone traveled back in time about 1.5 hours while trading on the market and created a new timeline where the probability was slightly higher.
@shankypanky Peter Griffin here to explain the joke: I meant it sarcastically to poke fun at my own lack of motivation to actually find examples to prove my point by prematurely claiming debate victory in overly condescending chess rhetoric
@shankypanky are there any of my markets (besides the ASI moon mining one, I intend to improve that one) that don't have elaborated criteria in the description that you feel need it?
@TheAllMemeingEye haven't had a chance to look but I will. I don't believe for a moment that "my markets are fine so this is a non-issue overall" is a good or valid argument though, personally. the addition wasn't about you personally.
@TheAllMemeingEye but if you're asking unrelated to the answer and just doing a crowdsource on whether any markets could be improved then that's different obvs. :)
@shankypanky yeah sorry I didn't mean it as a proof, just I realised I often do this so wanted to check if it was causing problems lol
@shankypanky would you agree that in most cases if the title has ambiguity one can ask for clarifications in the comments, which significantly reduces the problem?
@TheAllMemeingEye Market creators aren't obligated to respond. Gigacasting didn't, when he was active, and he was one of the biggest market creators at the time.
@PlasmaBallin I'm sure there are a million more markets related to the pivot itself after the announcement - not compulsory to only speculate on the unknown for a topic to be entirely too present (and this option still counts even after the fact)