Resolution source: https://trumpgolftrack.com/
Details:
Resolves YES if "Time Spent Golfing" is at least 25% after his first 100 days, and NO if "Time Spent Golfing" is <25%.
I plan to resolve following the linked webpage, and I make no promises about (a) the comprehensiveness/rigor of their sourcing & (b) the definitions they use.
However, if the site seems slow to update, I will wait a few days to resolve & will do my best to estimate what the true Day 100 percentage would have been based on their tally.
E.g. if it says "24%" on the 100th day but early the next morning they update the site and include that day as a golf day, it could still resolve YES, it's clear that the intended tally was 25%.
But if e.g. they "missed a day" because of their sourcing, that doesn't matter, it resolves based on their tally.
Other exception: if it's clear that the site is essentially abandoned (e.g. they're not making any sort of good faith effort to keep the tally updated), then this will N/A.
Update 2025-04-30 (PST): * Abandonment: The market will resolve as N/A if the creator is reasonably confident that the linked tracking site will not be updated again for many months. (AI summary of creator comment)
1,000People are also trading
@traders With this market winding down, here's the updated version for his first 6 months:
Last use/update on their socials: https://bsky.app/profile/trumpgolftrack.com
Was 28 days ago. The social media activity ending a month ago already should give support to @Ziddletwix criteria of site abandonment. Enough so to make the call as soon as next week or on the 19th at the latest should there be no more updates on the main website or socials.
There have been five or six days of media verified days of golfing since 4/19(dependent on the definition: Easter, One or two days with Saquan, and May 3,4, and 5). Since the last three days of golfing, May 3-5, are in his official public schedule they are a bit more official than the last few days of golfing in April(though I think Easter "golfing" was also on the official schedule"). Therefore it's possible the others didn't meet the site managers criteria, and they will update with these May dates without adding the April dates therefore settling the question NO. But while I find it possible if unlikely that the April dates didn't meet the criteria, I think its basically impossible for at least one of these May dates to not meet even the strictest of standards. Therefore, I'd argue, if not updated within a week (or two if being generous ) it should be absolutely clear the site has been meaningfully abandoned.
As an addendum to this, it seems clear from the comments that multiple users have emailed the site manager various links to verify the golfing days and those users seem to give the implication they have received zero response. Which gives additional support to the abandonment claim.
May 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM-AFtoxk_I
May 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEzsp24NqQI
Website is still not being updated.
@bananaLtsnh If you're referring to the "days in office" number updating, that's very likely just an automated count. It's still ambiguous as to whether or not the site is actively maintained and will add the golfing day that occurred on Easter.
@cthor @Ziddletwix Will the market resolve N/A if there is no evidence of further activity on the site since when they added the 4/19 golf trip?
@cthor Yeah I'm still pretty confident in "Yes or N/A" given the really overwhelming evidence of 25%+.
@Panfilo it would be regrettable if this market were to pivot from the stated question to “will trumpgolftrack.com accurately track whether Trump plays golf for 25% of his first 100 days?”
@ChrisSnyder If they stopped tracking it on Easter then the abandonment rule, as has been in the description for some time, would take effect.
@Panfilo That's 100% fair per the description, but still regrettable. And it's unfortunate that there seems to be distorted betting action here the last few days dancing around ambiguity with the other site. No issue with @Ziddletwix on that, it's just too bad that it's playing out that way.
@cthor This is tricky—I will continue to think about it, but at the moment I don't think this would meet my bar to conclude the site is "abandoned". My intent with that phrase was to capture the case "I am reasonably confident that the site will not be updated again for many months". Personally, I don't think I would bet on that now, and I am not confident they won't get back to updating it in a week (I might make a mini market on that point out of curiosity, but it won't be binding either way). It has only been ~2 weeks without an update. The site was sporadically updated at earlier points, often with delay. And the fact that they didn't reply to email doesn't prove much—I emailed them a while ago after there hadn't been updates for a while, they never replied, and a few days later the site updated, but it only included one of the days I had submitted (i.e. it seems like they just ignored my email).
And the description is fairly clear that a substantial delay in updating and/or missed days are not sufficient to N/A the question, it resolves based on what's on the site.
@Ziddletwix More broadly, there are many comments here that the “spirit of the market” is strictly the title, and nothing more. I don’t know why people think that—as something of a mini-authority on the intent of this market, I chose not to leave this purely as a title + link to the site, but to add a full description because this question (both in spirit and in letter) is about what is shown on that site, not my own evaluation of whether Trump is golfing a lot.
@Ziddletwix That's fine... but based on that, I just took my little bit of profit here and bailed to avoid risk of losing it all on a No resolution. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
@Ziddletwix I think the new AI comment added today based on your post here is clear that 2+ weeks of no updates doesn't trigger abandonment, but the original description was not.
@Panfilo fwiw i'm going to delete all the AI comments added because i'd rather people not take its rewordings as gospel. (above is my clarification of what abandonment means—"I am reasonably confident that the site will not be updated again for many months")
@Ziddletwix I've been saying they're not ready (the AI comments) but yours is far from the hardest-hit market, no worries.
@Ziddletwix I think it would just be better if the market resolves as N/A given that the site has not changed despite multiple evidences of him online going to golf.
@Ziddletwix fwiw, I’ll probably close the market in a day or so, since after that point it may be betting on edge case resolution decision than the market itself.
I admit I am still figuring out what’s best to do. I am not going to N/A it this week, for the reason above, there has not been sufficient evidence the site is abandoned. Ideally, I would just wait several weeks, so that either (1) there’s an update (and it resolves based on whether they backfill), or (2) there’s no update, and we actually have evidence the site is abandoned. I think that’s a nicer resolution, but my original description did say that I would only wait a limited period, and thus I don’t love going against what I wrote (even if there’s no way to perfectly handle this).
So that’s my current thought process. May poll some Mods if I’m still unsure.
@Ziddletwix I think this is a classic case of what I was talking about at https://manifold.markets/JonathanMannhart/will-i-leave-manifold-in-2025-write?tab=comments#ygnda2qebvk:
> In cases where they're active, the market creator then acts honestly and resolves to something that seems like a most legally correct interpretation of their own unfortunately written description. But as mentioned above, the most legally correct interpretation is not always the most spiritually correct one. This is a stressful situation to be in, leads to many sore feelings for everyone involved, and probably discourages the creator from making any markets again.
There's no need for a dishonest or incompetent market creator for a bad resolution to arise. It's the natural consequence of being too strict with a legalistic approach.
I'm guessing you wrote the description you did because this was created as a mostly silly market and if the site was abandoned or obviously unreliable after it had outlived its usefulness around day 30-60 (likely, since it's mostly a propaganda site run by a Dem operative), you had no interest in doing all the research yourself to validate things up to day 100. It'd be a bunch of work all for a mostly silly market, and nobody would've invested all that much up to that point for a NO (if it were active but unreliable) or N/A (if it were abandoned) to be bad resolutions.
But with 1 single day left to validate, that reasoning no longer makes sense. At this point it's less work to just validate that day and call it a YES, but now you feel bound by the description and are unable to make the spiritually correct decision. This then leads to the current situation where substantially more mana is at stake from people gambling on how you or a mod panel will resolve rather than any underlying facts.
I'm holding the amount I am because I saw news reports for Easter and figured there was no way this would resolve NO even in the case of the site being slow or abandoned. I'll take the L if you do decide to resolve NO but it will update my confidence in difficult resolutions being handled well.