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 2025-05-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has announced the resolution of this market. Please see their comment for the full reasoning.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ4,996 | |
| 2 | Ṁ4,182 | |
| 3 | Ṁ3,291 | |
| 4 | Ṁ2,088 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1,806 |
People are also trading
The site updated.
This includes an update to 04/20 (i.e. Easter, when people correctly identified that Trump had golfed). That brings the tally to 25 out of 100, and thus this resolves YES.
Apologies for any confusion in the meantime—for a future market I'll be more concrete from the start about how long I should be willing to wait for a potential update. I do think this better fits the spirit of the market than refusing to wait for the site to update (i.e. NO) or N/A.
@Ziddletwix Even though it ended up in my favor, it still feels like a bitter win. You did a great job handling the market given current policy and the description (and trumpgolftrack.com operating in the most inconvenient way possible). I feel like there's something to be learnt, but I only have scattered thoughts:
Already discussed a lot elsewhere, but N/A resolutions feel bad and create weird incentives. If there's ever some non-N/A resolution that works, it'd be preferable over N/A. The more volume in a market, the more you really don't want to resolve N/A.
Closing trading was good. When people start trading against differing interpretations of resolution criteria (or in this case, against how an unaffiliated oracle will behave), instead of underlying facts, better off just cutting that out before people end up with more at stake on meta predictions.
The above indicates to me where the bad feeling comes from. This wasn't a meta market, then it became one by circumstance. I think this is something that can form a general principle of market moderation, which is that you really don't want that to happen. I dunno how much this weighs against other things we want, but I think it ranks higher than "sticking to the market description strictly to the letter."
And when the above does happen, the market should probably be unranked while it's closed, since meta markets usually get unranked. I ended up dead last in https://manifold.markets/leagues/24/diamond/enigmatic-thunderbirds from the massive paper losses I had while this was closed.
(I'm probably being overly loose with definition of "meta market" here. I can't think of a precise definition, but the more an answer is particular to how Manifold functions, the more "meta" it feels.)
Apologies for the delay. I’m not satisfied with any of the possible resolutions—these edge cases are inevitable but it still sucks and I’m sorry to all the traders who will be (somewhat rightfully) frustrated by any chosen resolution.
TL;DR: I will leave this closed until June 1st. If there has been no update, I will consider the site abandoned and the market will N/A. If there’s an update, I’ll wait another week for the site to stabilize, & then resolve based on what it shows. I don’t like N/A-ing here, but I think it’s the least worst option.
High level context: My primary experience of Manifold is as a trader (not a creator/mod). As a trader, all I want to know is “what exactly am I trading on”. Thus, as a creator, I place high weight on what I write in the description.
Why not resolve YES? Because the description is explicit that this market resolves based on the site, not what I personally believe counts as a golf trip. FWIW, while I understand the frustration, I write markets this way for a reason. The opposing view is roughly “the spirit of the market is about Trump golfing, so if we’re sure he golfed, add it”. To that I’d say (1) the “spirit of the market” is what I actually wrote & what people traded on, not what people later decide the market should be about, & (2) even if you insist that the market is truly just about Trump golfing (not the site tally), then you need to scrutinize whether the site even answers that question in the first place (as it accepted varying levels of evidence, e.g. days where Trump just went to the golf course and there’s no proof he actually played golf).
Why not resolve NO? Because there’s a very clear break in site activity. They were reasonably comprehensive up until all activity on the site/social media stopped on April 19th.
Why not immediately N/A? The site has been slow to update before. They aren’t responding on social media, but they never gave any reply to an earlier email I sent with some days they were missing (and they updated after that). And some news sources still cite the number on this site (I'm sure they just haven't realized it's out of date, but nonetheless, at least in the media, it's not being treated as obviously abandoned). My only major regret is that in reply to a comment, I said I'd only wait ~5 days or so—I meant that in terms of "slow to update", not "abandoned", but still, I hate to go against what I wrote earlier, I just see this as the least-worst-option (and I probably shouldn't have offered any clarification there).
@Ziddletwix do you have an idea of how much more inactivity you want before ruling abandonment? Their Bsky account (https://bsky.app/profile/trumpgolftrack.com) was active from Feb 20 to Apr 7, often posted daily, and never had more than 10 days between posts, and now there's been over 30 days without anything. Seems pretty strong evidence of abandonment.
@cthor yeah sorry for delay, agonized on this a bit and meant to write-up my thoughts/plans in full, since it's a tricky situation given the description, but have been slammed all week. tl;dr my current plan is to wait a ~month and N/A if there has been no further update, & if there's an update resolve based on that. but will try & explain my thoughts this weekend
@Ziddletwix no response to this needed, and perhaps already planning to have this specific wording included, but have an ask that you specifically note whether you are waiting a month from their last activity on the site(4/19), the last media confirmed golf outing(4/20 or 27), from the 100th day (4/30), or a month from now (5/9).
I'd also anticipate that in a situation where they start to be active again they may take a few days(or at least a few hours) to add all updates so should that happen they may add the most recent instances first which creates a tricky scenario where YES holders will demand you wait and NO holders asking for immediate resolution. To avoid those arguments and more @bananaLtsnh spam, I think having clarity on how you handle both the abandonment and a return to activity(waiting a day, immediate resolution, other) precisely would be best
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.