http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/03/10/how-jed-christiansen-assesses-the-news-article-on-epms-by-the-economist/

You are too harsh with them.

“They are not trying to present an unbiased opinion. I also doubt they are good predictors of anything.”

I mildly agree.

“This is because 2004-2005 was when the hype surrounding prediction markets started, consequently most people cited the recent 2004 presidential markets.”

No, this is because the US presidential election is the most important event in the world, and that each forecaster is asked to tell how it/he/she fared about the last one.

“There are less PM articles than there used to be so it is much easier to respond. Or, perhaps they are trying to fight all the negative publicity you are trying to bring to the domain.”

What does the blog intro says, at the top? Is that negative publicity or good publicity?

http://www.midasoracle.org/

Techcrunch’s job is to create hype or controversy. They are not trying to present an unbiased opinion. I also doubt they are good predictors of anything.

“All the IT bloggers I read sur-inform us about the fact that Twitter is very important.”

You are collecting biased data. There are many questions about Twitters future, but more importantly (for a lot of reasons) I don’t think it’s a good analogy.

“Wrong. Years after the 2004 US elections, InTrade and the journalists writing about PMs would cite that InTrade nailed “all 50 states” in 2004. Any US presidential election is the most important election in the world, and any forecaster is asked how it/he/she did with that prediction.”

This is because 2004-2005 was when the hype surrounding prediction markets started, consequently most people cited the recent 2004 presidential markets.

“Daniel, many news articles about PMs were published in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Inkling and CrowdCast didn’t respond systematically to all of them. In early 2009, they felt compelled to respond to the article from The Economist, because they disagreed with its negative tone, which is their constitutional right of course. But the fact that they had to respond whereas in the past they did not should tell you that, indeed, that news article was special. It marks a discontinuity in the hyping of (enterprise) prediction markets.”

There are less PM articles than there used to be so it is much easier to respond. Or, perhaps they are trying to fight all the negative publicity you are trying to bring to the domain. “Hype” is a network effect and likely to be governed by power laws. Any expectation of continuousness or linearity is misguided.

If EPMs are *not* “promising”, then why would businesses bother with trying it?

http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/03/06/what-panos-ipeirotis-didnt-tell-you/

http://behind-the-enemy-lines.blogspot.com/2009/03/positive-or-negative-economist.html

I agree with some of what you say. Just stay tuned, and when I have more time, I will blog about how EPMs can be demonstrated to be a useful tool in some specific situations.

I am not all negative on EPMs. I am against the current discourse. But I favor a more scientific and rational discourse, with participants that adopt the open approach. I hope to elaborate more on that in the future. Thanks for your comments, and for the attention.

“As Giberson indicates, the future of (a) technology is virtually always unpredictable.”

I disagree strongly. All the purpose of TechCrunch and other IT blogs is to inform readers about the new trends, the new opportunities, and the brand-new startups that make it (and enrich their founders). The TechCrunch bloggers try to discern what’s promising from what’s ‘passé’.

“Regarding Twitter, I’m curious what you define as a certain future? Certainly not everyone is bullish on the technology.”

All the IT bloggers I read sur-inform us about the fact that Twitter is very important.

“And, relatedly, people stop caring about the 2008 election, well, pretty much right after the election. So, expecting people to keep talking about the presidential prediction markets seems a bit much.”

Wrong. Years after the 2004 US elections, InTrade and the journalists writing about PMs would cite that InTrade nailed “all 50 states” in 2004. Any US presidential election is the most important election in the world, and any forecaster is asked how it/he/she did with that prediction.

“The article mentions challenges that many new technologies face. This is not negative, this is accurate. Inkling and CrowdCast have seized the opportunity to publicly address these challenges.”

Daniel, many news articles about PMs were published in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Inkling and CrowdCast didn’t respond systematically to all of them. In early 2009, they felt compelled to respond to the article from The Economist, because they disagreed with its negative tone, which is their constitutional right of course. But the fact that they had to respond whereas in the past they did not should tell you that, indeed, that news article was special. It marks a discontinuity in the hyping of (enterprise) prediction markets.

This article from The Economist (one of the 3 or 4 most prestigious publication in the field of business and economics) will prompt the other journalists either to abstain from writing about prediction markets or to write a bit negatively (or at least not in a bullish way) about their potential or real applications.