Here.
Google horror story
4
Monthly Archives: March 2009
John Stewart unloads on CNBC… and Jim Cramer.
The Daily Show With Jon StewartM – Th 11p / 10cCNBC Gives Financial Advice
Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri MartinPolitical Humor
Joke of the Day
Video via Felix Salmon
–
The Daily Show With Jon StewartM – Th 11p / 10cJim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1
Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri MartinPolitical Humor
Jim Cramer
–
The Daily Show With Jon StewartM – Th 11p / 10cJim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2
Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri MartinPolitical Humor
Jim Cramer
–
The Daily Show With Jon StewartM – Th 11p / 10cJim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3
Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri MartinPolitical Humor
Jim Cramer
–
UPDATE: Jim Cramer on John Stewart
–
–
Opacity versus Openness
There is much lying going on in the field of EPM software vendors.
– They lie about the people they hire —-many of the new employees are in fact part-time (at best).
– They lie about their customers —-some of the names you see on their “-clients”- webpages are in fact companies that have abandoned the experiment long ago. By keeping old customers in their listing and adding some brand-new prospects, they create artificially a cumulative effect so as to impress the gullible prospects that they try to hook up at those pitiful $400-a-seat vendor conferences.
– They lie about the benefits of prediction markets. Since (enterprise) prediction markets are just information aggregation mechanisms that can’-t reach omniscience by essence, the only value of (E)PMs comes from the weaknesses of the competitive forecasting tools. Those weaknesses are not that numerous —-hence, the applications of (E)PMs are probably limited.
– They lie about the successes that their customers got. There isn’-t a single detailed business case published about EPMs.
– They lie about the real age of the prediction markets —-they make it like PMs are in childhood, whereas the reality check is that PMs are in adulthood. The first batch of contemporary PMs popped up in 1988 —-that’-s 21 years ago, folks. The starting point of the PM hype was in 2003–-2004 —-that’-s 6 years ago, now. It is not true to say that (E)PMs are a novelty. By now, we should be able to pause, assess their benefits, and tell the world where exactly they can make an impact (if any).
Because the lying is still going on, I have decided to downgrade the prediction market people and the prediction market organizations who are opaque —-and to upgrade the ones who are open. I hope that my tougher stance will incite everyone to be more truthful.
ADDENDUM
An uncertain future – A novel way of generating forecasts has yet to take off. – by The Economist – 2009-02-26
The prediction market consultants who matter -and the others who dont
Who are the prediction market consultants who took part of the conversation prompted by the publication of the devastating story by The Economist?
– Adam Siegel of Inkling Markets
– Mat Fogarty of CrowdCast
– George Tziralis of AskMarkets
– Jed Christiansen of Mercury
Notably absent from the conversation:
– David Perry of Consensus Point
– “-Chief Scientist”- Robin Hanson of Consensus Point
– Emile Servan-Schreiber of NewsFutures
– Chris Hibbert of Zocalo
– The HSX people
– The academic canaries who are over-quoted by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal
Taking all this into account, I am updating my “-Consultants”- listing published at CFM. I am putting the consultants who participate in web conversations ahead of the others, and in bold, so as to signal to my numerous readers who they should contact first —-should they have any inquiry about enterprise prediction markets. And I will consider doing the same for the other Midas Oracle listings.
Starting today, there will be retaliations of measured and graduated amplitude against any prediction market people or prediction market company who snobs the important conversations about prediction markets —-which take place on Midas Oracle or elsewhere.
You can’-t be bragging everywhere that you are a “-prediction market expert”- and be absent from important conversations. If you don’-t converse with us, then you are not such a good expert —-”-you’-re the weakest link, bye bye.”-
NEXT: It is not about Midas Oracle…- It is about taking part of the conversation about (enterprise) prediction markets on the Web.
Google rewards those who take part in web conversations about (enterprise) prediction markets.
Scanning the results for the query on “-prediction markets”-, I see that, focusing on the software vendors and prediction market consultants incorporated after the 2003–-2004 starting point (hence, excluding pioneer NewsFutures), Inkling Markets is ranked much higher than Consensus Point.
- No need to wonder why. Adam Siegel (the Inkling Markets CEO) is an active participant in the discussion —-thru his blog, thru comments on Midas Oracle, and thru private e-mails. (I told many times Dave to catch up. Pissing in a violin in order to compose a symphony would have been more fruitful.)
- Having a prestigious “-Chief Scientist”- is not such a determinant. It only impresses a few young, inexperienced and gullible spotty collegians. What makes the difference on the Web is your openness —-more exactly, how much high-quality information you are willing to publish, free of charge, free of advertising, and free of copyright. Take a look at Inkling Markets. Adam Siegel has made the hell of an effort to make available many explainers and case studies on enterprise prediction markets. I don’-t agree with everything he says, but I reckon that he is the only one to make the effort to reach out to web readers.
In the end, whether the judge is Google or Chris Masse, the passing of time is important. It allows us to see thru prediction market people. There are those who matter —-and those who don’-t.
UPDATE:
Google PageRank:
Inkling Markets: 6 / 10
Consensus Point: 5 / 10
It is not about Midas Oracle… It is about taking part of the conversation about (enterprise) prediction markets on the Web.
As an addendum of my recent post, let me clarify something. I was not talking about posting or commenting on Midas Oracle. I was talking, more generally, about prediction market consultants issuing statements (posted anywhere on the Web, and linked to from Midas Oracle) about the current state of the field and industry of prediction markets.
- If you are an economist, and have nothing to say about the current banking, financial and economic crisis (the worst in our generation), then you don’-t matter anymore.
- If you are a prediction market consultant, and have nothing to say about the negative piece from The Economist, then you don’-t matter anymore.
It is a tough reality…- get used to it, folks.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Chris Masses favorite blogger
I recently discovered Mike Masnick of TechDirt —-via our good friend Mike Linksvayer.
He blogs about the new business models on the Internet —-give away some free high-quality stuff, and sell some other.
I get a kick out of each of his blog posts. He is very focused and extremely pertinent. He is my preferred blogger, now.
The forecasting ability of a tool should not be judged against a virtual fool-proof prophet, as such a tool simply cannot exist.
“-You’d better compare it with other existing tools or widely-used mechanisms, finally leveraging on the supremacy of one over the others.”-
Conditional Likelihood Loss
– Nate Silver: 0.6032
– InTrade: 0.3699
InTrade looks much better than Nate Silver on the Oscars 2009.
Waiting for the HubDub numbers, now. Nigel, are you napping or what?
Enterprise prediction markets: Usability innovation is the answer.
This past week, The Economist wrote on the yet-unfulfilled promise of prediction markets. At CrowdCast (ex-Xpree), we believe prediction markets are not yet mainstream because the current solutions are built on mechanisms designed for the stock market, not for the enterprise.
The stock trading metaphor works for a large, liquid stock market, but is unsuitable for enterprise forecasting. The concept of shorting and covered calls is far from intuitive for your average employee, and the stock mechanism makes it hard to ask the simplest of questions relevant for corporate forecasters. For example, buying or selling a collection of virtual stocks representing probabilities of sales falling in particular ranges is an incredibly obtuse way of asking for a single sales forecast. Finally, the stock mechanism relies on copious liquidity to ensure meaningful metrics, which is often not available with the limited crowds available in the enterprise.
However, innovation moves on and we question the assumption that prediction markets have to rely on the stock market analogy. At CrowdCast, we have been working on a new mechanism, that takes into account participant behavior and aptitude as much as market efficiency. The product we are launching in April will deliver easy, engaging, and expressive information exchanges, without the limitations of traditional notions of stock markets.
When you get the questions, incentives, and mechanism right, a prediction market can be an incredibly powerful management tool. Employees share insights anonymously and are measured and rewarded for their intelligence. Widely deployed, this has the potential to fundamentally change the nature of the organizational contract, moving from information flow based on hierarchy and silos, to enterprise-wide direct communication.
A whole new take on prediction markets- available from CrowdCast in April 2009.
Mat Fogarty
CrowdCast CEO
Cross-posted from the Xpree blog
Previously: Are collective intelligence solutions being oversold?