Since we have too many markets finishing up see #207 (This is a good problem to have!)
I was wondering how are dispute markets going to be ordered when presented to the user? We are already over 200 markets closing, and the end of year and monthly market closure windows are going to produce more markets to be checked than can be expected from any ordinary user.
In this vain, I was wondering are the markets that are in dispute randomized before being presented to the user? This way we can maximize the crowd sourced coverage of people checking markets for correctness.
I'd like to propose the following order of dispute markets for a given user (and possibly this is already the case) (Haven't looked at the code just being a user).
Markets the user is a reporter in or has staked REP to dispute
Markets the user has shares in
Markets the user has favorited
Markets the user has placed orders in
Markets attempting to crowdsource REP
Markets where the outcome is not unanimous
Random markets
Points 1&2 the user has financial incentive to investigate
Points 3&4 the user has shown interest in and potentially knowledge of the topic
Points 5&6 represent points of contention that need to be elevated to further review
Point 7 prevents all users from reviewing the first 20 markets and not the next 500
Right now they're sorted by trading activity. So markets with more activity / money in them are shown at first.
They're also not randomized so that if you want to check them one day, then resume checking later, you don't have to view the whole list in one sitting
I like some of these ideas, good for a new release
I would do
Markets user has rep in / is a reporter in / disputed
Markets the user currently has shares in
Markets user has favorited.
Markets in the process of crowdsourcing rep disputes
Regarding @joeykrug number 3, favorited markets. We could expand this to markets the user placed an order in, even if not filled (or filled and traded out of). Both favoriting and placing an order are actions that may indicate interest in or knowledge of the market's outcome and indicate a higher likelihood of both participation and proper reporting.
Also this will provide a look back to users to review past trading decisions.
adrake33
commented
6 years ago
@page1 commented on Fri Jul 20 2018
Since we have too many markets finishing up see #207 (This is a good problem to have!)
I was wondering how are dispute markets going to be ordered when presented to the user? We are already over 200 markets closing, and the end of year and monthly market closure windows are going to produce more markets to be checked than can be expected from any ordinary user.
In this vain, I was wondering are the markets that are in dispute randomized before being presented to the user? This way we can maximize the crowd sourced coverage of people checking markets for correctness.
I'd like to propose the following order of dispute markets for a given user (and possibly this is already the case) (Haven't looked at the code just being a user).
Points 1&2 the user has financial incentive to investigate Points 3&4 the user has shown interest in and potentially knowledge of the topic Points 5&6 represent points of contention that need to be elevated to further review Point 7 prevents all users from reviewing the first 20 markets and not the next 500
Maybe I'm overthinking things...
@joeykrug commented on Sun Jul 22 2018
Good feedback
Right now they're sorted by trading activity. So markets with more activity / money in them are shown at first.
They're also not randomized so that if you want to check them one day, then resume checking later, you don't have to view the whole list in one sitting
I like some of these ideas, good for a new release
I would do
@bthaile commented on Sun Jul 22 2018
We show hightest dispute round number then highest dispute bond.
It makes sense to make the view user centric. I like that idea.
https://app.clubhouse.io/augur/story/14331
@joeykrug commented on Sun Jul 22 2018
Ooo, I guess after that it’s sorted by volume then in the UI from what I can tell
@page1 commented on Sun Jul 22 2018
Regarding @joeykrug number 3, favorited markets. We could expand this to markets the user placed an order in, even if not filled (or filled and traded out of). Both favoriting and placing an order are actions that may indicate interest in or knowledge of the market's outcome and indicate a higher likelihood of both participation and proper reporting.
Also this will provide a look back to users to review past trading decisions.
@sharkcrayon commented on Wed Aug 01 2018
Adding to issue tracker: https://app.clubhouse.io/augur/story/14840/github-consider-options-for-ordering-disputed-markets