The slide downward continues

AMEN

Hi, David. I'm interested to hear what aspects of the market you think have declined or have been removed. With the relaunch of the Web site, we've experienced some difficulties integrating the PPX login with the sitewide login, and we've also seen a decline in the market's liquidity. These are both issues we are actively addressing. But no features of the game have been removed, and we are working to introduce some exciting new elements in the coming months. Your input and suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Best,

Megan Miller
Editor, PopSci.com

Hi Megan

A lot of people liked the way the old forums worked better than the new ones.

Some people have mentioned missing the ticker.

The XML feed stopped getting updated Friday.

It seems like the new software has capacity issues. I frequently get "too many files" errors when trying to refresh my portfolio or make a trade. It seems more likely to happen if a stock has just turned, but it also happens when nothing seems to be moving.

When technical support issues develop, it often seems avid players know more about how the PPX system works than staff.

Decisions about halting stocks don't seem to follow a consistent pattern.

There's probably a very fine line between the level of activity that results in trading you could nap through and needing video game reflexes to keep up with.

The STS-122 stock is annoying lots of people because it's tying up their PPX$ - really you'd have been better off letting that one continue to trade and end normally.

One of the best things you could do to ease the frustrations is to have someone update people on problems more often.

I enjoy PPX, and I suspect Popular Science is devoting more time to this than we realize. You've got my email. (I won the October contest) If I can provide input to help you make this better, please feel free to contact me directly.

I do appreciate your efforts.

Nice response msholden, you got all the major things that have been brought up throughout the forums.

ejcassel

Hi Megan. wow, I am honored that an editor is looking into my complaints. Some of my complaints go back a ways and the decline is mostly do to the observation that with the recent redesign, although superficial cosmetic issues were changed ongoing problems were bypassed or ignored, as if the cosmetic changes were just smoke and mirrors to prevent us from seeing that the real issues were not addressed.

Well lets start with changes to the market itself, first the stock ticker has been removed, although not too important because the best place for up to date and sortable information is still a site outside of PPX (was ppbroker, now replaced by ppxchat), which never made any sense to me why I should have to leave PPX to get information to better play this game (mostly I use their charts to get a full listing in chronological order of end dates),

A standard complaint for the market from early on is the number of errors in listing a stock, which on a number of occasions has led to the stock listing being changed without notice and in a way that has affected the way people would have played the stock causing them to lose money. (most recently was the STS122, which didn't affect me but is the latest example of errors regarding stock listings.

Another historic and ongoing issue that continues to occur is the markets inabilitity to know when to appropriately halt a stock and to timely payout on a stock. As can been seen in the forums MIYAHOO which clearly ended 2/15/2008 has not been paid out yet even though there is no doubt regarding the outcome. SporeQ2 has been halted but not paid out, a launch date has been announced if that does not meet the criteria, than the stock should not have been halted, if it does meet the criteria, the stock should have been paid out. STS122 ended (from the second listing) 2/7/2008, and has not been paid out, rumor has it that the powers that be are attempting to figure out how to fix the mistake of the earlier listing, but this wasn't the first time this has happened, you would think a protocol would have been put in place after AIPOKER, (which nothing was ever done to correct the error then).

Megan I don't know if you actually play this game yourself or not, but the ability to move your money in and out of stocks is important to many of the players who increase their net worth by jumping on stocks that are moving, their ability to do that is lessened by stocks being halted without payout, and thus the player suffers lost opportunities. This is actually not the way I think a prediction market should run but this is the result given the way this market is set up. Even people who are not wave riding but trying to predict the outcome want to move their money as soon as possible.

Not a decline, but since I have your attention; an issue that has plagued this market from the beginning is that the way the market is set up and the way prizes are awarded encourage wave riding (trading and buying stocks based on their movement (regardless of direction) as opposed to trying to be predictive (or even changing as new information becomes available). From a wave riding stand point what the stock is about doesn't matter the stocks could be called "stock A" Stock "B" etc.. and if stock "A" starts to move down in value a wave rider would short it regardless of why its going down, once it stops moving they cover, and look at the next stock that is starting to move, if stock "A" starts to go up the buy it. Now predictors tend to buy an IPO based on what they have researched and their own personal opinion , and this may cahange as information becomes available. This type of playing in my opinion has caused a lot of the inaccuracies in the market place, I understand that in most predictive markets they tend to be come more accurate as either the end date approaches or the outcome becomes evident but, this has not occurred here where stocks have been far off the mark even when the stock has not been halted after the out come is known.

Another historic issue and one that affects the predictive nature of the market is the weight difference between buy/short and sell/cover which has caused a number of bizzare incidents (google to go over $100, moths before the end date) is my favorite. And related to this and as much as I hate to admit it Brian B (and although I always knew he had a point it was fun to argue it with him) and his views on a a ask/buy system is probably a better system for a prediction market, than here where the price is artificially set, and a limitless number of shares are available, and where the price for buying and shorting are the same.

Next for months members seeing the problems with the stock listings (including the vagueness of some of them) have requested the opportunity to preview the Stock prior to listing so that potential issues and errors could be corrected before the stock is in play but this fell on deaf ears. In the old forums I ranted for some time that once a stock is in play it should not change but rather be halted and paid based on the erroneous listing, then if desired corrected and reposted as a new stock, or to at least establish a protocol to deal with this issue, but again this was ignored.

Then there are the issues with the decline of the forums which has had many features removed and is so bad that people continue to post in the old forums, and many have just simply stopped posting altogether.

But probably the biggest decline is in costumer service, at least for a while we had Yog, who really didn't do much except to say I passed on your concerns, but hey at least someone cared, and I liked Yog she was fun, and a real person, and she held her own. Then Yog went away, our consumer moderator went away, and all we got was ignored. No one addressed our issues or concerns, no one updated us regarding changes that affected our playing and enjoying the game. Although we as a group had offered to help in a number of ways, offered suggestions to make the game better, we were continually ignored, not even a "we can't do that because...." or "that won't work because our vision of the game is ....", but no we were ignored, and its too bad because you lost a lot of good people who were very informed and who added to the overall experience of the game.

LOVE this game. At least, I love the concept of this game. I really enjoy it - much more than any other virtual stock-type game I've found to date. I'm just disappointed in a few simple things. I know these things probably have been discussed before, but maybe adding another opinion will be of assitance.

1. PPX admins need to decide to halt or not halt stocks on a specific set of posted criteria. If you halt before the close date, then pay the stock out. It's pointless to halt and sit for days, if you're not going to pay it out. Otherwise, don't halt it, and let the market drive it to $0 or to $100. Heck, the latter idea would help make EVERYONE money, which should help with liquidity on some level. Regardless, from my standpoint, you have to make a decision and stick with it, so the system itself becomes predictable, and people can actually play.

2. I own MIYAHOO stock, and the close date passed. PAY THE STOCK OUT ALREADY! Any logical person would be stuck between giving up their position in the stock so they could be liquid, or sticking it out WEEKS after the close date because it's going to be a good payout. If a stock closure date passes, it should be payed out immediately. If a logical, reasonable answer can be posted as to why these dates are not being met, I'm willing to re-think this view. But it's got to be a pretty damn good answer to make much sense. Otherwise, why put dates in at all? Pay it out, and I'LL GO BUY SOMETHING ELSE - which will help the market overall!

3. The last blog posting about payouts were WEEKS AGO... Is anyone actually there? I see some evidence that people are, but it feels irregular. That might be a perception, but perceptions do count for something, right?

4. Liquidity is a tricky thing to deal with - especially when people have been playing for a long time, and have a lot of money. One of the ways to increase liquidity is to increase the numbers.

(A)Give people more money to start with, and keep the same share cost model.(I know that how much money that the current players would get, would have to be addressed, and I'm not sure how that would work.)

(B)Increase the number of shares that we can buy for a particular stock, and decrease stock sensitivity. Essentially a dilution of buying power. Halving the stock sensitivity, keeping the same $0-$100 share scale, and doubling the number of shares I can hold for a particular stock, should essentially make each share 50% less effective, smoothing out the waves a little. Theoretically (and I'm not sure how the math is calculated on PPX's end, so this is just a theory) the law of large numbers would be able to apply more efficiently. For example: The number 100 with a deviation of +-5 (5% deviation), is much more impacting than the number 1000 with a deviation of +-5 (0.5% deviation). This would likely help to even out swings, and calm some of the wave riding. Yes it would GREATLY change the tone of the game, but it might fix some of the major complaints.

(or C)Greatly increase the number of short-term stocks available to be purchased. Not easy, I know, but this would help the person who wants to tie up some of his/her money in long-term investments, and some in shorter term, higher-risk investments. Hell, this is common with most financial stock markets, it might be worth looking at here.

That's my two cents... I vote for at least addressing 1, 2, and 3 ASAP!

Cheers!

***********************************************
Technology can do anything. The real question is... Do you actually know what you want to do?

Megan

I've indicated some of the issues that I have, and granted most of them are continuations of issues from before the makeover, and from a features standpoint in the market place the ticker is probably the only feature missing, although the forums are missing quite a bit. But my question, and the one I hoped you asked your self before the redesign is what did the makeover give us, how has our experience and enjoyment been enhanced as a result of any changes (which to be honest were executed so poorly that any positive aspects were most likely overlooked).

We hear about exciting new things to come, but no one ever gives any indication of what or when, or even if it would be of benefit for us. One of the problems is that you know we are not satisfied so you start making changes or plans for changes without really understanding what the consequences are to the game, and heaven forbid that you should let us know what is going on, so that we the end users can give you input as to how the change will be accepted.

I'm not advocating that you should do everything or even anything we suggest, but I am saying that things would go smoother if you put us in the loop, so that players know whats going on and why. Even a better explanation of what you have as goals for this market would be helpful. As I indicated their are two main camps predictors, and wave riders, it would be nice to know if the market is designed to be driven by both or if you want the market driven by people's actual predictions and how that changes over time as new information is acquired, or if you actually meant for wave riders to be the driving force of the market.

The one thing that I am fairly certain is that if you present things to us in an intelligent fashion, the whole ppx community would be more than willing to listen, and glad to offer suggestions (especially if we believe that they are truly being considered) that would be to both your best interest, and enhance our enjoyment of the game. Now with that I know you'll always upset some people because you can't please everyone, you swing to far one way you'll upset the wave riders who bring a lot of action to the game, and swing to far the other way and you upset the predictors, and lose a lot of the markets validity. But there have been a lot of suggestions from a number of people on how to make the game better with only slightly upsetting both groups.

Well, for one, the subject line in the "write a comment" is useless. Why have it there if it's not going to show up on the post?

In general, everyone above has commented on the biggest reasons people don't like the "updates", and if you look back through the forums (both old and new), you will find quite a bit of information to tell you exactly what/why/how things could be different.

I posted this once before, but I'm going to post it again. When you design something, if you want the best results, regardless of what "it" is, it should be done in this order (and keep in mind that some of them will be the same person, and occasionally all will be the same person):

1. First for the end user: Does it meet his needs, does it do what it needs to do, and does it do it the way it needs to be done?

2. The Maintainer: What is the best design that will make it easiest to repair or maintain for the features/functions of the "it"?

3. The Builder: If I did something in a slightly different way, will it improve ease of building without impacting or positively impacting 1 and 2?

4. The Designer: This person may only see the end product once, or not outside of drawings. His/her personal preferences should be taken into consideration only if they don't impact the three items above.

Now, to check that you've done a good job, your "it" must meet the following criteria:

1. The end user doesn't remember how they did it before, or wishes to forget how it used to be.

2. They reach for your "it" without thinking about it.

3. They can use your "it" without thinking about it (after being exposed to it, and this one is the only one that varies based somewhat on complexity of the "it" and the exact use of the "it").

4 The end user screams to high heaven if the "it" is removed.

Follow those general guidelines, and what they imply, and you will never have a bad design.

Features removed...(that I haven't seen mentioned)

Search ability in forums. These forums are getting swamped with duplicate threads mainly because finding what is out there is getting harder and harder as more posts accumulate. This results in a cluttered hard to read board.

Who is online page. This is a hidden gem of the old forums, as it aided in having a "conversation".

Ability to jump to last post, or first new post. This actually works until the thread goes over one page. After that you just go to the first post on the first page. While I'm on the topic the NEW POST link does not seem to be accurate all the time.

Link from home page of forums that will bring up only threads with new posts from any section of the forum. This is the number one loss in my eyes, being able to see all newly updated threads with one click made the old forums the best I've ever used.

Member listing. Nice to know who, and how many are out there along with some basic information such as how long they've been around.

Advanced editing. Being able to quote a previous message is nice, being able to emphasize your point with an underline, or different text is very very nice.

Simplicity - Not really a feature perhaps but important. This forum style looks slick but is not intuitive to use. I, and many others still post in the old boards, unless we want Admin's to notice, just because it is easier. Where I used to check the boards and my portfolio 3-4 times a day now I'm checking it once or twice 3-4 times a week. Yeah the few added minutes it takes to look things over now doesn't seem like much unless you don't have those few extra minutes to sit and play at the computer.

My 1.25 cents, take it for what it is worth.

I'm starting to come around and see you people's points. It seems to me that when they did the new forum they made it simple. Simple is good but there are people who want to be able to do more.

Just keeping this thread near the top so Megan can find it if she is inclined to read the posts after hers and hopefully leave some responses.

Just keeping this thread near the top so Megan can find it if she is inclined to read the posts after hers and hopefully leave some responses.

(great idea, davidhartley)

I don't think Megan reads the comments, since she hasn't responded to a single one. Really shows how much she cares.

I don't see why they don't just give everyone their principle investment back, or would that be to easy and sensible?

Peace through kinetic solutions

Iburnedgijoe: I think you posted in the wrong thread.

As much as I hate to, I have to kind of agree with mg. davidhartley, I'm glad you started this thread and I'm posting in part to keep it at the top in case Megan wants to find it. And while I certainly appreciate her response, I can't help but feel that it's a little hollow. The fact that she asked for specific concerns, got plenty of them, and hasn't responded concerns me a little. And with the addition of advertising on PPX comes an increased interest in high traffic levels; the kind that you might get after promising undisclosed "exciting new elements" in "the coming months". That's just a tad vague for me, and has the sound of a carrot on a stick.

I think that I speak for a lot of people on the exchange when I say that we understand that the answers to our questions and concerns might be difficult to deliver. I'd just like to hear some admins check in on a more regular basis so that we know we're being heard.

Megan, if you read this I apologize if it sounds that I'm making accusations. I appreciate you taking your time to contribute to these forums. But more contributions by you, or anyone associated with popsci would go a lot further than a new layout or "exciting new elements" in keeping the 23,168 members of this exchange happy, engaged, and active.

Davidhartly, I didn't post in the wrong thread, I should have added more detail though.

I was talking about STS122, they could give everyone their principle back, and that would go a ways in showing all 21 k plus of us here that their serious about ppx.

Settle STS122 already

Peace for the STS 122 issue through kinetics

Megan: the lack of a response from you, after you specifically requested feedback, and having several days to formulate a response, any response, is perhaps the strongest indicator of how little you think of this market, and its players, many of whom are also Pop Sci readers.

I didn't expect a reply the same day you posted, or even the next day, I realize that you are a busy person, and that this market isn't the only issue on your plate, but I did expect a reply fairly quickly and although really one should have been forthcoming by the 22nd (if only to say "let me look into the issues you and others brought up"), I felt compelled to wait until today to make an issue of it. I'm now fairly convinced that you are so blind and removed from the situation that you truly posted your original reply thinking that nothing was wrong with the PPX and by calling me on my complaints you would shut me up and I would either go away, or at least stop pointing out the short comings of PPX. But all you have managed to do is reinforce the view that Pop Sci does not have a handle on things nor do they care.

The single most discouraging thing about all the flaws that I see with this market, is the absolute and total lack of respect for the end user. The other flaws would not be nearly as bad if the end users were kept informed about what is going on, and how things are being addressed, without the end user having to beg for information, or continually having to gripe over and over regarding the same issues.

what if that "Megan" user was a fake, a rouse, teenaged-hijinks, etc.? And that Megan is not even an editor but someone just made it up to get even more under your skin?

I've got to stop with these conspiracy theories...

Good idea. What if you are really a Popsci staffer trying to make us look silly?

I can't be sure Megan wasn't spoofing the editor, but that is the correct name, and the message seemed real.

What people don't seem to realize is Popular Science probably doesn't have a huge full time staff. And the folks who work on PPX also have to get a magazine out. Their computer people are probably shared with other magazines the same publisher produces.

I'd like to hear what's happening as much as anyone. And the problems are frustrating. But this is a free service, and it's probably more work than they expected.

If enough people get nasty that it's perceived as a drain on the publication, they could just pull the plug. I'd hate to see that happen.

The folks who work on PPX honestly don't care what we have to say. That said, I love Popular Science and I wish that the PPX could be as fun and stimulating as that publication.

it doesn't matter if the Megan who posted is the real editor or not. The fact remains that PPX is being run poorly, and no one from Pop Sci seems to care. We basically have two choices here we can complain until they get the message and realize the importance of the end user and either fix things, or realize that they have no business being within 500 feet of technology and yank the whole thing. Or we all drink the kool aide, and accept that the board is perfect and wonderful and that we are truly lucky and blessed that a flawed board exists, no matter how much they mess things up.

Hi, all. Thanks for your comments--we really do appreciate the feedback. Just so you know, behind Oz's curtain, we are an extremely small staff and we are trying our best. PPX is a huge beast to manage on its own, not to mention cranking out lots of stories each day. AND, as you all have seen, there are still a few bugs that we're working out of the new site since the relaunch a few weeks ago.

Let me address a few of the concerns that you've brought up in the thread above.

1) Payouts: We determine whether each stock should pay out or delist at $0 based on the payout statement. We've had a few situations where unforeseen events resulted in a judgement call about whether the stock should be paid out or not. In those cases, we pull together a committee of Popular Science editors, discuss the situation, and try to arrive at a decision that best reflects the spirit in which the proposition was written. We welcome input from the PPX community on new propositions and we would LOVE to have you write some of your own, so if you've got ideas, please submit 'em.

2) Tickers: There is currently a bug affecting the PPX charts that should be appearing on each page. The bug caused the whole site to go down at one point, so we are rigorously testing the code before reinstating this feature. Hopefully we'll have that back up and working next week.

3) Market accuracy: We are currently working on a couple of new site features (these weren't ready in time for the unveiling of the redesigned site) which should improve the accuracy of the market and also make trading more fun. First, we're going to give users the option of creating trading leagues, so you can compete with your friends, coworkers, classmates, whatever. This should increase liquidity in the market and make it more fun for people to play, since they'll be able to see themselves at the top of their own leaderboard, if not the site-wide leaderboard. Second, we're going to create a leaderboard that tracks the number of stocks in each portfolio that have been predicted accurately. Folks with a high volume of stocks will do well here, but we're also hoping to encourage players to trade for accuracy rather than just waveriding.

4) STS122: Our tech team is sorting through the issue of refunds. You will get your fake money back, don't worry. We're hoping to have this issue resolved by the end of the week.

5) Admins: As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, we're quite short-staffed. Yog was fantastic, but she is working on other stuff for the magazine, so I don't think she'll be back on as your regular go-to person. We're looking for solutions to this problem and in the meantime, we're all hopping on the forums when we can. If you have a dire, pressing issue (seriously--please treat this email as you would want your email to be treated) and you don't feel you're getting the attention you deserve, email us at webmaster@popsci.com. The whole PopSci.com staff sees these emails, and we will respond quickly (unless you're being a jerk).

Hope this was helpful. Thanks for sticking with us through our growing pains.

Thank you Megan, you've cleared up the issues/questions I've had.

Thanks Megan,

If we have ideas for a proposition, where would you want it posted/sent. I thought about one for the satellite shoot down last week but didn't know where to put it where it would be seen.

Kubie, I had the same idea, but nobody ever takes me seriously.

That is because you are a noxious weed.

Actually, I'm not a noxious weed. I'm named after a small monthly dairy publication with no advertising. It's called The Milkweed, and we share a logo. Feel free to check it out and please call and request a free copy! Tell Pete (my dad) that you play the stock trading game that his son is obsessed with. If you get a free copy, your adress will not be retained.

www.themilkweed.com

It looks almost like a conspiracy theory newsletter...

I liked Kubie's idea better.

Naah, it's just the truth. It just looks weird because, well... Okay, maybe a good part of it is stuff that looks a little weird to the non-farmer's eye.

And I didn't like Kubie's idea better.

go lemmings go.

What is that supposed to mean?

Thanks for the update, Megan. Would it save your staff time to "hire" a couple volunteers to moderate this forum? Not sure that's even possible, but if a couple respected long-time traders were able to delete spam, or flames it might help you out.

Also, has there been any thought to adding an anti-bot function to the trading process? Something along the lines of one of those pictures of text that you have to read and input manually before executing a trade. I think that would go a long way towards cutting down on manipulation.

I'm not fond of bot trades, but the type the warped text into the box solution would be a pita.

The most active bot is probably the PPX advanced trade with a limit.

These preprogrammed trades are probably the reason a stock seems to jump half a buck as soon as it wakes up.

Megan, hallmike has a good point. At one time, we had Yog as our staff contact, and cailensnicker as a forum moderator for quite a while before he went away a month ago (and I missed it, does anyone know where/why?). One or two new "cailens" would probably be helpful. Also, we could use them as sort of a go between to lighten your load there a bit. They can be the normal contacts back and forth, and you know if you get something from them it's important.

Just a thought.

Pre Taylor but worth reading again.

yeah I missed this epic when I was gone David was a respected member by all of his peers

whatever they never did explain why they changed the forums to this new thing no one ever liked this one thats why the old guard left I think

otherwise the old problems are the new problems just new names and new people

its a market people they ran the stock market for decades with no rules until the depression now its fixed I just hope one doesn't have to happen here for new things to happen