Feature: Increase visibility on conflicting judgments for further review by others

[jamesrom]

It would be cool to have a section on the front page or similar that shows a list of conflicting judgments for review.

For example, this one was categorically judged incorrectly: https://predictionbook.com/predictions/189287 (paging @brunoparga)

Having increased visibility on them might allow more people to settle the result.

[brunoparga]

Hi James,

I understand your point of view of marking that prediction as right since it is still undecided whether it will happen at some point in time or not.

However, I believe it is a best practice to always take into account the 'known by' date of the prediction. Mueller did not indict Trump by 2019-01-01 (and, from what I have heard of his report, will not do so in the future). So I still think 'wrong' is the correct judgment for that prediction, and has been since January 1.

In general, all predictions should be considered in the context of their known dates. If the author wanted to predict Mueller would indict Trump at some point in the future, they could always have set 2100 as the known date.

ETA: and even if the reasoning above isn't accepted, marking the prediction as "unknown" would still be more adequate than "right". I believe "right" would unambiguously mean Mueller has indicted Trump; it is also my opinion that, in the context of that prediction, this would need to have happened by the date stipulated in the prediction.

[jaysonvirissimo]

@brunoparga the prediction was “Mueller does not indict Trump.” I think this isn’t an argument over the state of affairs or an ambiguity regarding how to handle the 'known by' date, but just an accidental misreading.

@jamesrom I like the idea of this feature, and am somewhat surprised this has never come up before.

[jamesrom]

@brunoparga as @jaysonvirissimo suggests, I think you may have misread the prediction.

Mueller did not indict Trump by 2019-01-01, therefore the prediction "Mueller does not indict Trump by 2019-01-01" is correct.

[brunoparga]

Oops. Yeah, I must have misread that, sorry.

[jamesrom]

Oops. Yeah, I must have misread that, sorry.

Would you please update your judgement.

[brunoparga]

I just marked it right; the judgement that "sticks" is the first one. I agree that this is not how the app ought to work (I think only the latest judgement should count, and it should be immutable some time after it is made, or after the prediction end date - I'm not sure on which).

I know this is super low, but I give it a 2% chance I'll make a pull request solving this issue in the next two months.