Perhaps what is needed is for some way for users to police such things much as they provide the content in the first place.
For example, a button somewhere that says something along the lines of given what I now know I would reverse my bid on this article. I don't know if it should affect DKP, but if an article received enough of those it could in effect be voted back down off the high ranking articles list where is most likely to cause problems.
There could be a other solution. A article on the first page of the game get a lot of upbids, keeping it on the first page. It should be there a possibility to set the order of article on games to most recent, or the weight of recent/bids could be changed or they could just be more random with a value to bids and date.
You do raise a good point about misleading articles, but this just seems to be the curse of user submitted content. It seems like with this article, and a lot of others, people are just upbidding to get more dkp. The problem is that as a result, most articles have high bid counts.
Theres also the issue of what articles moderators should take action on. A lot of articles are based on speculation and rumours, and therefore could be seen as misleading at a later date. I imagine clearing all the incorrect articles would be quite a hassle for moderators, not to mention some of these articles might be seen as contentiously correct.
I do agree with you that something should be done about this particular article. With all the hype, this stock will definately see a lot of trading activity in the future. That article could definately affect how the stock and futures trade.
I tend to agree with you that 4 million is wrong. My issue is should something on the exchange be done about a highly bidded article that is later shown to be false? People can not just change there bids.
Does everyone think the moderators should take some kind of action? If you think think they should what should that action be?
Personally I would like to see some kind of warning message put on the headline of articles later shown to be incorrect, or that contain information that is wrong because it is outdated. Especially if the article received a lot of positive bids because it was initially views as exciting news.
To be honest, I have absolutely no idea about the reliability of that article. The 4 million figure seems really dubious, given that the article was written in May. A quick look through some of the other articles shows a more reliable source: http://www.thesimexchange.com/news-item.php?id=12152 . The comments also give an interesting insight into the 4 million article.
Needless to say, I highly doubt that Halo 3 will sell 4 million in a week, considering the US 360 installation base of 6.3 million.
That would certainly explain the difference, however should something maybe be done about the position of the bids on that particular article then as it is easily misleading?
The original article is wrong, Microsoft themselves put out a press release on Aug 9th saying that pre-orders have exceeded the 1 million mark, not 4 million.
The halo predictions for Septembers have the stock priced at about three million copies sold. Yet the first news article for the game by bidding popularity states there are already 4 million pre-orders. Do people really think that many games will not be picked up right away, is the article this highly bid so unreliable, or is this stock undervalued?
For one thing, VGchartz didn't even have weekly sales 3 years ago (if that site existed, I don't know), so where are those numbers coming from?
Besides that, Microsoft might have some system in place for Halo launches...perhaps a system that's too costly (or useless) to use in most cases, but it allows them to put out a press release about sales that the mainstream press (and gaming press) gush about. A ton of free publicity.
6
Perhaps what is needed is for some way for users to police such things much as they provide the content in the first place.
For example, a button somewhere that says something along the lines of given what I now know I would reverse my bid on this article. I don't know if it should affect DKP, but if an article received enough of those it could in effect be voted back down off the high ranking articles list where is most likely to cause problems.