Feedback wanted: How would you prefer to make multiple-choice forecasts?

Please vote in the poll below. We value your feedback.

Click the images in the poll to enlarge.




8 thoughts on “Feedback wanted: How would you prefer to make multiple-choice forecasts?

  1. Merely showing several sliders that dynamically adjust all together as you change any single choice would be fine with me. A pie chart or multislider suffers from the drawback that there is no canonical way to order the slices corresponding to each choice.

  2. Take a look at the behavior of the Virtual Evidence bar charts in GeNIe. The same behavior could be duplicated with sliders & javascript.

    Though I’d also be perfectly happy with being able to type in the percentages I want, or relative weights, and have them normalized.

  3. I voted for single slider but only because I didn’t like this particular multi-slider design.

    I do like the idea of controlling multiple sliders at once; however, I do not like the version proposed in the post. Intuitively people will expect that as you move a slider to the right, it’s going to eat into the next section (even if it does not). I think it would be confusing for new users.

    I like @sflicht’s idea of showing all the individual sliders at once and having them dynamically adjust.

    I’d also really like it if some of the old DAGGRE features were brought back, like a pair of numbers beside each slider showing the potential gain/loss of your current edit (I think that would help with understanding what the bets actually mean). And I’d also like it if it could show your current potential gain/loss, so it would be easier to cancel out prior bets. But I understand there’s a fixed budget to allocate to each of these improvements. 🙂

  4. I chose multisliders as I believe it’s simpler, though with Daggre it had its own share of issues (several rounds of adjusting sliders, since they adjusted themselves each time you made a prediction). Maybe it would be easiest to leave it as-is for safe mode since it’s imprecise anyway, and make power mode simply a set of text boxes where you enter your forecasts (to the nearest percent or tenth of a percent) with the submit box inactive unless they sum to precisely 100?

  5. HAL9000 writes:

    I was not able to access the survey from inside China. My preferred interface would be to add the ability to LOCK up to (N-2) choices, where N is the total number of choices. Thus I could set one number, lock it, set another number, lock that, and so on until the next to last choice, which there is no reason to be able to lock (locking (N-1) out of N effectively locks the last one as well). The locks could be implemented as checkboxes. When changing one option, it would only exchange probability with the other unlocked options. This means that it will have a limited range, since it cannot go higher than 1 minus the sum of the locked options.

  6. Another feature I think would be quite interesting would be to display the probabilities on a log scale instead of a linear scale, so that the distance you move the slider corresponds to the amount of money you’re risking. I suspect people would trade differently near 10% and 90% if the probabilities were displayed differently.

    • Interesting! Have to think about that. We already have a TODO to allow log scale for Scaled questions. Might be interesting to extend, when we get there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s