The Price of Credibility
116313
As we argued last week, one of America&#39;s most urgent foreign policy needs is to retool international organizations and traditional alliances to provide collective security against the global threat of jihadist terrorism.
532745
Even if they're cheap, the timing may not be right.
756928
Why haggle over writer residuals when fresh content could make you unbelievably rich?
760339
Are crowds really wise? A growing number of businesses are betting they are. The latest venture is a new incarnation of The Industry Standard, the poster child for the rise ? and precipitous fall ? of the dot-com boom.                                                    Published by International Data Group (InfoWorld?s parent company), the new Industry Standard won?t be the telephone-directory-sized magazine of 1999; in fact, it won?t be a magazine at all. The Industry Standard, which launched this morning, is a Web site featuring editorial content about online business, with social networking components and an online ?casino? where readers make mock-currency bets based on their predictions about trends and events in the world of technology.You might think that bets placed with Monopoly money wouldn?t be meaningful. You?d be wrong. A significant body of academic research supports the idea that predictive markets ? such as Iowa?s Electronic Markets, which features small wagers in real money on national politics ? actually outperform conventional polls, whether or not real money is involved. Moreover, the data generated by those markets has real value.Hewlett-Packard, for example, has been experimenting with an internal predictive market for at least seven years. In one early trial, sales people were encouraged to bet on the number of printers the company would sell. The result? The bettors? predictions were closer to the actual sales numbers than HP?s own internal forecast, said Bernardo Huberman, director of information dynamics at HP Labs.Emile Servan-Schreiber, a cognitive scientist and artificial intelligence engineer who co-founded NewsFutures, a five-year old, online predictive market, says that Google, Microsoft, and perhaps 100 other companies are also experimenting with internal predictive markets. And HP, said Huberman, plans to monetize its work by selling predictive market software and possibly running markets for other companies.Indeed, the global equities markets are, in effect, predictive markets, said Stanford University?s William Sharpe, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. Prices, he said, are very efficient accumulators of information. What about predictive markets for politics and other arenas? ?I?d much rather look at the Iowa market than any of the polls. It?s more accurate,? he said.Betting on the White House ? and more It?s generally illegal in the United States to bet real money in a predictive market. But the Iowa Electronic Markets was granted an exemption because it is widely used for academic research.It works like this: A given candidate ? say, Hillary Clinton ? is represented by shares of virtual stock. In the event that she actually wins the nomination, each share will be worth $1 in real money. If she fails, the stock becomes worthless. Until the day of the actual nomination, traders can buy and sell ? and even short ? her stock.On the evening of Feb. 1, her shares were selling for a bit more than 59 cents, while rival Barack Obama?s were valued at a bit below 48 cents. On the Republican side, shares of John McCain had soared to 82 cents, well above his closest competitor, Mitt Romney, at 12 centsThe money at stake in the Iowa market isn?t large; the maximum investment is just $500. But it attracts legions of savvy political junkies, whose opinions are remarkably prescient. How prescient? The University of Iowa?s business school recently audited the market and found that, since 1988, it beat the conventional polls? accuracy by an average of 74 percent. Bet2give, part of NewsFutures, also uses real money, but any winnings go to the charity of the trader?s choice.Readers of the new Industry Standard will be able to bet fake money on a variety of topics related to online business.? For example, a prediction might state, ?Apple will ship 10 million iPhones by the end of 2008? or ?High-tech venture funding will decrease by 15 percent in Q2 2008.?The predictive market is just one leg of the new publication?s offerings. It will also feature news stories and columns by influential industry thinkers such as Guy Kawasaki, an entrepreneur most famous for his former role as Apple's ?chief evangelist,? and Mark Anderson, CEO of the Strategic News Service.Optimum conditions for wise crowds Remember the old IT dictum ?garbage in, garbage out?? The same applies to predictive markets. After all, ?the problem with the global village is all the global village idiots,? a saying that blogger Paul Ginsparg popularized.The New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki, whose book The Wisdom of Crowds is widely credited with igniting the boom in predictive markets, said crowds can be smart if they address four conditions: diversity, independence, decentralization, and aggregation.Why decentralize? Good decisions (or good bets) are made by individuals based on their own local and specific knowledge. The open source software development process is an example of decentralization in action.Diversity is achieved largely through the absence of hierarchy (markets don?t have vice presidents) which ensures that no single person has too much influence and that diverse viewpoints don?t get shut out, said Surowiecki.That may be why the new Industry Standard won?t have is an editor in chief. ?No single voice will dominate the discussion, which is why we decided to forgo the somewhat print-centric idea of an editor in chief, despite talking to some great people for the position,? said Managing Editor Ian Lamont. ?We want readers to get viewpoints from the widest range of contributors possible, with the common theme being that these contributors are all people who believe that the Web is a major paradigm shift in business.?Turning crowd predictions into revenues HP has refined Surowiecki?s ideas, developing a methodology that may improve the quality of predictions while using a group, instead of a crowd. Assuming that more knowledge equals a better prediction, HP?s Huberman and researchers Leslie Fine and Kay-Ute Chen select participants with knowledge of a specific area ? supply chains, for example ? and then have them play a stock-market-based game.The results of the game let the researchers grade traders on their willingness to take ? or avoid ? risk. They then participate in a market, and their predictions are adjusted by their risk scores. The players win real money, and their predictions are of real use to the company, Huberman said.One of the most successful predictive markets, the Hollywood Stock Exchange, takes play-money bets on weekly movie grosses, Oscar nominations, and the like. Traders? predictions of opening-weekend returns are more accurate than the movie industry?s forecasts, and the exchange has done a good job of foreseeing nominations as well. In 2002, its traders correctly predicted 35 of the 40 Oscar nominees in the top eight categories, Surowiecki wrote in The New Yorker several years ago.The exchange monetizes those predictions by slicing and dicing the data collected on the site and selling (in very real money) it to movie studios and other interested parties, said NewsFutures? Servan-Schreiber. The exchange is private, so there?s no way to estimate how much cash it generates, but it?s successful enough to have been purchased by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, a major private equity firm.Taking a leaf from that playbook, the new Industry Standard expects to sell slices of the data it collects on the predictive market via IDC, IDG?s market research arm, said Derek Butcher, The Industry Standard?s vice president and general manager.
607152
Headlines can tell you both more -- and less -- than they intend.
706526
Investors may think so, but this Fool disagrees.
468825
In March 2002, I made a bet with Martin Nisenholtz about the relative importance of weblogs and the New York Times. I was and am a blogger, and Martin worked then, as he does now, for the Times. For the actual terms of the bet, read the piece on the LongNow site, and a story I wrote to announce the bet. A few comments.  1. It seems now is the time to decide who won the bet, if either of us did. 2. The world that I hoped would come about did not. While blogs have broken many stories, they have not, in general, turned into the authoritative sources I hoped they would in 2002. When the blogosphere resembles journalism it's often the tabloid kind.  3. I wouldn't mind losing the bet. That is, I wouldn't mind if the Times fully embraced the web, and I suspect Martin wouldn't mind if blogs rose to the quality of the Times. 4. If the bet had been held a year later, it seems there would be a pretty good chance that Martin would have won the bet because they recently took down the firewall at the Times, allowing search engines to index the full content. In the past, articles would remain visible for a couple of weeks then you'd have to pay money to access them. I believe they have a special deal with Google and other crawlers that allow them to get past the membership wall. For most of 2007 the Times articles were behind the firewall, and were less likely to be pointed to (which is how they rise in rank at Google). 5. It certainly is fun to speculate, but the decision about who won belongs exclusively to the Long Now Foundation. They have to decide who determines what the top stories of 2007 are, and imho they should consult with search experts to determine how to do the queries. Apparently it makes a difference how you do it.  But ultimately it's their decision. 6. Whether Wikipedia has more or less results seems to be a sidebar to the bet, which only talks about blogs and the Times. 7. Another interesting sidebar is rich media. In 2002, before podcasting had taken hold, before YouTube existed, it would have been hard to forsee the story of the South Carolina beauty queen, or the Don't Tase Me Bro guy. Questions about the future are always framed in the context of the past. Did the question Martin and I asked have any value in 2007, or did it just say something about the world of 2002?   Update: Paul Boutin who arranged the bet, apparently in conjunction with Google (I didn't know this) in 2002, weighs in.
403908
Views you can use to get clues on the news.
535402
In a media marketplace heavy on celebrity news, stories are interesting, but pictures reign supreme. Want proof? Just look at the price tags.
351099
Anchoring to a stock's price can keep you from making serious money.
555388
Watch your step, or you may be socked with outlandish interest rates.
149458
Debunking the falsehoods springing from this November's contest
578546
Image licenser's price makes it less than picture perfect as an investment.
412828
Older newsletter recommendations may offer hidden value.
651717
As a Washington journalist during the 90s, I made frequent treks to the Federal Election Commission to inspect cabinets full of campaign-finance reports to find out who was giving to whom.    Though some data were available through a proprietary online system, those $20-per-hour access fees added up...
602322
Bargain hunters may want to keep an eye on this stock.
335817
Be careful when presented with methods that claim to time the market.