Slashdot Mirror
Tech Companies Draw on 'Wisdom of the Crowds'
An anonymous reader writes "News.com is carrying an article on a 'mini-conference' held at Yahoo's HQ this past Wednesday. The get-together put representatives from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and HP together to talk about their experiments with predictive networks. The 'wisdom of the crowds' allows these companies to make use of the collective knowledge their employees hold to answer important questions for the company." From the article: "David Pennock, a principal research scientist at Yahoo Research, said the company has created a currency called a Yootle. It's described as a 'scorekeeping system for favors owed.' Pennock offered as an example a programmer offering to write a piece of code for a few Yootles. Or, when organizing a dinner outing, one employee could use an internal SMS tool to bid 2 Yootles for Italian and 4 Yootles for Mexican. 'If you don't get to go to the restaurant you want to, you get compensation' in Yootles, he said. Related to Yootles is Yahoo Research's experiment with a fantasy prediction market for technology called the Tech Buzz Game. It's a modified version of software licensed from NewsFutures in conjunction with O'Reilly Media and features topics like Atlantic hurricanes and portable media devices. Winners are those who predict how popular a topic will be on Yahoo Search. "
My little sister always managed to keep score in our house without the use of technology. ("I took out the trash for you one day three weeks ago.") The rest of us (even Mom and Dad) found it really annoying... bordering on petty and selfish, and we're all glad she grew out of this (mostly). Doing favors for people shouldn't involve keeping score.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
So you just always bid for a restuarant that nobody, under any circumstances, will ever actually want to go to. When you actually *want* to go somewhere in particular, you can outbid anybody else.
Anyway, my point is...this is great, except human nature will always win out. The system only works if people participate. To get maximum participation, you need some sort of incentive. As soon as there's incentive, people will figure out a way to game the system.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Indeed...
/. is a good example. So-called climate science coming from the U.S. Gov't that doubts global warming is another. As a former Tech Buzz Game player I can tell you from personal experience the game was stopped and restarted with new rules because of cheating.
The companies mentioned have some very smart people working for them. It's a shame the PHB's pretty much kill whatever innovation is happening in the belly of those beasts.
The wisdom of the crowds is frequently spoiled by individuals that game the system. Microsoft astroturfers on
The end result is the wisdom a crowd was supposed to provide essentially evaporates.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
As several authors have put it - the intelligence of a crowd equals the IQ of the least intelligent member divided by the number of people.
The madness of mobs.
Have no fear as "betting pools" work *has* continued and they are proving themselves to be very effective. Also, you are quite correct about your assessment of "odd-seeming areas of research", as they often, particularly in a basic research sense turn out to be incredibly valuable. One classic case was a member of congress bitching about the NIH funding studies to examine bird songs without knowing or understanding some of the neuroscience implications of that work.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Damn, it looks like I lost again. Well, looks like everyone else is paying for my lunch again.
Yes, it is an extreme example, but it shows how you can "game" that system. Not a good idea.