Fix the scoring system in a way so that questions can be left open until they stop being relevant. (I.e. Stop making it so that one's last forecast on a question is worth 50% of one's score.) The current practice of having questions close before the outcome is known is really annoying because then there's a period after the question closes before the outcome is known when users can't forecast on the question or see what the community currently thinks is going to happen. E.g. Metaculus gives me little data on whether Trump will concede or not because th...
@(casens) Yes, this is further evidence that [making one's last forecast be worth 50% of one's score results in a broken scoring system]( Most questions I forecast on I *don't* come back to forecast on later. If I hadn't come back to forecast on this question again my score probably would have been about -100 points. Yet I did comeback in December and therefore got +58 points. At the same time, -100 probably would have been unjustified because my...
[Jeffrey Ladish on Twitter]( > I've done a lot of thinking about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and I still find the lab escape hypothesis quite credible. We still haven't found an intermediate host, which is surprising if the virus emerged naturally. > This issue has become politicized, but we really need a neutral investigation in order to figure out what actually happened. This is quite important for understanding how to prevent future pandemics. > The New York Magazine article, "[The Lab-leak H...

Would someone like to create a question on whether GDP will double within a four year period by 2050 (i.e. whether this question will resolve ambiguous)?

@mdickens I for one thought all along that the class of people who might cause this to resolve positively would have much lower chances of getting infected on average than people in the general population due to behaving more cautiously.

I wasn't that confident in this view, so I still forecasted on the 'same side of maybe' as everyone else, but on May 1st, the day before the question closed, I reaffirmed my 60% forecast, in disagreement with the high confidence of the community. (Scored +99.)

@Jgalt Or when Mars or off-Earth GDP exceeds 1% that of Earth.

Allow users to see theit forecast history over time on questions.

(The little image at the top left of questions is often inadequate for this, especially when the range specified for the question is too wide leading my PDF to be vary narrow.)

— edited by WilliamKiely

***The option to make all my forecasts public by default.*** Preferably I'd prefer it everyone's forecasts were public by default, but even if that is not desirable for some reason I don't see why there shouldn't be an option for me to make all my forecasts public by default. The value proposition behind this is that the median community forecast does not tell me nearly as much about a question as knowing what everyone's individual forecast on a question is. I think Metaculus would be a lot more useful for me I had access to this information. E.g. If t...
I calculated the answer for the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Senate elections: In 2014, [215,120 votes]( would have gotten the Democratic Party 5 more seats and a majority: * (AK: 6,014 vote margin of victory, 2.13% margin of victory) * (CO: 39,688, 1.94%) * (NC: 45,608, 1.56%) * (SD: 58,285, 20.86%) * (MT: 65,525, 17.72%) In 2016, [264,084 votes]( would have g...

Why did the Community Prediction reach 89% in October 2019 on this question?

Was there a flood of new users forecasting 100% or something?

[Good Judgment]( only gives a 10% chance that "enough doses of FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine(s) to inoculate 100 million people [will] be distributed in the United States" by March 31st, so this question seems very likely (>95%) to resolve ambiguously (since the condition "if greater than or equal to 50% of Americans initiate vaccination (1st dose received) with a COVID-19 vaccine by 2021-03-01" will therefore very unlikely be met). (The question doesn't explicitly say that it will resolve ambiguously if <50% of...
@(Rexracer63) Why should it resolve ambiguously? The question was not about natural vs lab origin; it was about how Metaculus users would behave (in particular whether they would cast forecasts below 3% or above 97%) and what credences a council of three people from Anthony's secret list of 12 people would have "on or about" May 1, 2021 on the proposition that COVID-19 was released from a lab in Hubei province. It seems to me that the best case for the question resolving ambiguously (besides the council of 3 disagreeing) is if the counxil takes too lon...

Why are users' forecasts hidden by default?

It seems that we would all learn a lot by knowing what other individuals think, rather than merely knowing the median of the community's recent forecasts.

where the primary launch hardware and Mars entry, descent, and landing systems are built by SpaceX

This seems like a lot of qualifiers that could plausibly cause this question to resolve negatively even if it looks like 'SpaceX landed something on Mars by 2030.'

Does SpaceX build all the launch hardware and landing systems for other SpaceX-branded missions?

EDIT: New question is here: [Date losing candidate concedes in US election]( Can we get a new version of this question so we can can continue to update our forecasts on it? I'd like to see forecasts on this that incorporate the information we've gained since Election Day, but the other three questions on this topic have also already closed: * [If Trump loses the election, will he contest the results?](

I lost 82 points on this question. The true result fell outside my 99% confidence interval.

I've made plenty of careless bad forecasts before, but I remember thinking about this question for at least a few minutes while looking at some relevant data and feeling pretty confident about my forecast, which was even more (over-)confident than the community prediction.

Taking that into account, this might be the worst recorded forecast I have ever made on an question on this site or elsewhere to date.