“Figure out a way to X” is advice, not a prize-eligible suggestion—if your comment is “Figure out a way to X...” and someone else replies with a suggested way to actually do X, they get a prize and you don’t. (This may sound harsh, but we already have lots of goals—we don’t need help coming up with goals—we need exercises that actually achieve those goals.)
Please don’t overlook the value of including at least one sample problem or sample use-case! If it’s clear how to implement your suggestion on our end, it’s prize-eligible even without any sample cases—but we may not understand what you mean, and working out a single sample case is likely to help you think clearly about the problem. (See also: “Be Specific” and Illusion of Transparency.)
Or to take the example of sunk costs:
“Figure out a way to get people to think consequentialistically about sunk costs” is not prize-eligible.
“Have them transform sunk costs into purchased options” would be prize-eligible if we had any idea what you meant by that.
What we’re looking for is more along the lines of:
“Give them sample scenarios like
*Paul is 3 years into completing his 4-year PhD in Obscure Egyptian Poetry, and is wondering if the improved salary prospects are worth it’
and have them list the exercise cost of the option (‘One more year of work’) on one line, and the purchased benefit in terms of future events (‘3% chance of getting a low-paying teaching position’) on another line.”
This would definitely be eligible for the prize… but our feedback with respect to “Having people writing things on paper by themselves” is sufficiently discouraging that we probably wouldn’t find the idea worth testing if there were any open suggestions for 2-person activities, or anything other than “write things on a piece of paper by yourself”.
If someone at CMR took that essential idea of describing a sunk-cost scenario in terms of purchased options, and transformed it into a two-person activity, we would credit the original suggester with a successful suggestion.
Nonetheless, turning all these exercises into non-boring activities is the part of the problem we most need help with. If someone else transformed it into a two-person activity in a reply to your comment, and we kept their final form, we’d split the prize between the two of you. If any more complex discussions go on, we reserve the right to do percentage allocations of credit on an arbitrary basis.
Further notes on the Prize:
“Figure out a way to X” is advice, not a prize-eligible suggestion—if your comment is “Figure out a way to X...” and someone else replies with a suggested way to actually do X, they get a prize and you don’t. (This may sound harsh, but we already have lots of goals—we don’t need help coming up with goals—we need exercises that actually achieve those goals.)
Please don’t overlook the value of including at least one sample problem or sample use-case! If it’s clear how to implement your suggestion on our end, it’s prize-eligible even without any sample cases—but we may not understand what you mean, and working out a single sample case is likely to help you think clearly about the problem. (See also: “Be Specific” and Illusion of Transparency.)
Or to take the example of sunk costs:
“Figure out a way to get people to think consequentialistically about sunk costs” is not prize-eligible.
“Have them transform sunk costs into purchased options” would be prize-eligible if we had any idea what you meant by that.
What we’re looking for is more along the lines of:
This would definitely be eligible for the prize… but our feedback with respect to “Having people writing things on paper by themselves” is sufficiently discouraging that we probably wouldn’t find the idea worth testing if there were any open suggestions for 2-person activities, or anything other than “write things on a piece of paper by yourself”.
If someone at CMR took that essential idea of describing a sunk-cost scenario in terms of purchased options, and transformed it into a two-person activity, we would credit the original suggester with a successful suggestion.
Nonetheless, turning all these exercises into non-boring activities is the part of the problem we most need help with. If someone else transformed it into a two-person activity in a reply to your comment, and we kept their final form, we’d split the prize between the two of you. If any more complex discussions go on, we reserve the right to do percentage allocations of credit on an arbitrary basis.
The irony of having to spell that out on this post is killing me.
How specifically is it killing you? :D
Softly, with his song.
That’s what I was thinking, more or less. A typology of the more commonly needed sorts of specificity would probably be very useful.