Resolves YES if there are more then 2,000 active daily users in January 2025 (monthly average).
At its core, the question asks whether this social network will die after the hype has passed (like Clubhouse did) or if it will at least maintain the same level of interest as it has now, 2 weeks after it was featured in the New York Times magazine.
Related questions
@RobertSutherland The question specifies monthly average, so I think it would be YES (you've selected 7d average)
@IsaacCarruthers I think it’s monthly average of daily active users. So it would be no today, I believe
@IsaacCarruthers my understanding is for the chart “Daily” is DAU, “Daily (7d avg)” is average DAU for trailing 7 days, “Weekly” is WAU, and “Monthly” is MAU. Based on the question, it seems like we should average the “Daily” values for the month of January 2025.
@RobertSutherland The market description says monthly average MAU, but the picture in the description shows DAU. Its probably meant DAU due tovthe number specificed (2000).
@IsaacCarruthers ''Resolves YES if there are more then 2,000 active daily users in January 2025 (monthly average). ''' - well, it says DAU first and then in the brackets effectively says MAU. Not really clear.
@HenriThunberg thank you for pointing this out. You’re correct, it’s at 2000 DAUs currently, so I’ve changed the description.
@saykind Your title still says just, "active users" when it should be "2000 Daily Active Users." Some people only see the title of your market, not the whole thing, so you are being misleading to those who breeze by and vote on your market when they see it on their page.
User Flow:
Front Page: "Will there by active users on Manifold in 2025?" ... Thought Process: "Oh yeah, sure, there has to be a least a few, maybe 5 to 10 at the very least if the website is still up should be a no-brainer.
Market Description: "...2000 users..." ... Thought Process: "Wow, that's a lot, I would have to believe that Manifold is going as strong as now if not stronger, might be less likely."
@PatrickDelaney Thank you for your comment. I disagree with you. If the question is too specific, nobody will click on it. If someone wants details, they can always read the description.
@saykind There is a point where a market becomes actively misleading where the question implies one measure, in your case, “at least one,” where the real measure is many. If your market title said, “will there be a lot of users,” or something without a measure then I would agree with you, e.g. then it’s not denoting a measure and someone would have to click to open it and find the measure. Your market will receive a poor review by those who get screwed over (edited)
@PatrickDelaney I would argue that the question does not assume any measure. When you ask someone “do you still have money?” Are you asking whether this person has at least $1? or at least 1 cent? or do you assume some other measure depending on the context?
It’s interesting that you are trying to make me change my opinion with poor review threat, but it’s not gonna work. I’m happy to address your or anybody’s comments, so I wouldn’t call my attitude dismissive.
@saykind You said above, “If the question is too specific, nobody will click on it” … you aren’t arguing in good faith, you are being inconsistent and using straw man arguments. Just update the title in a way that doesn’t mislead please.