Markets for Markets
posted by Miriam Cherry
Rob Rogers and I recently completed an article on the development of information markets. Our motivating question was to ask why information markets have covered certain subject areas, sometimes of minor importance (like the Michael Jackson trial), while neglecting other subject areas of greater social or monetary significance. We trace part of the answer to the choice of business model that information market entrepreneurs have chosen to employ, but part of it remains unexplained and is, we propose, a product of the random walk. The article is here.
June 15, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Posted in: Economic Analysis of Law
Print This Post
Responses (7)
Kate Litvak - June 15, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Miriam, not a criticism, but a suggestion: in circles that read market-related articles, it is considered an extremely bad taste not to put main findings in the abstract. Abstracts that contain nothing but research puzzles (or vague suggestions “we have an answer, but we won’t tell you what it is; you’ll have to read the whole paper”) are considered cheap gimmicks.
Jason Mazzone - June 15, 2006 at 3:00 pm
“Extremely bad taste”? Surely you exaggerate. If not, who are these people with such sensitive palates?
Miriam Cherry - June 15, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Definitely not meant as a gimmick. But I wouldn’t want anyone to think that, get turned off, and not read the paper. So I revised the abstract to reflect our findings. SSRN does not currently reflect the change (unfortunately) but hopefully should do so in the next few days.
If you have issues with the form of additional SSRN papers, I would suggest that you should write to the author (off-blog) with your thoughts and comments. SSRN lists email addresses, I believe, for this very purpose. And, that, I submit, would be in extremely good taste.
Kate Litvak - June 15, 2006 at 8:21 pm
That was a simple (and good-faith) suggestion, perhaps of interest to other readers of this blog, on how to increase readership with minimal investment of time and effort. Everyone is free to ignore this gift horse, with or without making silly defensive noises. The latter, though, would have been a totally fantastic taste.
anon - June 16, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Kate’s comment should be seen as a public-service announcement, especially for younger scholars. Thanks, Kate!
Miriam Cherry - June 16, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Kate and I emailed off blog. All’s well that ends well.
KissMeKate - June 21, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Boy, Kate Litvak should start her own blog. Call it “Catty Kate”.
Leave a Reply