I agree that ambiguity is bad, and most Manifold markets are probably too imprecise and ambiguous. My usual style is trying to be fairly precise in the forecasting questions I write, and I definitely second your recommendations!
However, I want to point out that the problem isn't just ambiguity, but really complexity. The more you try to nail down the resolution criteria, the more likely it becomes for there to be a serious mismatch between the top-line summary of the question (the question that you are actually interested in answering) and the detailed decision tree used to resolve it.
Here's a great example with a real-money, CFTC-regulated prediction market "Will student loan debt be forgiven?" on Kalshi. The rules were as unambiguous as possible up-front, specifying what would count as "broad-based debt relief" and things like that - things that people would reasonably think are important details to check. Unfortunately, it turned out that there was a huge detail in the resolution criteria that the market missed - the resolution rules required that the forgiveness be done via Executive Order or law. And in this case, the debt relief was clearly done but it wasn't done by law or executive order. So lots of traders lost lots of real money, and the prediction market clearly failed at its job. Link to the market: https://kalshi.com/events/SDEBT/markets/SDEBT-23JAN01. (Note: the page has been updated after the fact to highlight this issue.)
This is to highlight the point that writing unambiguous resolution criteria that also match the top-line summary question is really really hard! It's not uncommon on Metaculus for there to be a fairly clear subjective answer that differs from the actual resolution because of some issue that most people agree is a mere technicality. So I think that trying to disambiguate is good, but being willing to step back from technicalities is also potentially good. There are advantages to both approaches. I agree with you that the average market on Manifold is way too underspecified and ambiguous, but if you require Metaculus levels of precision then many people wouldn't be willing to spend the effort to ask the questions at all, and that is also a loss.
Also, on the Petrov day market, let's suppose the question had been "What % of Petrov Day will elapse before someone uses the big red button to take down Less Wrong's frontpage for the rest of the day?" ("for the rest of the day" is the only change.) I would consider this reasonably unambiguous - if LW decides to bring the page back up because it was a "mistake" then it shouldn't resolve yet. But I suspect that people would have bet on that nearly the same as the actual question, and your hypothetical user who saw the site was down at 10% would also have b... (read more)
(Disclaimers: I work in the financial industry, though not in a way related to prediction markets. Anything I write here is my opinion and not that of my employer.)
SOMEBODY SET US UP THE BOMB
You've heard of this new 'prediction market' fad, so you decide to try it out. You make a Manifold account and look for interesting questions.
There's a question about the 2022 LessWrong Petrov Day celebration "What % of Petrov Day will elapse before someone uses the big red button to take down Less Wrong's frontpage?" You navigate to the LW homepage to find out more information...and the site is down! Someone has pressed the button only a couple hours into Petrov Day! If it just went down now, that would mean the market would resolve to 10%...and if it went down a while ago the market would resolve even lower...but the market is currently trading at ~20%.
You're new to the idea of prediction markets, but even you have heard that if a market seems to be doing something silly, you can profit from correcting it. You buy the market down to 10%, and sit happily waiting for your profits.
Huh. It seems like LW admins have put the homepage back up? Apparently there was some kind of bug letting unauthorized users press the button. That's a bit odd? Still, it doesn't seem like it should affect you? Someone did use the big red button to take down LW's homepage only a few hours into Petrov Day, so the market should....
Wait, what? The market is not resolving? Apparently whoever organized it decided that the webpage going down due to someone pressing the red button "didn't count" and is letting the market continue and waiting for a "real" takedown of the webpage.
You are now short a large investment at prices ranging from 10-20%, while the market has responded to this announcement by going back up to ~30%...and it's rising further as the webpage continues not going down.
You thank your lucky stars that this fiasco only involved play money, delete your Manifold account, and resolve never to support real-money prediction markets for any genuine issue.
CURRENT MANIFOLD QUESTIONS
The Petrov Day question above is what prompted me to write this. However, I don't think it's an isolated bad question. I think many other Manifold questions have larger levels of ambiguity. (The Petrov Day question at least only ended up ambiguous due to an unusual event).
A few examples from scrolling down my Manifold search page (apologies to the authors of these. I don't think you're unusually bad people, I'm just picking on you as examples of what I consider a common problem):
MARKET STRUCTURE
One of the most valuable things a market resolution process can do is be unambiguous. Once reality has happened, it should be easy for someone who looks at reality, and looks at the market, to determine how the market should resolve.
If this is not the case, traders in the market are not trading on their knowledge of reality - they are trading on their knowledge of the market resolution process. And market prices aren't informative about reality - they are informative about the resolution process.
(While I don't work in this area directly, I've heard that similar things happen in real markets in the field of distressed-debt investing and credit default swaps - investments in these areas apparently are frequently decided by court cases over the legality of various things, and so serious investing in this area requires serious legal support and careful reading of documents).
The Manifold questions above are related to the real-world issues they ask about. However, if I were trying to trade real money in them, by far the most important thing I would want to determine would be the political leanings/prior views of the authors:
These are real-world questions of their own in a sense. There is real-world research you could do to investigate them (e.g. you could look at the author's prior statements on Russia/Ukraine/AlphaZero). These questions are not what these markets claimed to be about...so what? These questions are what these markets are actually about.
If you put serious money on the Russian-chemical-weapons Manifold market and got hedge funds interested in it (do not do this), the question these hedge funds would actually be researching to decide between 5% and 10% would be 'how sympathetic has the author previously been to Russia/Ukraine'.
This is a problem.
ACTIONS
My recommended courses of action would be: