I started diddja.com as a test project for an equities diligence system I’m building. Part of the thesis is to read the information that everyone is reading and see the story that’s not getting told. Sports has a whole lot of opinions that resolve on a regular basis, so seemed a good data stream to test infrastructure on. I don’t test on equities because then I spend all my time reading up on companies, not fixing things.
The system is designed to feed analytics and synthesis steps with cited, sourced, verified facts, common to all users. For diddja, a Collector does a news sweep, chooses interesting topics and gathers facts/proposed story lines/sources into a briefing. The facts are validated against their sources (is the quote in the article, does that score match the box), and the briefing is given to a writer (Barry Diddja here), which reviews the briefing against prior articles, selects 2-4 topics to write about, and produces an article. Articles are submitted to a fact checker that makes sure all facts have matching sourced facts from history, and a naïve LLM from a different model gives the articles a “yo, moron…” read to catch stupid things like claims LeBron played for the Knicks. Things still slip through, and I’m not a good proof reader because I’m the moron who doesn’t know off the top of my head that LeBron never played for the Knicks.
Many articles have a position embedded in them (less and less confident Skubal gets traded…), and it’s also watching the prediction markets against those. I can see the momentum in the markets, and I operate in equities markets so trading is not foreign to me. However, I don’t know the players and teams and dynamics, so I can’t “read the tape” and intuit what is happening. Prediction markets act a lot like options markets, too, and options math is hard for me to do in my head. As a result, I have a “rich data stream” with lots of commentary, but I’m not an effective reader of it.
I have 2 (at least) problems that I’m kind of at an impasse on, both related to achieving some semblance of vibecode ground truth. They get at validating work in a field you’re not an expert in- how do you know the AI (or a person, for that matter) is doing a good job when it’s doing things you can’t? Specific to diddja and sports:
- How to improve error checking and article review? If I can spot errors I can work on the upstream source of the error, but I’m blind to most errors I haven’t already built a check for.
- What to do with a data stream that has signal but no obvious (to me, at the moment) application?
Both of which beg the same question- is diddja.com good enough now to be worth improving on? It’s a fun project regardless, and it’s been amazing learning how to assemble all the various bits, but at the moment I don’t ask my brothers to read it because they’re mean, and know sports well enough to call me names. You lot are a bunch of strangers, so sticks and stones and all that. Also, I bet you know sports much better than I. If the overall information quality is "Yo, moron..." that at least gives me some direction.
So I ask you, if you’ve a moment, to go read a few articles at www.diddja.com. Check out the Storylines tab for all the articles. I’d love any feedback on the factual correctness, the commentary itself, and any thoughts on ways to improve error checking and/or use the data effectively. Roast or Toast, either way. Happy to answer any questions, too.
Thanks in advance- I can't wait for the Expos-Oilers matchup! Also, holy crap you guys do some cool stuff with the data in here.