What do anons think about having a separate but tandem thread for Notables? Much like I don't complain about food I don't cook, I try not to complain about other things if I don't have a solution to offer, so here goes.

Some of the major challenges of baking include:

• "Notable" carries a very-heavily-subjective connotation

• It is literally impossible to please everyone

• (((Shills))) have used "muh notables" to cause division and strife for quite a while now

• Tracking/harvesting is very time-consuming

• "Body too long" errors are common when baking

• Dough must be modified fairly extensively

Instead of the baker doing all of this alone, how about having the baker create this tandem thread and then let anons reply and (upvote/downvote/argue/complain hahaha) in this separate thread.

We have separate threads for memes (can you imagine the baker having to collect those), so why not one for notable posts?

This takes subjective evaluation out of the hands of the baker and puts it entirely in the hands of anons…it also would conceivably move the "muh notables" arguments to a separate thread, thus cleaning up the main thread for research.

Just a few thoughts. Respond or don't. IDGAF.

KEK!

Here's what a tandem thread might look like.

>>2291252 Q Research Notables #2887

>>2291295

that would suit me just fine…less work.

>>2291343

>As listed in the dough of every single bread. Do try to keep up.

Bakers don't normally update /comms/, tho.

And no need to be snarky about it (unless it makes you feel better) :P

>>2291487

>One bakers notable is another anons shite.

No argument here. I was under the impression that "Notables are not endorsements" was sufficient to eliminate the "muh notables" arguments.

<toooootally whiffed on that one. kek

btw, "Do try to keep up" IS snarky where I come from. kek!

>>2291585

>Perhaps anon, but consider where you are.

I know exactly where I am…and snark is snark.