Anons,

What would you think of a second tier notables system, which may be called Valuables?

As you know, notables are not endorsements thus as long as something is relatively sourced and looks somewhat related, they can (and should be) called notable.

It is quite flexible, but this flexibility comes with a drawback: not every notable is of same value, but are treated as such.

Most of notables are composed of recent news, twitter feeds, related articles etc. which are fine.

But some notables are original content, recent examples being an anon's Epstein island pics and the SWIFT transaction logs of 750,000 tons of gold.

These are notables are either actual (deep) digs or possible drops and as such they are simply on a different league, so they should be at least be categorized differently to show this fact.

So i am proposing a second tier of notables, which again may be called Valuables(open for suggestions) that is composed of notables that are actually worth something.

If it's implemented, it'll work like this:

1. An anon calls a notable.

1. If agreed, baker adds it to the bread.

1. After a while(or even next bread) an anon sees the value in the notable and details the reasons and makes the valuable call on the notable.

1. If agreed, baker promotes notable to valuable. (add/copy to Valuables section, leave mark on notable to show it has been promoted)

Acting as a second level filter, Valuables will update more slowly compared to Notables and each valuable will stay on the bread for longer.

As humans we often forget about things that are not directly in front of our eyes, so i am hoping Valuables will help us not forget important things for a longer period of time.

Also, what Valuables essentially will be is data points of higher confidence/possibility, and as they pile up, it will be easier for us (and normies) to paint the bigger picture by using them.

What do you think?

>>2742544 Formatting fail, BO/BV delet if possible.

Anons,

What would you think of a second tier notables system, which may be called Valuables?

As you know, notables are not endorsements thus as long as something is relatively sourced and looks somewhat related, they can (and should be) called notable.

It is quite flexible, but this flexibility comes with a drawback: not every notable is of same value, but are treated as such.

Most of notables are composed of recent news, twitter feeds, related articles etc. which are fine.

But some notables are original content, recent examples being an anon's Epstein island pics and the SWIFT transaction logs of 750,000 tons of gold.

These are notables are either actual (deep) digs or possible drops and as such they are simply on a different league, so they should be at least be categorized differently to show this fact.

So i am proposing a second tier of notables, which again may be called Valuables(open for suggestions) that is composed of notables that are actually worth something.

If it's implemented, it'll work like this:

1. An anon calls a notable.

2. If agreed, baker adds it to the bread.

3. After a while(or even next bread) an anon sees the value in the notable and details the reasons and makes the valuable call on the notable.

4. If agreed, baker promotes notable to valuable. (add/copy to Valuables section, leave mark on notable to show it has been promoted)

Acting as a second level filter, Valuables will update more slowly compared to Notables and each valuable will stay on the bread for longer.

As humans we often forget about things that are not directly in front of our eyes, so i am hoping Valuables will help us not forget important things for a longer period of time.

Also, what Valuables essentially will be is data points of higher confidence/possibility, and as they pile up, it will be easier for us (and normies) to paint the bigger picture by using them.

What do you think?

>>2742644

No it doesn't. Trust me.

>>2742651

Not the case, at all.

>>2742701

You are missing the point. The hivemind has to be guided and it would be best if it guided itself with a method.

Tell me, can you point me to a trove of knowledge, which we have gathered, that can be used as evidence to teach/enlighten normies?

>>2742684

You are correct, i have thought about this.

But i simply can't think another way. Read the above answer. It has been +17 months, yet here we are. We have to pick and gather knowledge. You can do it yourself, but then the hivemind aspect disappears. A lot of people are lurking, and most are lurking only here and qanon.pub, so it has to be in the bread.

>>2742824

>You're also just talking about the idea instead of just DOING IT, and seeing it where it goes from there.

I am debating the idea with anons before i add it to the dough, when i am baking again (soon).

>You have typical cat-herder good intentions, but you fail to see the negatives and weaknesses inherent in your "solution".

If that were the case, why do you think i am even bothering to take input?

>a second parallel system of voting and selecting and arguing and yadda yadda yadda?

SO? What do you expect to happen? In general. In this place. How does a hivemind otherwise gather knowledge? Spout every single slightly relevant shit that you encounter on the thread and call it a day? Like children? Look around!

I do agree it will make things even harder for bakers. Have to find a way to ease the load…

>>2742831

I know baker. I really do, trying to think a way to ease the load…

>>2742988

The only true counter argument has been the extra baker load, which i agreed.

I understand board and posting dynamics very well, as i have been watching this since it's dawn.

But (You) do not understand the problem nor offer a proper solution. You would probably give the same reaction when notables first come to be.

>yes, like children.

Very well. Good luck, child.