That forum critique about my tracker spreadsheet made me flip my whole approach

I posted my detailed UFO sighting tracker on here back in March, the one with 47 columns for every data point you could imagine. Someone pointed out that I was drowning in noise and ignoring the actual patterns, said my focus on times and shapes was burying the real signal in the data. They told me to start with the witness credibility score first, before anything else, and it completely changed how I sort through reports. Now I strip everything down to three key factors and I found two clusters near Sedona I would have missed entirely. Has anyone else had to rebuild their whole method because one stranger on a forum saw the flaw you couldn't?

1 comments

1 Comment

jessica_dixon16h ago

Cut the witness credibility score down to just one question, and see if the clusters still hold up. I ask because I've seen people stack filters on filters and end up with nothing but their own bias polished into a spreadsheet. What did those two clusters have in common besides location, some specific light behavior or a weather pattern that gives them a shared thread? If you drop credibility entirely and sort by raw data, do the same spots show up or do they vanish? That would tell you if you're seeing a real signal or just your own system talking back at you.