How often it happens doesn't matter, just that it does happen. Knowing that something can happen, but believing it is unlikely to happen to you is an excellent way to have a totally preventable terrible day in the future.
Every second, it's possible for a meteorite to plummet to earth and ruin my day.
Yet, I don't worry about it because I don't let extraordinary exceptions define the norm.
I think our disagreement here is based on the use of qualification. To my mind Yahtzee's qualifications are his backlog of other reviews and writing. So your determination of his competence is completely predicated on your opinion of his backlog.
You changed subjects here, from you to me, mid rebuttal. So I'm just going to ask for some clarification.
As I read it here, to your mind, the only qualifier you offer is the quantity of material Yahtzee has produced and nothing else.
If that's the case, well, prepare yourself for disappointment or denial in the future when an expert proves unreliable.
Quantity isn't the same as quality.
That is to say, how much weight you give his reviews is determined by how much you agreed with his previous reviews. Its not that there is some unknown entity that simply grants qualifications in this sense, they have to be developed in order to exist. Perhaps you have never agreed with a single review he has produced. In that case, his qualifications are bunk, but only to you.
I cannot reasonably comment without clarification of the above except that I already understand how advocacy and the value of opinions.
In order to determine competence, you have to build a set of qualifications. From my perspective this is exactly what you are doing when you read an anonymous comment and then choose to confirm it by researching the info presented and establishing a consensus. If an anonymous poster comments on a video, that comment is only useful until you've taken the time to confirm what was said. Put another way, if I posted some of my work online here on the escapist, the only comments I'm going to care about are the ones given by my colleagues, because the rest just aren't qualified. I could do the work to qualify them, by fact checking every single post, but that is likely not worth the effort.
Fair enough. I don't fact check every single post.
But at the same time, I don't automatically dismiss every single post purely out of spite either.
Eh, I think I'm just going to cut it off here. Not to be rude, but I've lost interest in the conversation a little while ago and judging by your response its starting to show in the form of me not paying close enough attention to my responses. For what it's worth I understand your point, I just feel that it is overly optimistic in terms of the usefulness and trustworthiness of anonymous comments in general.
The value of information is in what you make of it. *shrugs*
All communication, whether it's from anonymous nobodies, accredited writers, Pulitzer prize winners or your own parents, all stems from some sort of trust. I get that some are obviously more trustworthy than others, but nothing is absolute.
Not even the highest standards can remove the ability to deceive or err from humanity.
It's why I trust good evidence above all else.