User blog comment:GeoFruck/Discussion on proof of Dino Fusion results/@comment-5042346-20120706155320/@comment-5222017-20120707164932

This may be an example of where “would be nice to have” would get in the way of “no problem, I can easily do this”. We’re not getting a statistically significant number of reports as it is. If you only give weight to reports accompanied by evidence (whoever tenuous), you’ll be left with nothing to work with.

Your point about tracking the sources of reports is important, however. The results currently aggregated in the various tables on Fusions reported so far may well be schewed, because nobody can track where all this information came from. I’ve been hesitant to add my fusions, because early on, some of my data was apparently copied by somebody else to some global table, so know I have no idea which of my results may or may not be already in there. Such double-reporting could (!!!), e.g., explain at least some of seemingly predictable results, even if the algorithm were to be in fact random.