I think I’m going to use Sasquatch as a metric of accountability/accuracy.
One Sasquatch = enough photographs and/or evidence to warrant an investigation, particularly into the evidence if it’s something new, but not enough evidence to conclude definitively that something exists.
Frame 352 – Sasquatch
The metric is based on the belief of the creature Sasquatch. A lot of people believe in Sasquatch, and there are all kinds of tales — including some very creepy compelling ones — but there’s just not enough evidence to conclude a Sasquatch actually exists. So far, most photographs and video of a Sasquatch have been debunked. It’s still possible there’s such a creature, but unless more definitive evidence (as opposed to more evidence of the non-definitive sort) appears, there always has to be a certain degree of… hesitation… in accepting the conclusion that Sasquatch exists.
A Sasquatch value cannot be increased by more of the same evidence — the evidence must bring some new information to the table. Each new piece of information that cannot be attributed to a simpler explanation increases the Sasquatch value a small degree. For example, it doesn’t matter if one person claims they saw a Sasquatch, or a thousand people claimed they saw a Sasquatch.
A Sasquatch value of 10 means that the item, effect, or creature in question can be touched, reproduced, observed by a person who is not inclined toward believing it. Or, if you prefer, that only a real dingbat would insist it didn’t. For example, apples have a Sasquatch rating of 10 because no matter whether or not you believe them, they’ll still leave a bruise if thrown at the head with sufficient force.
Sasquatch values only go to 10 in Newtonian space.
A Sasquatch value of less than 1 is acknowledgement that the thing is completely imaginary.
It’s a work in progress…