Not every piece of evidence carries the same weight. A clear hierarchy makes Mars Market status reviews more consistent and transparent.
Prefer attributable primary evidence
Evidence is stronger when the publisher, date and relationship to the domain are clear. Anonymous reposts and cropped screenshots are harder to verify.
A primary source can still be wrong, so preserve the distinction between attribution and accuracy.
Treat screenshots as incomplete
Screenshots can omit the address bar, date or surrounding context. They are useful illustrations but weak standalone proof of a current Mars Market URL.
Ask whether the underlying page can be reviewed directly and whether the capture time is known.
Discount repeated copies
Many identical posts may trace back to one unverified statement. Count independent evidence chains rather than page quantity.
Repetition improves visibility but does not improve provenance.
Resolve conflicts explicitly
When credible sources disagree, record the conflict and keep the status pending. Do not select the preferred answer without explaining why one source is stronger.
A conflict log helps later reviewers see whether new evidence actually resolves the issue.
Publish the reasoning, not just the label
A short rationale gives readers a way to evaluate the conclusion. It should identify the evidence category, review date and remaining limitation.
Transparent reasoning is more useful than a confident badge without context.