Every day at Blue Check U is obviously a great day, but this resonates especially well with today’s news! While it’s nothing big, it is going to be something that takes some time to explain. To summarize as quickly as you can, “Verified Watch” will serve as a fun way to predict which Twitter users are closest to receiving “Verified” status and the all-important Blue Checkmark next to their name. Using a set criterion, we hope to somewhat accurately predict this with somewhat quantifiable data. Above all, we hope it’s just another fun idea for everyone to keep track of. So let’s get into the specifics, shall we?
5 Pillars of Blue Check Twitter
Before anything else, we felt it was important to determine which “values” possessed by a Blue Checkmark are MOST important and correlate to the most success. While this is certainly subject to change, we’ve decided to move ahead with what we’re calling the “5 Pillars of Blue Check Twitter”. These “pillars” will be used to evaluate and rank the candidacy of a prospective Blue Check user, along with standing alone as hugely important skills for blue checks to have. Let’s break down each “pillar” quickly to give you an idea of what we’re looking for.
Each of these “pillars” contains words and phrases that are familiar to many. Since some of these have a bit of a unique interpretation, we provided our brief definition to help you understand our intent. This first pillar of “Intellect” is a prime example of this, as everyone knows what the term means by itself.
As far as Blue Check “Intellect” is concerned, the big key here is that last part of the definition. “Wisdom in related and unrelated subjects” is absolutely crucial to being an effective Blue Checkmark on Twitter, as your Checkmark gives you the foremost authority on any and all topics you opine on. A highly effective Blue Check will find themselves giving opinions on just about any topic they can even slightly grasp, as their status makes them uniquely qualified to do so. Let’s see some examples below:
While none of these “pillars” are any more important than the other, a few are certainly more obvious to the Twitter world. Our second “pillar” of Tolerance is one that fits this mold, as many already associate Blue Checkmarks with this concept. The big difference with Blue Check Tolerance, of course, is the active opposition to perceived bigotry.
Possessing a Blue Check is more than just a symbol of Intellect. It also is one of humanity and decency. With great power comes great responsibilities, and the policing of Twitter “bigotry” is one example of many. It also is important to point out that “bigotry” is a relative term and can mean different things to different people. Quite simply, if the user feels as though they are opposing a particular “injustice”, they oppose their version of “bigotry”. Our example below includes one of the most common forms of “perceived bigotry” being addressed by Rosanna Arquette:
Probably the most self-explanatory “pillar” of the 5, Determination is vital while on the path to verification. Not only does the user have to actively WANT the Blue Check, their tweets need to match this. While the days of being Donald Trump “reply guys” on Twitter are past us, the Determination they had in spreading their thoughts and ideas was simply unmatched. The elite-level “reply guys” also made sure to spam replies in hopes of receiving a “Block”, with the intention of displaying it in their profile as a badge of honor. Simply put, you need to give serious effort in order to receive a Twitter Blue Check. Our example below features someone right now, who is actively seeking a Blue Check:
You may be asking yourself, “How can one be Tolerant AND Divisive at the same time?” While this is perfectly okay, it probably means you’ve never seen a Blue Check at their best. Almost hand-in-hand with our first “Pillar” of Tolerance, the Divisiveness comes into play when a user sees aforementioned “perceived bigots”. In many cases, these “bigots” are actually a large group of people who hold milquetoast views that differ from the user in question. When enough of these “bigots” read the tweet and chime in defensively, Divisiveness is then achieved.
Do note that, to the user in question, the goal of “division” is not ever a consideration. To these people, they genuinely felt that they did something in the name of “tolerance”. The bickering and arguing that follows is merely a byproduct for them, but a HUGE trait of becoming a highly effective Blue Check. The example below was the famous “Rothstein Ratio”, which was almost TOO Divisive to be taken seriously. Alas, Caroline sincerely did believe that “bigotry” was being addressed with her actions, making it a great example for the time being.
The final “pillar” of Blue Check Twitter is one of equal importance to the others, while also being the hardest to sense and explain. We use the catch-all term “Acceptability” to describe the willingness for Blue Checks to stick to their respective “status quo”. Because Twitter discourse is often centered around a US-centric political spectrum, most Blue Checks find themselves aligning with either the “Liberal” or “Conservative” spheres of influence. Given these two primary political “establishments”, you will have two “status quos” to base a user off of. As we write this post today on July 7th, 2022, both “sides” have clear viewpoints and ideas they stand against, as a collective. As a Blue Checkmark who represents a given “side”, you must ensure your views and tweets align with what is deemed okay. While you can decide why they can/can’t discuss certain topics, just know that a highly effective Blue Check is well aware of this fact and steers clear of any wrongthink.
Finding an example for this one requires too much context and explanation for a simple graphic, so we quickly made a diagram explaining it. Using the famous Overton Window as our guide, you can really divide Blue Check political discourse into 3 distinct “levels”. Top tier Blue Checks stay within the rectangle, while those seeking a Blue Check may find themselves outside of it.
Evaluation and Rating System
The “pillars” are certainly an important concept for understanding Blue Check Twitter, but they also serve as our guide for evaluating the chances of verification for non-blue check users. Specifically, each “pillar” will have ratings from 1 to 5 stars, with the “Overall” score averaged out at the end. While ratings like this are always going to be subject to arbitrary decisions, we hope to use these as a way to predict future Blue Check Twitter users. This first graphic shows the criterion for individual “pillars”:
A user being evaluated for chances of receiving a blue check will be scored in each “pillar” accordingly. Half-star grades are permitted for individual “pillars”, while the “average” Overall score will be a rounded decimal that belongs to a particular “range” in intervals of 1 star. The decimal will not be “rounded up” to the next tier but can be used comparatively within the same tier. For example, a “4.45” and “4.1” OVERALL score both belong to the “Highly Likely to Receive Blue Checkmark”, with the “4.45” being the likelier candidate to receive their blue check than the “4.1”.
Our goal is to have a fully functional “Community Rating” on each post as well, allowing readers to give their feedback on a prospective Blue Check’s candidacy. This may take some time, so thank you in advance for your patience!
The Upcoming Schedule
We don’t have too much planned yet for this series, but we are always looking for suggestions through the site and on Telegram! Underneath this post, you’ll find a submission form that’s anonymous for your convenience. Any and all help with this project is appreciated!
Shortly after this post, we will share the first 2 “Verified Watch” posts, with famous Trump “reply guy” Jeff Tiedrich winning the vote to be featured FIRST over LakotaMan! After that, we will post more as we find them. Your submissions will help with this tremendously!