(Just a thought bubble here) Perhaps if there are 100 links that also have archived links and you were to randomly choose five out of those 100 references, then (statstically speaking) wouldn't it stand to reason if you could randomly verify five to be valid, then more if not all references would be valid.
If those 5 are enough for conclusive evidence, then yes. But if that's the case, the other 95 could have been omitted from the post to make it much easier in the first place. As an example: for
this scam accusation, I could probably have written 20 times more if I spent several days going through all the evidence. Instead, I posted enough to confirm there was a scam, and left a small heading "There's much more" to point readers to some of the other shady things without showing the details.
I see.
If I were to post five items that are conclusive instead of being thorough and posting a hundred items of proof, would that be more convincing? That's probably not the best way to ask it, what I'm wondering is if I were to post five items of proof not one hundred, do you think more people would verify what I said is correct in relation to a scammer?