29 pecan variants, pies, cookies, puddings, breads...
Again, your complaint is that we're using a single source checker, but you offer no alternative.
If you want to say "Why don't you use 'x'?" I'm happy to look at it. So far, we're striking out.
But the bot DOES use two sources, MBFC and Ground.News.
"You aren't open to other ideas!"
"Here's a list of ideas we looked at."
"It's like talking to a wall!"
You sure you aren't looking at a mirror when you say that?
Still open to alternatives if you have any.
Oh, it's there, but like I said below, I've never been a peach fan. I think it's the texture, they come across as slimy.
We are accepting other ideas, so far nobody has offered any.
So, for example, AllSides is great for tracking bias, but has no meter for credibility. We have no problem with a biased source, so long as it's credible.
So, for example, National Review has a right bias, but is highly credible. Fox News has a right bias and is not credible.
AllSides will just tell you both are right bias, which isn't helpful for our purposes.
The one we had a meeting with, had a good tracker for both, but wanted a 6 figure payment to access the API, which, as volunteers, we can't fund.
So far, the folks complaining about MBFC don't offer a solution, only complaints.
There are SIX poundcake recipes, but only 2 use sour cream and one of those is a peach poundcake and I'm not a fan of peaches, but I suppose I could sub in pears or apples.
I did find this one that has no sour cream, but it does have three STICKS of butter AND 8 ounces of cream cheese.
I'm already on borrowed time... ;)
Just flipping through, it looks like Minnie Pearl's Corn Light Bread:
Same answer for why dudes constantly channel flip... looking for boobs.
Oh, no, we're fully accepting of other ideas. We even had a meeting with another fact checking company who wanted to charge us 6 figures for API access, so that's a non-starter.
The basics are really simple - You think MBFC is biased? Cite an example and name someone better.
We're waiting...
Removed, questionable source. Not to say they're WRONG in this instance, but we need a better source on this.
You can't really say we aren't considering alternatives when I've provided a list of alternatives we did consider all while providing absolutley none of your own.
Tell me what to look at, we'll consider it.
Ideally: