I’m not a Q groupie, but his datapoints should be considered. And archived, and analyzed. He scores OK on wheat/chaff, signal/noise, kernel:truth, crazy/hot etc. ratio/matrices.
You're welcome to spend your time however you would like, of course. However my opinion is that there is not even a single case yet where this Q account accurately predicted any event with enough detail for anyone to have actually known what specifically was coming in advance. And it probably never will provide that, as the posts are cryptic in nature.
Therefore the analysis has been forcibly reduced to looking at events that already transpired, and then trying to determine if his cryptic texts might have somehow been a clue, even though they never actually predicted the exact event. Usually the post-event analysis is even a stretch.
So if the account can't accurately predict events with sufficient detail to serve any purpose, I see no value in spending my time trying to tie back events that did happen back to the otherwise unnecessary information that the account put out.
Just my thoughts, thanks.