If you don’t know what Grok is, it’s X’s (formerly Twitter’s) artificial intelligence tool. It’s free to a certain extent; however, if you ask too many questions over a certain period, you’ll be prompted with a registration option at a cost. I’m a fan of the tool—in fact, I’m finding it more useful than Google for online research purposes.
I decided to ask Grok what it thought of my website, the one you’re reading right now. Here’s a breakdown of what was said, complete with a “yes” or “no” retort from me.
What Grok Said About What Missing Person Commentary (MPC) Is
Nature: A Blogspot site where Lambert posts about missing persons cases, often referencing sources like NamUs, newspapers, and Unsolved Mysteries episodes. Posts include case summaries, personal theories, and research notes.
- I’d say this is fair enough. But I’d add that I do dabble in anything related to crime writing or forensics. For example, I’ve looked at airplane crash documentaries on the website and other topics that aren’t closely related to missing person mysteries.
Author: Lambert describes himself as an enthusiast, not a professional investigator. He mentions taking a Private Investigator course and a Forensic Science course from Nanyang Technological University, but there’s no evidence he’s a licensed expert or affiliated with official organizations.
- I describe myself as a Freelance Writer. I’m not sure where they’re getting the “enthusiast” description from, but my headline for the website is “A freelance writer trying to help in missing-person investigations (no professional investigators are associated with the site).”
- I think the credentials I have make me a bit more polished than most other freelance writers. Furthermore, I think people who consult blogs don’t mind reading writing—or else what are they expecting?
- Lastly, I think Grok is overly impressed by “licensed” experts or “official organizations.” Anyone with a reasonable amount of life experience should have noticed that “licensed” experts with “official organizations” are a mixed bag themselves.
Content: Focuses on lesser-known cases, attempts to match missing persons with unidentified remains, and provides updates or reflections on cold cases. It’s a one-person operation with no apparent team or editorial oversight.
- I do NOT focus on lesser-known cases. They are included, but I wouldn’t say they’re the focus. Grok is wrong with the first sentence it wrote there. I consider the probability of traffic when I include a missing person case on my website, and that means selecting well-known cases. I don’t see much point in writing something if no one is going to read it.
- Grok is right when it says it’s a “one-person operation with no apparent team or editorial oversight.” I basically proofread my own writing.
Grok’s Evaluation of the Strengths of MPC
Detail-Oriented: Posts often cite specific sources (e.g., NamUs case numbers, newspaper archives), showing effort to ground commentary in verifiable data.
- Fair enough.
Niche Focus: Covers cases that might not get mainstream attention, appealing to true crime enthusiasts or those researching specific disappearances.
- I do cover cases that “might not get mainstream attention,” but it’s not really the focus.
Transparency: Lambert is upfront about his amateur status and hobbyist approach, which adds some credibility to his intent.
- “Amateur status” is a strange term. I have work experience as a writer going back to 2009, and I’ve been in magazines. But I’m not a police officer or a private investigator, so it depends on what they mean. I’d say my research skills are better than most writers. My blog posts do get cited a lot in other forums.
Grok’s Evaluation of the Weaknesses of MPC
Lack of Authority: As a personal blog, it lacks the backing of law enforcement, academic institutions, or established missing persons organizations (e.g., NamUs, NCMEC).
- What website does law enforcement back except their own? Academic institutions don’t really care about missing person cases. NamUs is so error-riddled that they require correction, something I do regularly.
Lambert’s conclusions are speculative and not professionally vetted.
- It’s kind of redundant. Calling the website “speculative” isn’t the best word. I’d say “conjecture” is better. This could point out that I’ve researched hundreds and hundreds of missing person cases.
Potential Bias: His opinions (e.g., “I think this person died in a fire” or “she disappeared voluntarily”) are presented without forensic or investigative evidence, which could mislead readers seeking facts over theories.
- I’d say this is false. The example of the person dying in the fire has to do with the Ricky Jean Bryant case. Actually, my opinion is presented with “investigative evidence.” I researched the original journalism from the days after she disappeared. Her house burned down, and the firefighters who put the blaze out said they heard a child screaming from inside the house as it burned down. I consider professionals like firefighters, professors, bylaw enforcement officers, teachers, judges, lawyers, medical doctors, and similar people to be very reliable eyewitnesses because they know better than to make frivolous statements. So I’d say Grok is just wrong about this.
- I don’t think there’s any misleading readers. When you use the phrase “I think” at the start of a sentence, it’s clear someone is offering an opinion—something people do all the time.
- Lastly, the notion of a “Potential Bias” in my writing isn’t worth pointing out. Everyone has biases, including Grok. It will contain the biases of the people who program it.
No Peer Review: Unlike official databases or journalistic outlets, there’s no mechanism to ensure accuracy or correct errors.
- I don’t see how this makes sense. Peer reviews would be done at other websites, not my own, so why would that be a criticism of MPC? Furthermore, if you look at mainstream media, it’s well-known that they deliberately report things falsely sometimes. I never do this at MPC.
Platform: Hosted on Blogspot, a free blogging platform, which doesn’t inherently signal professionalism or reliability compared to dedicated domains tied to organizations.
- This makes no sense, really. Everything, at bottom, is human-run. The articles speak for themselves, not the platform. Honestly, Grok is stupid here.
For Casual Interest: It’s a decent starting point if you enjoy true crime speculation or want a narrative take on obscure cases. Lambert’s enthusiasm and research effort might spark curiosity or highlight overlooked details.
For Reliable Information: It’s not reputable in the sense of being an authoritative or primary source. Without professional credentials, institutional backing, or rigorous fact-checking, it’s best treated as opinion rather than fact.
If you’re assessing it for a specific case or purpose (e.g., a missing person you’re researching), cross-check its claims against NamUs, official reports, or news archives. It’s a labor of love, not a cornerstone of credibility. What do you plan to use it for? That could shift the answer a bit!
- The so-called “better” sources are often riddled with errors, many of which I’ve corrected in my research.
Evaluation of Grok’s Evaluation
- It’s food for thought, but I think it makes statements that lack depth.
- I’d only give it a four out of ten.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
