Lots of challenges ahead with this guys! You got random companies in China with 5 check marks but not even a single photograph or person named on their website and then people who have clearly got a good presence not getting more than 3 check marks. I see troubles ahead! I really have no idea who is who except those few fellow BP Candidates I have communicated with personally like Eric in Sweden, and those I communicate with quite regularly like CryptoLions, EOS42 and the well known guys in the states, New York, Dallas etc and Canada of course forging ahead with great work.

Managing all this is going to be a nightmare for you perhaps and as the person below said you have a lot of power in the community and it won't be long before someone starts criticizing. I don't really know what the answer is except perhaps a whole team of people at your end trying to communicate with BPs and verifying the information.

In fact I think it has just come to me in a flash of inspiration!

I suppose what we're all really wanting, voters and BP's alike, is "the opportunity to verify or to be verified"

If a voter is not sure about a BP, then they ought to be able to send a "request for verification" of a certain piece of information. So ViaBTC listed below, for example, I request they verify their personnel (I know I am a BP Candidate, but I hold EOS too, so therefore I am a voter in this instance).

So if your checkmark system enabled me and other voters to request they verify this piece of information, and you work on behalf of the community with ViaBTC to verify it, and contact them and encourage them to post their personnel details, once posted and verified to your satisfaction, you can restet the request and voters can review the information and if they feel further verification is required then they can re-request.

Then from the BP side of things, they should then be able to send a "Request to be verified" for a certain piece of information and have that request shown as being lodged publicly. So for example Roelandp who feels that he has been overlooked and left out can encourage you to contact him and be given the opportunity to post proof of whatever information you feel he is not publishing in order to get the 6 check marks.

I have not done a deep dive into it but from a brief scan, to me RoelandP for example seems more legit than ViaBTC appear to be (their big name in Bitcoin not withstanding, but that is not the point of EOS!) but he has 3 marks and they have 5, somewhere along the line someone might get very upset about that, although we're all professionals and lovely people, I think the warning of trouble ahead for you guys is to be headed off now by investing a LOT more into verification as without you realising it you are becoming the judge and jury of EOS, and with such great power comes great responsibility!

I did hint at this earlier in my candidacy and you responded with the information you were working on the BP Portal, but as useful as it is, I don't think it has solved the problem, sorry to be an awkward git!

The system suggested above should probably be topic of a worker proposal and when EOS is live this will demonstrate the power of Worker Proposals as I am sure Roelandp would vote for a proposal to create a system such as this as would anyone else who feels the same way, but in the interim what are we to do?

Well that's my thoughts on that, better get back to trying to get the node running on the testnet that is a sea of red!