There's a distinction between experiential or reputational advice, and theoretical advice, even where both are empirically based, largely having to do with verification costs.
For an experience, where direct validation is expensive, it's necessary to replicate the experience in order to achieve direct validation. An alternative is to collect multiple assessments --- to check references, or sample public opinions. Reading additional reviews on a given online site (Glassdoor, Amazon, Yelp, RottenTomatoes, etc.) is appealing for ease of access, but is subject to various problems, whether unreliable reviews, curation (negative or positive), rater kickbacks or extortion, etc.
Essentially these are examples of the censorship, propaganda, surveillance, and monopoly dynamic I highlighted recently:
A preferred mode is to bypass any intermediary and directly sample those with relevant experience. Where such experiences are thin, this is difficult. For broader experiences, forms of statistical sampling are powerfully useful, and, contrary to widespread popular opinion given random sampling "large number" estimates can be achieved with sample sizes of as low as 30, and reliable small-sample estimates well below this. Sample bias matters far more than sample size.
For advice on theory, validation can be performed through experiment or by checking with trusted authorities. Note that 'trusted authorities" != "appeal to authority". That is, trust is based on both expertise and reliability, rather than position or office.
That's easiest when specific references are given,[1] but even here, @lordnacho has provided both keywords and reasonably cogent arguments supporting their views.
Their comment is a great example of why the vetting problem is so hard and enduring, though.[2]
________________________________
Notes:
1. There are reasons I frequently cite or footnote my own contributions on numerous sites.
This is why I often append "reddit" to google searches. I find that opinions/help on Reddit is often far more useful because it's not motivated by personal gain.
