Using synchronicity mapping to track glitch hotspots - methodology question

I've been developing a spreadsheet system to track reported glitches and impossible coincidences across London, correlating them with location, time, and other variables. The idea is that if the simulation has processing limitations, certain areas might have higher glitch frequency during high-traffic times (like Piccadilly during rush hour).

I've got about 300 reported incidents collated from forums, Reddit threads, personal submissions, and some interviews I've done. Most incidents cluster around transport hubs - King's Cross, Victoria, London Bridge - but there's also a hotspot in Fitzrovia that doesn't have obvious reasons for high coincidence rates.

Before I present this data anywhere, I'm trying to figure out if my methodology is sound. Am I accounting for observer bias? (People are more likely to notice glitches in high-stress environments like busy stations.) Am I collecting data consistently? Has anyone here done similar analysis?

Your observer bias concern is the key one. You're basically selecting for areas where people are stressed, crowded, and already primed to notice weird things - busy train stations. Of course you'll find more incidents there. You need control data - boring places, low-traffic times - to prove it's not just selection bias.

This is actually interesting methodology. You might want to control for (1) population density, (2) media coverage (places mentioned in news probably get more glitch reports), (3) historical significance (people expect weird stuff at old sites like King's Cross), and (4) electromagnetic interference. Factor those out and see if hotspots still exist.

Fitzrovia's interesting because it's literally where the Bloomsbury Group was - lot of creative people, lot of historical 'weirdness.' But is that a glitch or just confirmation bias because people expect that area to be weird? How are you defining a glitch exactly? Because that's crucial to your methodology.

300 reported incidents collated from forums, Reddit threads, personal submissions

Big methodological problem here - these are all self-selected reports from people who already believe in glitches. You're not getting a representative sample of actual reality, you're getting a sample of people who notice/care about unusual things. You'd need to survey random people about their experiences to have real data.

I really like the ambition here and honestly the spreadsheet approach is solid, but you're bumping into the classic paranormal research problem - how do you measure something when the very act of looking for it changes where people look? Might be worth discussing with someone in a research design background, not just paranormal folks.