So from this, you can have X's truth being based to a certain degree on Y's statement, which may be his(Y's, that is) actual observation or a relayed observation from another person, say Z.
By observing different opinions carefully and in good will you can map and sort of create a tree of observations.The closer you want to get to the actual truth, the closer you would want to get to the leafs of the tree.(Obviously you always have to keep a reference of the thing you want to know, otherwise you get into detailed observations that don't answer your question).
Now obviously the actual issue is when one's legitimate observation is misrepresented as truth, even in good will, by that person.Therefore, there's no best strategy because you need to focus on both depth and collecting a breadth of observations/statements.Think of it as a multipartite graph(in the case of "objective" truth), or a tree(this would be more akin to pure subjective observations).
Ignorance is "fine" as long as you don't claim the truth.Also pay attention to people claiming to know the absolutes or authoritative fact-checkers, most wise people never claim to know much of anything besides their own observations.