Most of the points require reading the whole paper first, isn't it?
Have you ever seen a novice programmer trying to find information on a StackOverflow page? The answer might be staring them in the face, but they still scroll past it once, twice, three times, etc. until I point it out.
A novice has no sense of what's important and what's not so they tend to think everything is whereas an expert has a set of heuristics (like the ones in this blog) which make them much faster. They'll look for familiar ideas, themes, likely mistakes, etc. first before going into full-on, read-this-thing-line-by-line mode.
Certainly, but will you be able to spot the breakthrough insight if all your doing is filtering it against your notion of signal vs noise. Breakthroughs tend to come at a problem from a totally different angle & generally it takes a bit of time to understand why its brilliant rather than "noise".
Even if I grant your premise (which I don't), just because a breakthrough is likely to be written in crazy-talk doesn't mean something written in crazy-talk is likely to be a breakthrough. At that point it becomes a question of opportunity cost, which is exactly where heuristics come in.
In fact, what you said could be true and it could still be true that
P(breakthrough | does not seem crazy) > P(breakthrough | seems crazy)
Regarding your premise, can you name, say, ten mathematical breakthroughs since the Enlightenment that came about the way you described?
>Even if I grant your premise (which I don't), just because a breakthrough is likely to be written in crazy-talk
Who said anything about "crazy talk"?. My point is simply that your signal/noise filter is by necessity driven by information derived from the status quo. The status quo part being a really big problem if you're hunting for something new.