Currently automated reports run on recurring monitors based on user encounters. At the start the automated errors were for the most part useless because there were 400 low priority bugs, 50 major, two important, and one critical. While users would show 20 low priority, 40 major, 15 important, and 20 critical errors. More specifically, errors reported from users and monitors would produce the same report. Example: User3's automated report encounters first then maybe 5 minutes later user3 will show the same report.
What are some of the best practices/methods to normalize these reports and delimit redundancy?
I've considered running a QA team through it then use one run auditing based on