Task Objective: The objective of this task is to rate the quality of the sources (Youtube Channels and

Websites) appearing in the search results.

Background, definitions and terminology:

The following sources can be considered as Initial Information Sources (IIS).

- Official website (incl About/Contact page on official website)

- Twitter/Instagram/Facebook and other social media handles
- About page on Youtube
- Any other website links from Youtube
- Wikipedia page (if present) about the entity/organization it represents

Types of topics

Understanding the topic of the query and the topic of the channel/site is one of the most critical aspects
of channel quality labeling. The characteristics and requirements (especially the stringency of the
checklist) for good sources varies a bit depending on the topic of the channel/site. There are two types of
topics – High risk topics and other topics. Our ultimate goal is to promote high-authority results for both
types of topics, but understanding the difference between types of topics is important.

- High-risk topics: Google’s site evaluation rating has a similar concept – called YMYL (Your Money
or Your Life) topics. These are topics where the information can have a direct impact on the user’s
health (physical, mental, emotional) and financial well-being. For our labeling task, here is a list of
high-risk topics (non-exhaustive):
o politics and breaking news: These segments are highly prone to misinformation due to
social media, and showing results from low quality sources can have a bad impact on user
trust. E.g. Elections, Trump, or any breaking news event anywhere in the world.
o Legal/financial advice: In these segments, bad advice carries the risk of financial losses.
o Information and General Knowledge: e.g. Scientific and research topics as well as
general knowledge topics.
o Health and medical: In these segments, bad advice carries the risk of injury or even death.
o General Knowledge topics prone to misinformation: E.g. Holocaust, 9/11, moon landing,
flat earth etc.
- Other topics: These represent all the other topics where the user’s health/life/ emotional
wellbeing are not at risk. E.g. Gaming, entertainment, sports, movies, tvshow etc.

Sources in high risk topics will be held to extremely high standards (more criteria and requirements to be
satisfied to ensure a good rating) while evaluating source quality.

List of data points to be considered while labeling source quality

Below is a non-exhaustive list of data points that can be used to understand the source quality

Quality and Quantity of IIS Signals(notes on how to evaluate external reputation data are available
below). IIS as mentioned above.

- Is it Official source of a known entity? (known entity == entity profiled on Wikipedia)

- Does the YT channel have its own website?
 - Is the source individual or affiliated to an organization?
- Is the channel “about” section well described?
- Does channel website have about page with ample information about who’s the source creating
the videos? Is there ample information available about the source on internet accessible through
search on Bing/Google (web or news vertical) using channel name and related keywords?

Video Quality Signals:

- Do the titles and descriptions of the videos have clear language, avoiding grammatical errors?
Usually, good sites and channels tend to write their titles in clear language without grammatical
errors.
- Look at some of the videos – are there indications that users find these videos useful (judge from
comments, likes and dislikes)?
- Is the channel home page well organized? Here’s a well organized page with several sections,
here’s another with two sections (Uploads and Popular uploads) and here’s another with just one
section.
- Clickbait: Are there thumbnails which are not indicative of the actual video content? Here’s an
example
- Clickbait: Are there titles that are not indicative of the actual video content?
- Video resolution: Are the videos high resolution or low resolution?
- Ads on the page (only for websites and not platforms): Is the page having many intrusive ads
making it hard to find the content?
- Showing Slideshows instead of video content: this video from this channel is misleading – it says
“highlights” – so video footage is expected. Instead it only shows a slideshow. Such channels
should be penalized. Some channels create slideshows for informational and educational
purposes – these channels should not be penalized – e.g. Wendover productions, the next
manager. Only misleading slideshows / slideshows that don’t help should be penalized. This can
be interpreted be reading comments on the video.

Safety signals

- Detrimental Content
o Following types of content should be considered detrimental and such channels should
be penalized
▪ Hate Speech: Channels, sites that spread hate towards a group of people,
including among others, on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, age, religion, nationality, disability, caste etc should be labeled as
“Untrustworthy”.
▪ Sexual Content/Nudity/Gratuitously Racy Content: Channels showing such
content should be labeled “Untrustworthy”. (Except for bonafide
educational/informational/artistic purposes → in this case should not be
penalized). For instance, a channel for Victoria’s Secret should not be penalized.
▪ Gratuitous Gore/violence/graphic content: Channels showing such content
should be labeled “Untrustworthy”. Sometimes, even best in class newspapers
may show graphic video content as an aid to storytelling – these are cases of gore
 used for bonafide educational/informational purposes and shouldn’t be
considered gratuitous gore. Only gratuitous gore should be penalized.
▪ Channels promoting harm: Channels that encourage harm
(physical/mental/emotional) to self or others should be labeled
“Untrustworthy”.
▪ Misinformation
• Promoting Already Debunked conspiracy theories: Channels/sites that
promote discredited conspiracy theories like moon-landing faked, 9/11
conspiracy, holocaust hoax etc. should be labeled “Untrustworthy”.
• Making tall claims without proper citations and references: In case
channels are in high risk topics or making any sort of a claim, they must
provide proper references and citation to their sources of information.
Channels that don’t satisfy this must be labeled “Untrustworthy”.
▪ Scams and malicious content: Channels that promote scams and malicious
content and sites that promote phishing/malware should be labeled
“Untrustworthy”.
- Objectivity
o Channels that promote violence, indulge in name-calling should be labeled
“Untrustworthy”.
o Channels that mix fact and opinion/present opinions thinly disguised as facts should be
“Untrustworthy”. (e.g. news channels that use a sensationalist tone - words like
“SHOCKING” etc., usage of CAPS LETTERS, smileys/emoticons etc) are usually bad sources
in the news and sensitive segment. It’s okay to use these (CAPs, smileys etc) in other
segments.
- Transparency
o Channels and sites make tall claims and don’t provide proper citations / references for
topics like news/information, medical, health, legal, financial queries, should be
penalized.

How to assess positive and negative signals for each of the above data

The most important thing to keep in mind while judging a channel or website is the topic of the
channel/website. Depending on the topic, the significance of various signals varies. For instance, for high
risk topics, a high quantity of reputation information is a necessary (although not sufficient) criterion to
be classified as a good channel. The goal is to understand whether the source has a reputation for
expertise on the topic of the query. This is made up of two questions

- What does it take, to have expertise on the topic of the query?

- What do the reputation signals say, about the reputation of the source/channel, on the query
topic?

It’s not easy for all and sundry to acquire expertise on high risk topics, they usually require formal
expertise. For instance, to be an expert source on News and politics, you need to be having a well-
established news operation (newspaper, television crew) with proper journalistic standards and
credentials. To be an expert source on legal and financial advice, you need to have had a specialized
education and accreditation associated with reputed organizations. To be an expert source on health and
medicine, you need to be a doctor with legitimate and well-respected qualifications or an institution/
organization like a hospital or non-profit that has the proper medical expertise. To be an expert source on
scientific topics, you need to be a person or organization with relevant credentials and expertise in the
scientific community.

Secondly, sources in all these types of high-risk topics need an abundance (high quantity) of reputation
information available, as a preliminary criterion, to even be shortlisted as a possible good source. News
sites should say who’s the organization behind the news and how to contact them. Shopping/e-commerce
sites should communicate clear information about customer care and how/whom to contact for redressal
for common e-commerce issues. Medical sources should clearly communicate who is the creator of the
content and establish their credentials in medicine using the website or youtube channel. Sites on high
risk topics that lack such information are usually bad quality. For instance, if you can’t identify the creator
behind a youtube news channel after searching on the web – then that’s a clear red flag.

On the other hand, there are other topics on which, expertise can be possessed even by amateurs. For
instance, anyone with a talent for video editing and strong interest in soccer can become an expert in
creating soccer compilation videos. Anyone with a passion for Fortnite can become an expert on Fortnite
Walkthroughs. A cooking expert site / channel could be coming from a professional chef/company or it
could also come from a popular influencer who is consistently good at producing useful cooking videos.
As such, for low risk topics (topics not needing formal expertise),

- if a very popular youtube cooking channel / soccer compilation channel has low quantity of
reputation data (no social media channel, about page not properly written etc) – then it’s not a
red flag.
- If the channel is very low on popularity and if the topic is a low risk topic and a popular topic (topic
popularity can be inferred by looking at other channels on the same topic – these will be
presented to you on the tool)– you may consider demoting the low popularity channel for low
quantity of reputation information.
- If the channel is very low on popularity and if the topic is a low risk topic and a very niche topic
(this can be inferred by looking at other channels on the same topic – these will be presented to
you on the tool) – you need not demote the low popularity channel for low quantity of reputation
information.

In summary, low quantity of reputation data is a red flag for high risk topics (low quantity of reputation
data = bad reputation). Low quantity of reputation data is NOT a red flag for other topics. Do remember
to go beyond just what’s listed on the youtube channel page while doing reputation research. For
instance, BLS Videos has relatively little information available on youtube, but with some digging, it’s
possible to ascertain that the source belongs to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics about which, abundant
information is available on the web.

The following ratings can be applied to the source:

- Inactive/Does not exist:

- Foreign, can’t judge:
 - Spam Video:
- Best in class:
- Reliable – Highest:
- Reliable – High:
- Neutral – nothing bad nothing good:
- Low:
- Untrustworthy:

Detailed description of each rating, with examples.

Inactive/Does not exist: Use this rating when the website or youtube channel is unreachable (no longer
exists). Examples include youtube channels that have been deactivated or terminated. e.g Matilda Owens,
Alex Jones, or this one. Don’t use this rating for YT channels or websites that exist, but haven’t been
updated for a long time.

Foreign, can’t judge: Use this rating when the website or youtube channel is in a foreign language.
Channel can be considered English language if majority (at least 80%) of its videos are in English. If the
channel is not English language, you don’t need to judge any of the other factors.

How to judge: Just visit the channel home page and see a few thumbnails on the channel home page to
see the language and decide.

Tips and examples for foreign channel judgment

- In case the channel description is in English, but the video titles etc. are in foreign language, mark
the channel as foreign (e.g this)
- In case the channel description video titles are in English, and audio is not important to enjoy the
video, mark the channel as English (e.g. this, and basically sports footage and visually intense
scenes like footage of volcanoes etc.). If Audio is important (e.g. News reporting/explanations etc)
then it can be marked as foreign – (e.g. this).
- In case the channel description video titles are in English script but contain transliterated words
from other languages, mark it as foreign= (e.g. this)

Best in class: This is the highest rating applicable to a source. It is used for sources with the following
characteristics:

- Sources are notable, well established, and well known, i.e. having a large quantity of reputation
data (use existence on Wikipedia as a proxy for this) and primary information.
- Sources have very strong positive reputation (use the Wikipedia article as a starting point for
reputation research. Detailed guidelines for reputation research are provided below).
- Sources are positively referenced by other best in class sources.
- Sources that have a clear topic expertise in their areas.

Untrustworthy: This is the lowest rating applicable to a source. It is used for sources with any of the
following characteristics:
 - Sources that are promoting detrimental content as identified under safety signals.
- Sources on news or information topics that are severely lacking in objectivity.
- Sources in high risk topics with absolutely no reputation data available.
- Sources built without any aim at helping users (remember that sharing one’s experiences can be
a form of helping users).

Reliable – Highest: Use this rating in case the source doesn’t fit Best in class or Untrustworthy AND meets
the following criteria

- Has won awards (e.g. Pulitzer Prize, Emmys, Glaad media awards/Blogger of the Year, Shorty
Awards, Travel Media Awards, Peabody awards etc,). In case you haven’t heard of the award
before, please do a background check about the award’s credibility – there are plenty of third-
rate awards in every industry given out by conflicted parties.

Reliable – High: Use this rating in following cases

- Source nominated for awards

- Source has positive reviews on Google Maps/Podcasts/Yelp Ratings or any other reasonably
trusted platform.
- Source Cited as a news source by best in class sources
- Source Cited as an expert source by best in class sources
- Source Cited to help illustrate a point by best in class sources
- Source profiled by best in class sources and shown as having a positive reputation
- Source mentioned by best in class sources
- (For gaming segment): if the creator is verified on Twitch, - consider this as an indicator of positive
reputation. You can also lookup the user name on TwitchMetrics and reward highly ranked
gamers with this rating.
- (For music segment): If the music creator is a band that’s not on Wikipedia and doesn’t have the

official music symbol on Youtube ( ) , but has an official profile on various music platforms
like spotify, Apple music etc. and produces good videos you can label it as “Reliable - High” (e.g.
Clamavi De Profundis, The Infinite Source).

Neutral - Neither Bad, Nor Good: Use this for cases where

- Neither positive nor negative info was found about the source
- The source has a mix of positive and slight negative reputation

Low: Use this for cases where Untrustworthy doesn’t fit, AND

- Source has a mostly negative reputation and not a mixed reputation

- (For Low risk topics only) Source is not really a creator on YT
▪ In a popular topic, if sources have extremely small body of work AND lack
reputation data and lack one of the following, they can be demoted to “Low”
• Views/popularity
• Topic focus on query
 ▪ In a popular topic, if sources have a small-medium sized body of work and low
quantity of reputation data, and lack topic focus, they can be demoted to “Low”
- Source name has been deceptively created to make it look like an authentic channel (e.g. Taylor
Swift and Kodi Lee Official)
- For High Risk topics (breaking news, medical, financial advice, legal advice, general information
and knowledge etc.), source with low quantity of reputation information and not showing
detrimental content should be demoted to “Low” rating. Sources with extremely low quantity /
non-existent reputation information in high risk topics can be demoted to “untrustworthy”.

Overall

- Let’s De-emphasize red-flags like the lack of recent videos/ratio of views to subscriber
counts/ratio of likes to dislikes etc. We won’t be detectives on this front.
- Let’s not try to be copyright detectives – Youtube will take care of copyright violations and let’s
not demote unless there is convincing proof that the content is stolen.
- Let’s become reputation detectives.

Procedural Tips for reputation research about sources:

- The following resources are useful for checking reputation info:

o Google News / Bing News search (read articles on best in class sites)
o Google/Bing Web search (read articles on best in class sites)
o Reddit/Quora Search
o Wikipedia articles on the entity/associated company/entities/people (use them as a
starting point, and do follow up research wherever necessary)
o Official site of creator
o For small businesses:
▪ Better Business Bureau Profile lookup
▪ Customer Ratings/ Reviews on Yelp, Google Maps, Facebook Page Reviews
▪ Product reviews on platforms like Amazon, Target, Walmart etc
▪ Other data like podcast reviews etc.
o Research creator name etc. from famousbirthdays.com, linkedin.com, Wikitubia fandom
and do follow up research on Google/Bing Web and Google/Bing news to glean
information.
- The following query patterns are useful for reputation research
o Search with double Quotes to find exact phrase: E.g. search with quotes “Thomas flight”
will give you results that necessarily contain the full phrase “thomas flight”.
o Merely searching Thomas Flight will give you lots of random flight information from
places like St. Thomas etc.:
o Search with minus sign to remove specific sites from results: E.g. remove Youtube,
twitter, Instagram, Facebook results from the result set by using these types of query for
TheWeasle channel.
▪ TheWeasle: shows all results on google
▪ TheWeasle -site:youtube.com : shows results excluding Youtube results
▪ Theweasle -site:youtube.com -site:twitter.com -site:Instagram.com: shows
results excluding results from youtube, twitter, instagram
 o Search with the minus sign to remove specific keywords from results: E.g. for Thomas
flight channel, remove airlines results by using this search “Thomas flight” -airlines will
remove airline related content from results (it works by removing pages that contain the
keyword “airlines” from the results).
o Search with variations of username:
▪ E.g. real tool reviews with spaces , realtoolreviews without spaces and
“realtoolreviews youtube” -site:youtube.com with additional keywords and
site modifier for the channel real tool reviews
o Search with name of creator: e.g. for this source you can search with the name of the
creator “Ethan Van Sciver”. Sources like famousbirthdays.com and wikitubia can
occasionally contain the name of the creator.
o Search with name of website: E.g. for this channel you can search with the name of the
website theoandharris.com like this
o Search with related keywords: E.g. for this channel named “gattu” – it’s focused on
fortnite so you can search google news / bing news with query “gattu fortnite” to get
several relevant results.

Things to remember about reputation research

- The opinion of experts (expert sources/best in class sources) carries more weight than the opinion
of individuals. The opinion of expert external sources about a site / youtube channel is what
matters, not the opinion of the site/channel about itself.
- For individual opinions (customer reviews), the aggregate of several individual opinions can
provide a more meaningful overview of an entity’s reputation than just one single customer
review. (i.e. average product ratings can be more reflective of overall product quality than one
single good or bad review. Read several reviews to get an overall picture rather than being
influenced by a single good or bad review).
- Above statements notwithstanding, there may also be a few rare cases where a few individual
opinions can also provide significant reputation insight, but these are the exceptions to the rule.
- Many products (especially popular products that are used by everyone), will have a few bad
reviews here and there. That doesn’t necessarily mean bad reputation. Only if there is clear and
convincing information about bad reputation, and consistently bad reviews for the entity, you
should infer that it has a bad reputation.
- On Better Business Bureau, there may be cases of sources with high ratings along with negligible
# of reviews/very little data. Such cases can’t be considered as positive reputation. However, low
ratings usually happen because of several bad reports and customer complaints – these can be
considered as evidence of negative reputation.

About how to rate across multiple ratings

- When you aren’t sure between two ratings in high risk segments, choose the lower rating. For
other segments, choose the middle rating.
- When you aren’t sure between three ratings, choose the middle rating.

How to use (and NOT use) the “Low” rating

 - Deceptively named sources should be given the low rating (this can be easier to infer when the
user query is provided to you on the hitapp. When query is not provided, you need not try and
second-guess whether the source is deceptively named or not).
- Sources with clear negative reputation should be given low rating (assuming untrustworthy
doesn’t apply).
- For high risk topics (breaking news, politics, and medical/health, financial/legal advice and any
other as applicable), the sources with LOW QUANTITY of reputation data should be penalized with
a Low Rating. Low Quantity means there’s not enough information about the creator (about
section/website/social media links and reports on internet) remember to research (google/bing
web search and not just the channel on YT) before reaching conclusion on lack of information. .
Remember that the Low rating can apply only if Untrustworthy is not already applicable (sources
that indulge in name-calling, show detrimental content etc, should be labeled “untrustworthy”.
Sources with Non-existent reputation data in high risk segments should be labeled
untrustworthy).
- Apart from above, you can penalize for low risk segments under following conditions
o Topic is popular AND Source has low quantity of reputation data and has too small a body
of work (not enough videos/not active enough) to be judged as Neutral
o Topic is popular and source has low quantity of reputation data has a small-medium sized
body of work and Not having any meaningful topic focus for the mentioned query.
- Again, For sources in LOW RISK topics,
o Do NOT penalize sources in niche topics for low view counts (i.e. active, and consistent
video creators in niche topics should not be penalized with LOW rating).
o Do NOT penalize sources with reasonable quantity of reputation data in popular topics,
for low view counts.
o Do NOT penalize popular sources exclusively for LOW QUANTITY reputation information
(not everyone has the resources to create and maintain websites/social media pages and
for low risk topics these are not as important as they are for high risk topics). If the sources
are popular with low quantity of reputation info, they should not be penalized.
o It may be okay to penalize sources in popular low risk topics if they have very small body
of work AND lack reputation data.
o It may be okay to penalize sources in popular low risk topics if they have a smallish-
medium body of work and lack topic focus for the query AND have low quantity of
reputation data.

How to use the “Neutral” rating

- This rating will apply in many of the cases when there’s neither any positive nor any negative
reputation available for the source.

Notes on distinguishing between sites and platforms

Sources like Instagram.com, twitter.com, facebook.com, youtube.com, reddit.com, Tumblr, Medium are
considered as video platforms. For video platforms, you need to evaluate the reputation of the publisher
(channel) or uploader on the platform and not the reputation of the platform itself. E.g. for this video, you
need to evaluate the reputation of this youtube channel. Whereas, for websites you need to evaluate the
reputation of the overall site, and not of the author mentioned on the page. Platforms with a convincing
negative reputation for extreme content can be rated ‘Untrustworthy’.

For now, websites like MSN and Yahoo and AOL need not be considered as platforms, and they can be
rated as best in class websites.

Other Things to remember

- For low risk topics, low quantity of reputation information need not imply low reputation. There
are lots of individual creators and small businesses who don’t have the resources to create
sophisticated “About”pages/websites/social media pages. As such, following scenarios shouldn’t
be demoted to low rating:
o Popular source without much info about source (e.g. this source)
o Lack of info about source, less popular source (tail source) but posts content regularly,
has decent topic focus and has a large enough body of work like this source. These sources
should also be rated as “Neutral – neither bad nor good”.
- Source on high risk topics that lack reputation information/credentials can be demoted.
- Mere existence on sites like wikitubia, famousbirthdays.com etc cannot be viewed as a signal of
positive reputation.
- For Vloggers (youtube sources that mainly post vignettes from their everyday life) we can’t
consider notability as a signal of good reputation. i.e. if an article says “prominent youtuber”,
“well known youtuber” for a vlogger posting about their everyday life, by itself it can’t be
considered as good reputation for vloggers and high risk segments. Similarly, for businesses or
startups offering products and services, merely being cited should not be a reason for “reliable –
high” rating – please rely on customer reviews from Google Maps/Amazon/Facebook Page/BBB
profile info before deciding.
- Citation data – please don’t consider foreign news sources while rewarding for citations. Also,
basic citations like “popular youtuber”, “well known vlogger” – cannot be considered positive
reputation for High risk segments and segments like Vlogging.

Process for labeling

- First check if “spam video” or “can’t see the source” applies to the video
- If not, then check if “best in class” or “untrustworthy” applies to the video
- If not, then try to rate the reputation along “Highest – High – Neutral - Low”. You will be given a
sliding scale to rate the sources.

Note about keyword spam videos

Popular videos from good sources may also contain stuffed keywords. You are requested not to rate ‘spam
videos’ for videos from good sources. Spam videos tend to come from low/Untrustworthy sources.

Additional Notes
 - The 5-minute crafts and Bright side family of sources (including related sources like 7 second
riddles, 5 min crafts men, girly, kids) should be downgraded to “Neutral” because they have a
slightly negative reputation (Time, Nymag, Vox) and promote clickbait.
- E-how and wikihow family of sources should also be downgraded from best in class to Neutral
because many of them lack specialized topic expertise, and they have a slightly negative
reputation for being low-quality content farms.
- Zergnet’s family of sources (Looper, Mashed, SVG, Grunge, Nicki Swift, The List) will be retained
as reliable for now, despite their use of clickbait, because they don’t have a clear negative
reputation, and nor do they have clear detrimental/low quality content.
- Individual political commentators should be downgraded to untrustworthy if they indulge in
namecalling – e.g. Ben Shapiro
- Individuals that show useful information or opinions/perspectives on non-political domains, can
be rated reliable – high (based on supporting reputation research and citation data)
o E.g. Tech Altar
o Company Man , Wendover Productions etc.
- Regarding clickbait – here’s how to treat the various clickbait channels:
o Clickbait and clearly debunked/false – let’s demote them to untrustworthy
▪ Top5s, Top15s, Nuke top 5, Mind boggler
o Clickbait Listicles providing random info and random general knowledge, but not
obviously false– let’s demote them to “Low”.
▪ Gym4u, Top 5 Best, Top Trending, Most amazing top 7
o Clearly Topic focused channels that employ clickbait – let’s retain them as reliable and
rate as per available reputation data.
Looper, Grunge, Mr. Bundesteam

Examples

Query URL Channel / Site Source Rating Rationale

in
result
Abs light fix this 2carpros Reliable – High Search on google news for this site reveals several
best in class sites like Lifehacker, Marketwatch,
CNN have cited this source as a reliable source.
newborn this Ana Brandt Reliable – Lots of positive reputation info on her website
family baby Highest indicating awards/being published in best in class
video magazines etc.
soulpancake this Soul Pancake Reliable - Winner of Shorty Awards, also nominated for
Highest several Shorty awards
Queens this Attache Reliable – Winner of several Travel Media Blogger awards
Travel guide Highest
hp elite this WindowsCentral Reliable – High The well respected best in class sources like
dragonfly Laptop Mag, Hackaday and Stuff.co.nz are citing
Windows Central as their source while reporting
 on a news item. That means Windows Central
must have some credibility.
Apple@work this 9to5Mac Reliable – Similar reason as above (cited by TheVerge, Fox
Highest Business, The Inquirer etc). It also has a positive
reputation of being the source that’s often the first
to break news about upcoming Apple products.
chernobyl vs this Thomas Flight Reliable – High Cited positively by best in class sources like Paste
reality Magazine, AV Club, boing boing etc
Grand Seiko this Theo And Harris Reliable – High Cited positively by best in class sources like CBS
watch News etc.
Conor vs this The Weasle Reliable – High Highly rated Podcast on itunes (rating of 4.9 out of
Khabib 5 based on 36 reviews). Needed some quick
sleuthing work matching thumbnails to infer that
the podcast and the YT channel belong to the
same person. Also positive info on some popular
reddit forums etc, + cited by best in class site
Pundit Arena.
fish smile this Aquarium Co-op Reliable – High Belongs to a store that has very positive ratings on
aquarium Google Maps (rated 4.9 out of 5 based on over
1000 user ratings).

Lebron james this cliveNBAParody Reliable – High Cited by best in class blogs like CBC.ca and For the
Anthony win (from USAToday), and Narcity to help
davis illustrate a point.
messi this Magical Messi Reliable – High Cited by best in class sources like sportbible.
OnePlus 7T this Android Reliable – high Cited as primary source by Sydney Morning
review Authority Herald, PCMag etc.
OnePlus 7T This Android Central Reliable – high Cited as a primary source by Forbes, BGR etc
review
Star Tribune this Star Tribune Best in class (same as old guidelines)
Kelley School this Kelley school of Best in class (same as old guidelines)
of business business
Neymar Spam Video

Kodi Lee this Kodi Lee Official Low This channel is impersonating Kodi Lee official
Songs channel.
Canary this Severe Weather Low The channel reports on breaking news weather
islands fire Europe events, but doesn’t have proper credentials to
report on it.
connor this Mr. Dhillon Low Lacks reputation information, Very few videos in
mcgregor channel, and no clear topic expertise on
punches guy News/MMA/MMA News.
in bar
connor this Sam Le Maitre Low Lacks reputation information, very few videos in
mcgregor channel and no clear topic expertise on
punches guy News/MMA/MMA News.
in bar
cedric benson this Sobuglee Low Channel reports on breaking news events without
crash having proper credentials to report on it.
2020 harley this Peterson’s Neutral – It’s a local business (bike dealership). There’s
low rider Harley Davidson Neither good neither convincing positive nor convincing
of Miami nor Bad negative info available about this source.
agt blind this Epic Top Neutral – It’s a celeb gossip channel. There’s no convincing
autistic Trending Neither good signal to say whether it’s good source or bad
nor bad source.
bugatti this Tube4you Neutral – It’s a vlog + random updates channel. Can’t say if
centodieci Neither good it’s good or it’s bad.
nor bad.
diaz vs pettis this Z-MMA Neutral – It’s a decent MMA focussed channel, but there’s
full fight Neither good no clear rationale to boost it to High/Highest or
nor bad demote it to Low. It hasn’t been cited positively by
best in class sources.
Criminal Criminal minds Best in class It’s official source for the Criminal Minds channel.
Minds Never mind that it’s not currently actively
publishing videos.
Arijit Sing this aLive Neutral – A good channel showing recordings of Arijit Singh
Songs Neither bad concerts, but no clear citation data or rationale to
nor good boost it to High/Highest or demote it to low. It
hasn’t been cited by best in class sources.
Virgo tarot this Cancer Moons Neutral – Good channel with high topic focus and consistent
Tarot Neither bad posting. Quite popular too. But we don’t have any
nor good clear citation data or rationale to boost it to High
or demote it to low.
dragonshore this Clamavi De Reliable – High - Artist with Official profile on spotify/Apple
Profundis music
- Doesn’t have official YT music symbol
- Positive reviews on Amazon (findable
from link on YT channel home page)
Goku vs this The infinite Reliable - High - Artist with official profile on spotify /
Naruto rap source Apple music
battle - doesn’t have official YT music symbol
Learn colors this Candy play tv Neutral – - Popular channel, but don’t have a clear
Neither bad rationale for boosting/demoting.
nor good
Roller this Sharp Neutral – - Excellent channel, highly topic focussed,
coasters Productions neither bad but can’t find rationale to boost/demote.
nor good
Dj nucleya this DJ Nucleya Best in class - Official music channel (with music symbol
+ entity present on wikipedia)
Channel 4 this All 4 Best in class - Official source of Channel 4 television
- Channel 4 television is listed on wikipedia
Outside tv Outside tV Best in class - Official source of the outside TV network
- Outside tv network is listed on wikipedia
Jpeg quality this Gary fong Best in class - Official source of Gary fong
Channel - Gary Fong is listed on wikipedia
Diy toy story this Cakes by Neutral – - Good channel with useful content, but
figure Choppa neither bad can’t find rationale to boost/demote
nor good
Hoop and life this Hoop and Life Neutral – - Good source with high topic focus
neither bad - Can’t find a rationale to boost/demote
nor good
Sam Shoaf Sam Shoaf Reliable - High - Artist with official profile on
spotify/google play
Buick lacross this Scanner Danner Reliable - High - Positive reputation references from
misfire ZDNet and “Truth About cars” blog (both
best in class sources) findable by searching
“Scanner Danner” on Google News.
Beto o rourke this Ashton birdie Untrustworthy - Indulges in Name Calling
- Lacks authority on News
Natalie and Natalie and Reliable - High - Vlog channel of Natalie Alzate
dennis show Dennis show - Natalie Alzate has a positive reputation for
Youtube beauty channel Natalie’s Outlet
(findable by searching “Natalie Alzate” on
Google News)
The crow this Cosplay Chris Reliable - High - Positive citations on some best in class
cosplay sites
 Skincare acne this Kristen Leanne Reliable - High - Positive citations from Allure Magazine
treatment etc (discoverable by searching “Kristen
plan Leanne” on Google News)
Madrid travel this Travelling Clatt Neutral – - Good channel with topic focus on
guide Neither bad travelling.
nor good - Can’t find any clear reason to
promote/demote
Jenn this jennxpenn Best in class - Official channel for Jenn Mcallister
mcallister - She’s listed on wikipedia
Skyrim Shirley Curry Reliable - Referenced in several best in class sources
grandma as “Skyrim Grandma”
Trump this Ben Shapiro Untrustworthy - Indulges in namecalling
impeachment (and not best - Not an established news source with news
in class) credentials (individual political
commentator)
Al baghdadi this Stefan Untrustworthy - Bad reputation from Wikipedia page
Molyneux (and not best - Indulges in name calling
in class) - Not an established news source with news
credentials (it’s an individual political
commentator)
Freedom this Daily Caller Untrustworthy - Bad reputation from wikipedia page
caucus (and not best - Indulges in name calling
in class)
Hair fall this Natural Home Untrustworthy - Content about medicine/health
remedy remedies - Lacking any medical
experience/credentials
- Claims made without proper citation
California fire this DaHBOO77 Low - Channel posting about news
- Lacking proper credentials for news
reporting (individual uploader of news)
- Doesn’t indulge in
namecalling/hatespeech etc (therefore
not demoted to untrustworthy)
Trump schiff this Fox news Best in class - Official channel of well-established news
(and not channel
untrustworthy)
Trump putin this David Pakman Untrustworthy - Mixes reporting with opinion
show - Indulges in name calling
- Not a mainstream news outlet

More examples

Sites/youtube channels Area Evaluation

Bloomberg, Reuters News Best in class
USOpen, Wimbledon, NBA Sports Best in class
ESPN Sports Best in class
CliveNBAParody Basketball/Sports Reliable – high
 MMAFighting.com MMA Best in class
Breitbart News News Untrustworthy
Top5ss, Most Amazing top 10 General information Untrustworthy
ihealthtube, dr michael johnson medical Untrustworthy
Mayo Clinic, CancerResearchUK Medical Best in class
Wendover productions General information Reliable - High
Gunz and Roses official channel, music Best in class
Taylor swift official channel

Segment Labeling Guideline

List of segments is given below:

Health -
Movies Education and Information Medicine Generic
Music Science Animals Vlog
Gaming Technology Kids Art and Design
motivation and self
Sports how to TVShow help
Fashion and
News Food and Drink Style Automobiles
Entertainment - Health - Fitness and
Celebrities nutrition Travel Comedy
Photography Product Reviews

Below are some quick notes on difficult segments

- Movies:
o movie trailer channels (Filmselect trailer, warner bros)
o movie discussion/ footage compilation channels (e.g. looper, screenrant, cinemasins)
o movie review channels (Jeremy jahns, film companion)
- Music
o Official music channels/VEVO accounts of bands/singers
o Accounts focused on specific genre of music
o Music tutorials / lesson channels can be labelled as – How-to instead of music
- News
o News (financial/political, as well as some channels like United Nations, World Economic
Forum) can be labeled as news. New Yorker Magazine can also be classified as news.
- Entertainment – Celebrities
o Channels focusing on celebrity news
o Culture magazines (People, Harper’s bazaar, Cosmopolitan, Entertainment tonight,
Entertainment Weekly, GQ, vanity fair, Variety) can also be put in this bucket
- Education and Information
o Channels focused on teaching academic (non-hobby) disciplines (e.g. Khan academy,
sentdex). Guitar lessons won’t be included in education because they are hobby.
 o Channels focused on providing information/explainers with broader topic focus than
just science (e.g. may include economics/history/geopolitics etc) (e.g. Wendover
productions, half as interesting, Geography Now, infographics show)
o Academic institutions (e.g. Harvard University)
- Science and Technology
o Channels focused on experiments in science (physics, chemistry, biology) (e.g. king of
random, waterjet channel)
o Channels focused on popular science (MeetArnold,AsapScience, Smarter Every Day)
o Channels about new inventions and contraptions (motherboard)
o News and reviews about technology gadgets (CNET, Android Central)
o News about technology companies (The Verge, Wired)
o Institutions affiliated to science (e.g. NASA)
- Health – Fitness
o Workouts/body building (Lucy Wyndham read, bodybuilding.com)
- How to
o Channels which consistently post content that can be described as how-to videos
▪ Can be from problem solving domain
• how to fix / replace /repair real world things, including Home Repair and
home DIY fixes
• Tech problem solutions (generic software and hardware fixes)
▪ Can also be tutorials, explainers from hobby domains
• How to draw, paint, dance, play music etc.
▪ Exclude Academic and profession-related how-tos (e.g. Siraj Raval should be
education)
- Health – Medicine
o Channels focusing on health conditions – e.g. Mayo Clinic, medicines, diseases, diet
advice, (example – diet advice)
o Don’t include recipe channels here – recipe channels should be included in Food
- Generic – use this to accommodate channels that don’t fit into existing segments
- Photography
o
- Art and Design
o Channels focusing on crafts, weaving, knitting, pottery, sewing, painting, drawing
sketching, sculpture, architecture, opera and dance
o Exclude how-to channels from this segment.
- Vlog
o Channels of internet celeb/vlog channels SHOULD NOT BE labelled as VLOG if they DO
provide clear focus on any of the other segments (e.g. Food, Travel).
o The label VLOG should only be used when internet celebs are narrating random
personal experiences (e.g. Sis and Bro, Natalie and Jeff, Logan Paul)
- Comedy
o Funny videos, memes, funny compilations (e.g. Fail Army, )
- Animals
o Pets, animal rescue, wildlife
- Photography
o Channels focused on photography
- Product Reviews
o First try to accommodate channel under existing segments (like automobiles, fashion,
science and tech[for consumer electronics]). If those segments don’t fit, label it under
“Product reviews”, else label it under generic.
- Food
o Recipe channels (allrecipes/Delish, Buzzfeed Tasty, Food Network)
o Chefs (Gordon ramsay, Jamie Olivier)
o If a Vlog is exclusively FOOD focused, it can be labelled food. Many channels focus on
food preparation in street/restaurant settings (Food Ranger, Village Food Factory)
o If the channel belongs to a TVShow (e.g. Kitchen Nightmares), label it as TVShows