judging online information quality based on site where it appeared: a comprehensive guide

- "How To (...)" in the title, cookie banners, lots of side-information written in a way that wastes your time: SEO slop, don't bother. You might as well make a wild guess, same likelyhood it'll be correct

- official docs for $x, autogenerated by a rube-goldberg machine and automagically pushed into whatever-pages by a fully-skidoodled, post-quantum CI pipeline: describes everything, except the exact fact you're looking for.

- no HTTPS, tilde in the name, DNS with 4+ dots, likely hosted on some dusty uni server, white background with absolutely no CSS: one of the best resources on the subject. you question how it's even still online

- site titled "Garry's blog", default wordpress favicon, last update either previous month or 12 years ago: golden. crystal-clear exposition, good examples and screenshots framed so well you don't even need arrows pointing places. likely used as a cheat-sheet daily by everyone in the community

@domi
Another common sign is when it spends half the article explaining in the most long-winded way possible, the most boneheaded basics of what the subject even is, then follows it up with "therefore it's important to know how to..."

You can just tell when has been written to waste as much of your time as possible.