"Reviewed Credibility Signals" draft published

Document at: https://credweb.org/reviewed-signals-20200224/

Blog post at: 
https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/2020/02/24/reviewed-credibility-signals/

My tweet at: https://twitter.com/sandhawke/status/1231983578956935174

Reminder: this week, instead of reviewing credibility signals, we'll be 
hearing from Adobe folks.

Blog text below.

       -- Sandro

>
>   Reviewed Credibility Signals
>   <https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/2020/02/24/reviewed-credibility-signals/>
>
> Sandro Hawke <https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/author/sandro/> 
> | Posted on: February 24, 2020 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/credibility/2020/02/24/reviewed-credibility-signals/> 
>
>
> Last month, we decided to try writing a spec for some credibility 
> signals. What observations can be made (perhaps by machine) which are 
> likely to indicate whether you can trust something online? In the 
> past, we’ve listed well over a hundred, but that turned out to be not 
> very useful. With so many signals, we weren’t able to say much about 
> each one, and it wasn’t clear to readers where to focus their 
> attention. (See https://credweb.org/signals for some drafts.)
>
> This time, we decided to focus on a small handful, so we could say 
> something useful about each one and only include ones we actually 
> expect to be useful. Personally, I was able to think of about 15 where 
> I have some real confidence.
>
> Today, based on discussion at five of our weekly meetings, we’ve 
> released a draft with five signals, three of which are variations on a 
> theme. This is intended as a starting point, and we’re very interested 
> in feedback. What signals do you think are most promising? Are you 
> involved in building products or services that could produce or use 
> this kind of information? Is the format and style of this document 
> useful? The draft includes some ways to contact us, but perhaps the 
> best way is to join the group <https://credweb.org/joining> and 
> introduce yourself.
>
> Please take a look: Reviewed Credibility Signals 
> <https://credweb.org/reviewed-signals/>.
>