How we know · methodology · data as of 17 Oct 2026

How we know what we show

The rulebook below decides what gets published and how sure we are about it. First, the same rules as live numbers from today's knowledge base: 76 entries, 171 sourced facts, 136 sources.

Confidence grades entries · facts

  • Grade A: Official source Confirmed by an official/primary source in this review 5 · 29
  • Grade B: Reliable source Reputable press/research/aggregator with method, or official source older than 30–90 days 22 · 44
  • Grade C: Self-reported Community/self-reported consensus, a single aggregator, or a podcast claim 35 · 76
  • Grade D: Unconfirmed Single weak source, vendor/marketing content, or seeded and not yet verified 14 · 22

An entry's grade is the grade of the facts that drive matching: pay, eligibility and status.

Fact kinds facts

  • From the company Stated by the platform itself 22
  • Press & research Reported by press/aggregator/research 62
  • Workers & founders say Self-reported by workers/founders/creators 46
  • Marketing claim Marketing or host/guest claim, not independently checked 41
  • Our estimate Our own derived estimate 0

Every fact also stores its sources and an as-of date. Hover a grade or kind anywhere on the site for its meaning.

Source tiers sources

  • T1 Official/primary (platform docs, pricing, ToS, regulators) 25
  • T2 Press, research, legal analysis 17
  • T3 Aggregators/datasets with a stated method 17
  • T4 Community, founders, podcasts (self-reported) 60
  • T5 Vendor/competitor/sponsored or AI-generated content 17

The build rejects facts graded above their best source: T3 tops out at B, T4 at C, T5 at D.

Status and freshness entries

  • Open status Active 61
  • Turbulent status Active, but turbulent: recent offboardings, bans, lawsuits or pay cuts 5
  • Waitlist status Waitlist: sign-ups are queued 1
  • Pilot status Pilot: limited test program 1
  • Unverified status Needs verification: placeholder entry 7
  • Closed status Closed: kept as a historical entry 1

Review intervals run from 14 to 365 days depending on how fast an entry changes. None was past due when this page was built. Past due, an entry's stamp turns red.

How the matcher scores weights

  • Skills & background 35%
  • Income goal 15%
  • Hours 12%
  • Speed to first money 12%
  • Risk & budget 10%
  • Way of working 10%
  • Trend 6%

Hard filters run first (country, closed entries, your no-gos, equipment, budget). The score is multiplied by the entry's grade factor, so a well-sourced entry beats a thin one at equal fit. Referral data is never read. Try it

The seven rules

  1. Every number has a receipt. Each fact stores value, source, date checked, kind, confidence. If a number has no source, it doesn’t get published.
  2. Advertised ≠ realistic ≠ reported. We keep three separate fields: what the platform advertises, what workers or founders report, and our derived “realistic hourly equivalent”. Never blend them silently.
  3. Uncertainty is shown, not hidden. Confidence badges (A–D), “needs verification” banners and “as of” dates are visible on every card.
  4. Ranking never depends on referral payouts. Match scores are computed without knowing whether we earn a referral. Publish this rule, and keep it true in the code: the matcher must not read the referral field.
  5. Corrections are public. Every change lands in the changelog with date, source, method (automated or manual) and reviewer.
  6. AI never invents facts. LLMs may extract facts only when they quote the supporting sentence from a fetched source, and code checks that the quote exists. LLMs may write explanations, but only from stored facts.
  7. Fresh or flagged. Each entry has a review interval. Past it, the card shows “re-check due”, and the pipeline queues it.

Source tiers

TierWhat it isExamples in v1Can it raise confidence to A?
T1Official/primary: platform docs, pricing/ToS pages, regulatorsMercor talent docs, Upwork pricing page, Prolific payment principles, Claude pricingYes
T2Press, peer-reviewed research, court filings, legal analysisTechCrunch, Staffing Industry Analysts, Management Science, Gibson DunnYes, for events (funding, lawsuits)
T3Aggregators/datasets with a stated methodaitrainer.work open dataset (CC BY 4.0), RevenueCat report, BigIdeasDB/TrustMRRMax B
T4Community and self-reported: Reddit counts, founder interviews, podcastsBreaking Even’s Reddit tallies, Starter Story, Greg Isenberg transcriptsMax C
T5Vendor, competitor or sponsored content; AI-generated reportsFiverr-alternative blogs, tool vendors, the three ChatGPT reportsMax D, and only as a lead to verify

Fact kinds (shown as small labels)

  • official: the platform says it about itself (e.g., “Stripe primary, Wise fallback”)
  • reported: press, an aggregator or research reports it (e.g., “median listed rate $75/h”)
  • community: workers or founders self-report it (e.g., “$14–20/h effective”)
  • claim: a marketing or podcast claim nobody checked (e.g., “70–95% gross margins”)
  • estimate: our own derivation (e.g., ”≈ $688–6,450/month at 10 h/week”)

Facts vs. editorial guidance

Each entry has two layers, and the site should style them differently:

  • Facts (the “Sourced facts” table, plus the earnings, time and cost numbers): claims with sources, kind, confidence and an as-of date. The pipeline watches these.
  • Editorial guidance (one-liner, description, how it works, how to start, pros, cons, tips, red flags, trust signals, examples): practical advice written from the entry’s listed sources. It carries no confidence grade of its own.

Two rules keep the editorial layer honest:

  1. No new statistics. Any money amount, rate or percentage in editorial text must already appear in that entry’s facts, earnings, costs or time fields. (Plain counts like “interview 10 operators” are advice, not claims.) If a number changes, the fact changes first, then the text. The build checks this automatically.
  2. Reviewed like code. Editorial changes go through the same changelog. In the build, editorial text lives in separate files (x_enrich_*.py) and may only touch editorial fields.

Confidence grades (per fact and per entry)

  • A: confirmed by a T1 source in this review cycle
  • B: T2/T3 source, or a T1 source last checked 30–90 days ago
  • C: T4 consensus, a single T3 source, or a podcast claim with a named source
  • D: a single weak source (T5 or an uncorroborated T4), or seeded and not yet verified

Entry confidence is the grade of the facts that drive matching (pay, eligibility, status). In v1 (after the verification pass in doc 10): 5 A, 22 B, 31 C, 14 D across 72 entries.

Verification status

  • verified_this_session: every fact was checked against its listed source on 2026-10-13
  • partially_verified: some fields checked, others carried over
  • seeded_needs_verification: a placeholder entry (7 in v1: User Interviews/Respondent, Contra, Toptal, italki, Cambly, translation marketplaces, SME Careers). Don’t publish its numbers until the pipeline verifies them.

Status states (badges)

active · active_turbulent (active, but with recent offboardings, bans, lawsuits or pay cuts) · waitlist · pilot · needs_verification · paused · closed (kept as a historical entry, e.g., Stellar AI, so users see how often platforms churn)

Freshness intervals (review_every_days)

VolatilityIntervalApplies to
Very high14 daysMercor, Outlier (pay and project churn)
High30–45 daysOther AI-training platforms
Medium60–120 daysMarketplaces, tutoring, microtasks, creator programs
Low180–365 daysBusiness models, careers, case studies

What each card should show

Mercor · Confidence A · Active — turbulent · checked 2 days ago (re-check every 14 days)
Advertised $20–250/h · Realistic ≈ $16–150/h · Paid weekly (Stripe/Wise)
[Official] Payout schedule …          — Mercor talent docs, 2026-10-13
[Reported] Median listed rate $75/h  — aitrainer.work dataset, 2026-10-12
[Community] Offboarding wave (Jul 26) — Reddit via Breaking Even, 2026-08-09
Why we show it to you: … · What to watch out for: …

The changelog (public)

One row per change: date · entry · field · old → new · source · method (watcher / dataset / manual) · reviewer. Publish it as a page, an RSS feed and a weekly “What changed” post. It’s free content that proves the site is alive.

Corrections from users

There’s a “Report an issue” button on every fact. It goes into the review queue with the user’s evidence link. When a correction is accepted, the changelog credits the user (optional handle). This turns readers into your verification network.

How AI is used, and where it isn’t trusted

TaskAI?Guardrail
Turning a CV into structured tagsYes (small model)Controlled vocabulary only; the user can edit the result
Writing match explanationsYesMay only use stored facts; no new numbers
Extracting facts from changed pagesYesMust quote the evidence sentence; code verifies the quote is in the page; a human approves money and eligibility changes
Summarizing transcripts into idea candidatesYesOutput is a candidate; it enters the KB only after human review, labeled as a claim
Classifying Reddit post titles for sentimentYesReported as a community signal with counts, never as fact
Deciding pay ranges, eligibility, scam statusNoSources plus human review only
Predicting a user’s earningsNoShow ranges from data, plus “depends on availability”
Legal or tax answersNoLink to official sources; show a disclaimer

Lesson from auditing the ChatGPT reports

The three deep-research reports used as early input came with their citations stripped and several confident errors. Some examples:

  • “Meridial/Invisible was founded by Sam Altman.” Invisible Technologies wasn’t founded by him.
  • Toptal “backed by $225M funding.” Toptal is widely described as bootstrapped. This is unverified and likely wrong.
  • Third Bridge “Nasdaq-listed.” This couldn’t be confirmed.
  • OneForma described as “Pactera (former Lionbridge).” This couldn’t be confirmed.
  • Outlier has “no official public referral program.” This is unverified.
  • Mercor “average ~$109/hr.” That’s an advertised marketing figure, not average pay.

That is why rule 6 exists.

Known weaknesses of v1 (publish these too)

  • Many business-model numbers are podcast or founder claims (confidence C/D). They’re labeled that way.
  • Community sentiment comes partly from a third-party Reddit tally (Breaking Even), not your own collection yet.
  • Pay for AI-training platforms varies by listing, country and week. Medians from listing datasets aren’t the same as realized earnings.
  • Seven entries are placeholders awaiting verification.
  • Starter Story revenue figures come from video titles and summaries (via an index), not from full transcripts.

Sources for this doc: chatgpt-dr-1 · chatgpt-dr-2 · chatgpt-dr-3 · aitrainer-dataset · breakeven-july · rosetta-starterstory · trustmrr-faq · revenuecat-2026 · mgmtsci-genai-freelance · upwork-fwi-2026 · gibson-omnibus · claude-pricing · prolific-pay