How we rank

What we compare

For each topic we gather the videos that genuinely address it — across a range of channels, not just the most-viewed — and set aside the ones that are too thin, too dated, or that we cannot verify. What is left is the field we compare, so a ranking reflects the real options rather than whatever the algorithm surfaced first.

How we judge them

Each video is weighed on the things that actually decide whether it is worth your time:

• Accuracy. Do the claims hold up, and do they agree with the other credible videos on the same task? Where they contradict each other, we say so and explain which reading we follow.
• Teaching. Order, pace, and whether it explains the reasons — not only the steps.
• Coverage. Does it finish the job, including the parts that are easy to leave out?
• Freshness. Methods, prices and interfaces age; a confident video can be confidently out of date.

There is rarely a single winner. Most guides name a best overall alongside a fastest or a best for beginners, because those are usually different videos.

Reviewed before it is published

Every guide is grounded in what the videos themselves say and show, and is quality-checked and read by a person before it goes live. Anything that does not meet the standard is not published. Criticism is specific — a missing step, an outdated figure, a point the video gets wrong — never a vague verdict on a channel.

No pay-for-placement

Rankings are earned on the criteria above and nothing else. We do not take payment for a position, and we never republish a creator's video — every recommendation links straight to the original.

Corrections

If you made one of these videos and something here is wrong — an outdated point, or a ranking based on a version you have since improved — tell us and we will review it, or re-assess against your current video. Rankings change when the evidence changes; that is why every page is dated.