Objective. To evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability for the identification of bad channels among neurologists, EEG Technologists, and naïve research personnel, and to compare their performance with the automated bad channel detection (ABCD) algorithm for detecting bad channels. Approach. Six Neurologists, ten EEG Technologists, and six naïve research personnel (22 raters in total) were asked to rate 1440 real intracranial EEG channels as good or bad. Intra- and interrater kappa statistics were calculated for each group. We then compared each group to the ABCD algorithm which uses spectral and temporal domain features to classify channels as good or bad. Main results. Analysis of channel ratings from our participants revealed variable intra-rater reliability within each group, with no significant differences across groups. Inter-rater reliability was moderate among neurologists and EEG Technologists but minimal among naïve participants. Neurologists demonstrated a slightly higher consistency in ratings than EEG Technologists. Both groups occasionally misclassified flat channels as good, and participants generally focused on low-frequency content for their assessments. The ABCD algorithm, in contrast, relied more on high-frequency content. A logistic regression model showed a linear relationship between the algorithm's ratings and user responses for predominantly good channels, but less so for channels rated as bad. Sensitivity and specificity analyses further highlighted differences in rating patterns among the groups, with neurologists showing higher sensitivity and naïve personnel higher specificity. Significance. Our study reveals the bias in human assessments of intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) data quality and the tendency of even experienced professionals to overlook certain bad channels, highlighting the need for standardized, unbiased methods. The ABCD algorithm, outperforming human raters, suggests the potential of automated solutions for more reliable iEEG interpretation and seizure characterization, offering a reliable approach free from human biases.