To simultaneously examine the effects of information quality and quantity on the accuracy of personality judgment, 344 participants each made three successive personality judgments of the same previously unknown target, with each successive judgment occurring after the introduction of new information. The type and order of information varied such that each of three types of information (individuating facts, personal values, and nonverbal behavior) appeared once at each trial position (1st, 2nd, 3rd). I then compared these stranger judgments to the targets' self- and informant-reported personality. Results indicate that individuating facts are the most personality-relevant information type of the three examined. Furthermore, additional irrelevant information can mitigate the benefits of previously acquired relevant information, and if relevant information is presented too late, it seems to lose its value. Thus, it is best if relevant information appears early in the judgment process and is not overwhelmed by irrelevant information at any point.