To choose the right ICO for investment, you need to study at least  three sites with ICO ratings. On such portals  the audit of the project is already done for you!

I think to choose the correct ico by looking at the vision and mission of an ICO. See Ambit mining ICO https://ambitmining.io

I think many factors r considered to choose the right ICO projects. Firstly reading the WP carefully is a must, then u have to check its team and visit their profiles to see if they r really experienced or not. Also the concept of the project, and its roadmap are another signs showing u if the project is going to success or not.

Here is a novel idea.

Have they created anything?  Will they create something in my lifetime? Are they really doing something new or is it a pipedream?  Not "they aim" to create something.  Have they actually created something that could have value?  Or is it another "idea" with the words Decentralized, Protocol, Blockchain and Infrastructure in it.  

It doesn't have to be high tech for it to be viable.  It needs to actually be something, anything.  Then maybe you can establish a value.

Bitconnect and other ponzi schemes had great whitepapers.

Is a whitepaper a legal document?

Is a whitepaper even remotely based on reality?

A Whitepaper could be written by a very talented writer that is full of promises of things that they have no ability to do or sweeping generalizations of decentralized this and that.

A team would need to be verified and not just some pictures of cool looking millenial programmers and VC guys.

What have they made?  That is what you can verify?  Is it something someone can actually use?  Is it legit?  Does it have any real world use or problem solving?

To tell people that they just need a nice Whitepaper and a good looking team is in my humble opinion a failed investment approach.

There are also projects that pay money to some "name" in the blockchain world to say he is an "Advisor" on their project to give their project credibility.  They do it in Hollywood, they do it on Wallstreet, and they do it in ICO's.  Do you think the 100 projects a certain someone is associated with is actually being advised by that person?

What have they made?  Is that verifiable?  Is it being used?  Or did they just post some open source somewhere?

Do they have contacts and the ability within whatever industry that they say they are in to solve the problem they are attempting to solve?  That might be a better question than wanting pictures of programmers.  So many tokens don't need people with blockchain experience, they need people with industry experience.  Unless they are making a new blockchain technology, I would rather take a group that knows about the industry they are in and 90% of ICO's are not attesting to be making new blockchain technology but using current platforms and protocols to make something new for the actual public to use.

I would rather look for the next Uber or Amazon that utilizes already made tech for real life use than trying to find the next Ethereum.   

Just a humble opinion, but what do I know.

First of all it is worth checking rating on various websites, it is the best of all if this rating is the computer work, because voices and opinions of people are very often just bought.
Then it is worth checking what team or the person stands behind this project, most often all this information can be found in the Internet.
Reading whitepepper and the decision to enter ico will be the following stage which I advise to you. Very often projects are repeated each other and it is necessary to find the alternative project and to understand why this project is better
Well and as practice best of all shows a blockchain projects are on sale. Good luck

It is very important to study the "white paper" in sufficient detail. Unfortunately, many investors do not find for this time, although it is there that everything you need to know about a particular ICO is located. Compare the content of the "white book" and what you found in other sources. Then ask yourself: what value does this project bring to the world?

Generally in my opinion ICO is always a good option.  In particular, it is very profitable to look for companies that are only gaining momentum and investing in them, because after a rapid growth on this you can raise the money.  Of these, companies have recently found Paytomat for themselves.  As if the company is not very popular, it already cooperates with NEM and Hacken, which I trust.  Details can be read on them on the telegram channel, called Paytomat Announcements.  But in general, I do not want to impose my point of view, so think for yourself

I always look for some good new companies for investment, I select them according to several criteria, publicity, openness, perspective, need personally to me.  And then I consider them a good investment not important for a month or a year.  Well, for example, I can mention Paytomat from the last, I know that their idea will be relevant to me.  Because the problem of transferring real money to Coins is now very topical4

For me, I love ICOs with workable projects, and better still, ones with a working product. A utility token has to be worth its name, not just an abstract project. Well, I may be wrong but, its been working for me so far. No complaints. Checking and thoroughly reading the whitepaper for the project should not be overlooked.