This study provides a preliminary report on a large inter-annotator agreement experiment where 23 expert annotators from various research backgrounds identified and labelled disfluencies in the same speech sample. Each annotator was instructed to analyze the sample according to the framework (definitions, segmentation, labels, etc.) they typically use. The annotations were then processed and compared across three different dimensions: 1) the scope of the chosen typology and the definitions within, 2) the implementation of the typology in terms of annotation tiers and labels, and 3) the temporal alignment of the annotations. Preliminary findings reveal that there are substantial variations between annotators on various levels of annotation. The lack of a common standard becomes particularly evident in more complex segments, such as repairs.