Ethics, consent and removals
These are real working people. Removal requests from featured performers are honoured without argument and without requiring a reason, no leaked or non-consensual material is referenced or linked, and the exclusion rules are enforced before scoring rather than argued about afterwards.
Removal requests from featured performers are honoured without argument and without requiring a reason. Email thecamexpert2@proton.me with the page you want taken down. You do not need to explain, justify or prove anything to us.
Requesting a correction or a removal
This is the route the notice at the foot of every performer profile points at. It applies to any page on this site that names you.
Send the request
Email thecamexpert2@proton.me for a removal, or thecamexpert2@proton.me for a factual correction. Include the URL of the page. If you are writing on behalf of a performer, say who you represent — we will confirm with them, not with you.
No reason is required
Performers who have publicly asked to be left off editorial rankings. Removal requests are honoured without argument and without requiring a reason. We do not ask why, we do not ask you to prove harm, and we do not make removal conditional on anything.
What happens
A removal takes the profile page down, strips the performer from every ranking she appears on, and adds her to the exclusion list so she is not re-added by a later edition. Factual corrections are made within 48 hours of verification and logged, dated and described at the foot of the article.
It is logged, not hidden
The fact that a ranking changed is recorded in the corrections log. The reason is not, and neither is your name if you asked for a removal rather than a correction.
Who we will not rank
A ranking is an endorsement of a professional record. These are the cases where we will not extend one, and they are enforced before scoring rather than argued about afterwards.
✕ Excluded from every ranking
- Performers with credible unresolved allegations of coercion, assault or trafficking. A ranking is an endorsement of a professional record, and we will not extend one where consent is in question.
- Anyone whose age at the time of any listed credit cannot be independently verified as 18 or over.
- Performers who have publicly asked to be left off editorial rankings. Removal requests are honoured without argument and without requiring a reason.
- Content, imagery or links sourced from leaks, hacks or non-consensual distribution — regardless of how widely circulated it is elsewhere.
What we publish, link to, and refuse
No explicit media
All performers featured are adult professionals. Pornstar Ranked hosts no explicit media. Records required by 18 U.S.C. 2257 are held by the respective production companies.
No leaked or non-consensual material
Content, imagery or links sourced from leaks, hacks or non-consensual distribution — regardless of how widely circulated it is elsewhere.
Where body copy links
Body copy links only to award bodies, credit databases and encyclopaedic sources. No links to explicit destinations — the link graph is part of how the page gets classified.
Official accounts on profiles
Profile pages link to accounts the performer runs herself. Platform links are currently shown. Whether a profile links to an adult platform is decided per language edition, as a legal position taken for that market rather than as a preference. Where an edition suppresses those links, it suppresses them everywhere in that edition — the decision is recorded once, in one place, and applied automatically, so the stated policy and the published pages cannot drift apart.
How performers are written about
The same rules that govern the rankings govern the prose.
✓ Fact-check pass
Every date, award and credit is matched against at least two independent sources before publication.
✓ Consent & dignity pass
Copy is reviewed to ensure performers are described as professionals. No leaked, non-consensual or unverified private material is referenced or linked.
✓ Legal pass
All listed performers are verified adults with documented professional careers. Pages carry RTA labelling and 18 USC 2257 signposting.
Independence. Pornstar Ranked is reader-supported and editorially independent. We do not accept payment for placement on any ranking, and no performer, studio or platform can buy, influence or remove a position. Where we link to a paid platform, the link may be affiliate-tracked — this never affects a rank or a score.
What we will not claim
Publishing the weaknesses of the model is part of the same commitment as publishing the model. These are the ones we already know about.
△ Where this model is weak
- Demand is our weakest inputWe have measured audience search interest for only a minority of the performers scored so far. The rest carry editorial estimates. This is the pillar most likely to move as our measurement of audience demand widens.
- Award archives favour recent, American productionAVN, XBIZ and XRCO are US bodies founded in the 1980s and 1990s. Performers who worked earlier, or outside the United States, are structurally disadvantaged by the Recognition pillar. We correct for it by hand and disclose each correction, which is a fix but not a solution.
- Craft is a judgement, and judgements varyOne informed desk scoring against the acting-award record is better than asserting an order with no reasoning, but it is still a view. It is capped at 15% and shown separately for that reason.
- Pre-2000 credit counts are unreliableOlder releases are documented far less consistently than modern ones, which understates the output of long careers. The Longevity pillar partly offsets this; it does not fully correct it.
- Normalisation means scores are not cross-comparableAn 88 on our Japanese ranking and an 88 on our MILF ranking are not the same achievement. Each score positions a performer within her own field, and comparing across articles is not a use these numbers support.