How We Score OnlyFans, Fanvue & Direct Creators
How we score OnlyFans, Fanvue, SextPanther, MYM creators: 6 weighted categories, $0 subscription spend, transparent gaps. By Alexandra Joly.
By Alexandra Joly, Senior Editor · Last full retest: 2026-05-26 · Real-creator scoring · Methodology overview
This is the public version of the scoring system we use on every OnlyFans creator review, every Fanvue creator review, every SextPanther review, and every MYM.fans review on bestgirlfriend.ai. The internal specification (raw scoring sheets, sub-criteria checklists, per-creator workflow, cadence-cap thresholds) lives in our editorial reference docs. This page is what readers see. Plain language, same honesty.
Three benchmarks shaped the design. [Source: Wirecutter, How We Work · verified 2026-05-26] for the methodology-published-in-full discipline. [Source: Consumer Reports, Research and Testing · verified 2026-05-26] for the named-gap-when-a-test-isn't-possible discipline. The [Source: FTC Endorsement Guides 16 CFR Part 255 · verified 2026-05-26] for the conflict-of-interest discipline that drove the $0 subscription choice. Each one demonstrates that scoring works only when it's published in full, applied identically across the catalog, and survives outside scrutiny, including from the people being scored.
Do you actually subscribe to the creators you score?
No. $0 subscription spend is a deliberate feature, not a budget constraint. Every reader can imagine why a critical review of a creator we paid to access has a built-in conflict no disclosure resolves cleanly. We score from public-facing evidence only: the creator's free preview profile, Twitter/X promotional cadence, aggregated Reddit subscriber commentary (≥ 5 independent reports for any verified claim), and industry press. Anything we couldn't observe ourselves is flagged not independently verified, with a footnote naming the gap and the fallback source.
Look, this is the call most reviewers in this space won't make. Subscribing to a creator and then writing a "Here's why she's amazing" piece pays better. The conversion rate on a glowing review with insider screenshots is brutal. But the moment you've sent money, the editorial line is gone. You're a customer telling other customers. The review reads as a sales pitch because that's what it functionally is.
So we don't. I audit the public surface (free preview, pinned posts, the Twitter feed the creator uses to drive traffic to her main page) and I aggregate the verifiable signal from subreddits where actual subscribers post. No transaction, no conflict, no compromise. When a sub-criterion sits behind the paywall (DM response time being the obvious one), I flag it not independently verified and tell you exactly which fallback I used. You get to disagree with full information.
Lead testing is performed by Alexandra Joly, Senior Editor. Editorial review is performed by the bestgirlfriend.ai editorial team before publish; disagreements greater than 1 point on any category are resolved before the page goes live. The full per-creator workflow is documented in our editorial process page.
What are the 6 scoring categories?
Six weighted categories feed the composite score: Content Volume & Cadence 18%, Engagement & Interaction 18%, Pricing & Value 18%, Niche Specificity & Match 16%, Privacy & Compliance 14%, Production Quality 16%. Three categories tied at the top weight (18%) reflect the most consequential signals subscribers actually evaluate when picking a creator: how often she posts, how fast she replies, and what her subscription actually costs.
The weighting reflects what people actually argue about on r/onlyfans, r/fanvue_creators, and creator-specific subreddits. Read those threads for a week and you'll see the same complaint patterns: "she stopped posting after I subscribed", "DMs are clearly mass-auto-replied", "subscription is cheap but the PPV is brutal". Cadence + Engagement + Pricing are the three categories that determine whether a subscriber stays past month two. So they sit at 18% each.
Niche Specificity (16%) measures how reliably a creator delivers what her marketing implies. A creator who promotes herself as gym-fitness and whose preview shows three workout posts and forty cosplay shoots scores lower than one whose preview matches her bio cleanly. Privacy & Compliance (14%) is platform-anchored. Tier-1 compliant host = 7.0+ floor inherited, flagged platform = capped at 5.9 regardless of the creator's own conduct. Production Quality (16%) is composition, lighting, and resolution from the public preview reels, plus the promotional reels on Twitter/X.
| Category | Weight | Test method | Primary source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content Volume & Cadence | 18% | Public profile audit; visible post count; pinned-post cadence claims; Twitter/X promotional cadence cross-reference | Creator profile public preview; creator's own Twitter/X archive |
| Engagement & Interaction | 18% | Aggregated Reddit subscriber reports (≥ 5 independent); livestream frequency from Twitter announcements; custom-request availability disclosure | r/onlyfans, r/fanvue_creators, creator-specific subreddits; creator-disclosed Q&As |
| Pricing & Value | 18% | Pricing-page check by hand (no payment ever submitted); bundle savings computation; free-trial tracking; PPV pricing range from creator-disclosed rates | Creator profile public pricing; creator promotional Twitter/X posts |
| Niche Specificity & Match | 16% | Bio inspection; first 20 visible posts tagged; brand consistency cross-checked across Twitter, Instagram, promotional reels | Creator profile bio + visible content; cross-platform brand audit |
| Privacy & Compliance | 14% | Platform-anchored baseline (Tier-1 compliant platform = 7.0+ floor); creator-individual DMCA enforcement track record (when public) | Platform legal pages; FTC and ICO records; creator-disclosed DMCA work |
| Production Quality | 16% | Public preview reel inspection; resolution, audio, lighting, set design, photo composition checklist; promotional reels on Twitter/X | Creator public preview content; creator promotional reels |
Last reviewed: 2026-05-26. Total weighting sums to 100%. Unlike the AI scoring where Voice and Video can be N/A, all six categories here apply to every creator. There is no creator without content cadence, engagement profile, pricing, niche, compliance posture, or production quality.
How is content cadence tested?
Public profile audit on the creator's free preview, we count visible posts, sample preview content, check pinned posts for cadence claims, and cross-reference with the creator's own Twitter/X promotional cadence (creators almost universally promote new drops on X). When the platform shows aggregated post counts on the bio (OnlyFans does, Fanvue does), we use those as the floor. Format mix (photo, short video, long video, livestream replay) is tabulated separately.
Cadence reliability is the single biggest subscriber-retention driver on creator subscription platforms. Look at any churn analysis published by creator-economy researchers and the pattern is identical: the people who churn at month two cite either "she stopped posting" or "she replaced original content with PPV upsells". So cadence has to be reliability-weighted, not volume-weighted.
A creator who drops 60 posts a month with 90-day predictability earns higher than one who drops 100 posts in a burst then goes silent for a quarter. I score the trailing 12-month moving average where data permits, the trailing 90-day pace where it doesn't, and any visible 30+ day gap gets logged as a "cadence interruption" event in the review's footnotes. The catalog floor of 5.0 means a creator can be excluded from "Best" listicles on cadence alone, regardless of how strong her other categories look. Same audit method applies whether the creator is a woman or a guy (we cover both).
How is engagement tested?
Aggregated subscriber reports on Reddit r/onlyfans, r/fanvue_creators, and creator-specific subreddits where they exist. We require ≥ 5 independent reports before issuing a confidence-graded estimate. Below 5 reports, the category is flagged not independently verified. We deliberately do not subscribe to test DM response or tip to test acknowledgement, that's why engagement scoring is partially unverified, transparently flagged on every review's scorecard.
This is where the $0-spend rule has the biggest editorial cost. The honest version: I can't tell you from outside how long it takes Bridgette B to reply to a DM. I can tell you what eight subscribers said on r/onlyfans over the last quarter, with timestamps and upvote counts. That's median signal, not direct measurement, and the scorecard says so. A not-independently-verified flag doesn't mean we guessed. It means the source is named and the limit is visible.
The conflict-of-interest discipline matters here. A reviewer who tips to test acknowledgement is no longer impartial. She's created a stake in the relationship. So I don't. I measure engagement from what readers can observe in public (subscriber reports at scale, livestream announcements, custom-request availability disclosures in the creator's bio or pinned posts) and I name the gap when I can't. A 7/10 with a clean unverified-flag note ("DM response time inferred from 8 subscriber reports across r/onlyfans, median 6h") reads as more credible than an 8/10 invented from screenshots I never took. We borrow the principle from [Source: Consumer Reports, Research and Testing · verified 2026-05-26]: when a test condition can't be met without compromising independence, the publication labels the gap rather than papering over it.
Why is Pricing weighted 18%?
Pricing is the most asked-about and the most verifiable signal in the space. Pricing pages on creator profiles do not lie, bundle savings are computable, and free-trial availability is testable via the creator's promotional Twitter/X cadence. Subscribers consistently complain about hidden upsells (PPV density, custom-request rate inflation), and our weighting reflects that complaint frequency. Pricing sits tied at 18% with Cadence and Engagement as one of three top-weighted categories.
The category breaks into five sub-criteria: subscription price versus platform median, multi-month bundle savings (the compounding LTV signal), PPV pricing (median individual unlock cost), custom request pricing (creator-disclosed where available), and tipping floor (minimum tip allowed). Each sub-criterion scores against the published scale, then averages into the category score before the 18% weighting applies.
I sign up for free trials when they're available, screenshot the pricing terms, compute bundle savings honestly. The free-trial window never gets to auto-renew. The rule is structural and absolute: zero recurring spend on the creators we score, ever. Pricing data captured during free-trial periods logs with the trial expiration date so readers can see the freshness.
What is the absolute red line on Privacy & Compliance?
Any creator marketed as "young", "teen", or "schoolgirl-presenting" (or any creator whose host platform has a CSAM-adjacent gap (missing underage policy, missing 18 USC 2257 statement when applicable, content-moderation failure involving minors)) automatically scores 1/10 on Privacy & Compliance and is disqualified from promotion on bestgirlfriend.ai entirely. This rule is non-negotiable and supersedes every commercial consideration.
The red line is hard, public, and applied without exception. The creator behind the highest-paying offer in our catalog is treated identically to the lowest-paying one if either fails the test. Disqualification is permanent until the host platform publishes a remediated, externally verifiable underage policy, age verification mechanism, and 18 USC 2257 statement (where U.S. content-distribution rules apply) AND the creator's marketing language is verifiably free of "young", "teen", or schoolgirl-coded framing. Reinstatement requires a documented re-audit on the next available cycle.
The category is also platform-anchored. A creator on a Tier-1 compliant platform (verified KYC, clean breach record, transparent 2257 statement, honored geo blocks) inherits a baseline of 7.0+. A creator on a flagged platform (documented breach history, weak KYC, regulator-flagged 2257 gaps) caps at 5.9 regardless of own conduct. The creator's individual DMCA enforcement track record (when public, some creators publicly cite leak-prevention work) earns a small uplift. Reference for the U.S. 2257 framework: [Source: 18 USC §2257, Record keeping requirements · verified 2026-05-26].
What does "not independently verified" mean?
It marks any sub-criterion we cannot test ourselves, typically because the data sits behind a paywall we deliberately don't pay (DM response time, paid-tier production quality, archive depth past free-tier). Categories flagged this way show in italics with a footnote explaining the gap and citing the fallback source, usually aggregated subscriber reports (≥ 5 independent), creator-disclosed claims in public Q&As, or industry press.
The flag is a transparency mechanism, not a downgrade. It communicates the limits of our methodology honestly: "we did not subscribe; here's what we couldn't verify; here's the second-best evidence we used." Readers see exactly what's behind every score and can disagree with us with full information.
The flag is never used to inflate confidence in features we did access. It applies only on the specific sub-criterion that was inaccessible, and the rest of the category scores normally on direct evidence.
How fresh is each score?
Pricing & Value re-tests every 30 days (creators run promo campaigns frequently). Content Cadence and Engagement re-test every 90 days (creator economics drift fast). Niche Specificity, Privacy & Compliance, and Production Quality re-test every 180 days. Major events (creator platform migration, niche pivot, regulatory or legal incident, sub-price change) trigger an early re-test on the affected categories within 30 days.
Per-category cadence beats a single annual re-test because creator-side changes are not synchronized. A creator who launches a new promotional bundle on Tuesday and pivots her niche on Friday shouldn't wait six months for either category to refresh. Each review's hero shows both the last full retest date and the per-category last-tested date, so readers see at a glance which numbers are fresh and which are due.
| Category | Re-test cadence | Early re-test trigger |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing & Value | Every 30 days | Sub-price change; new bundle deal; new free-trial promo; PPV rate change |
| Content Volume & Cadence | Every 90 days | Visible 30+ day posting gap; creator-announced hiatus; platform migration |
| Engagement & Interaction | Every 90 days | Subscriber-report wave on r/onlyfans (≥ 10 fresh reports in 30 days); custom-request policy change |
| Niche Specificity & Match | Every 180 days | Visible niche pivot (3+ posts off-brand in 30 days); rebrand announcement |
| Privacy & Compliance | Every 180 days | Platform breach event; ToS or 2257 update; regulatory action against host platform; CSAM-adjacent concern |
| Production Quality | Every 180 days | Visible production drift (subscriber commentary at scale); creator equipment upgrade announcement |
Last reviewed: 2026-05-26.
What are the tier labels?
Composite scores map to seven plain-language tier labels: Best in class (9.0+), Excellent (8.0-8.9), Strong (7.0-7.9), Good for the type (6.0-6.9), Average (5.0-5.9), Below average (4.0-4.9), Avoid (≤3.9). Per the catalog floor rule, any creator below 5.0 is excluded from "Best" listicles regardless of commission. Per the Privacy & Compliance floor rule, any creator below 5.0 specifically on that category is excluded from the entire catalog regardless of overall composite.
| Composite score | Tier label | Editorial treatment |
|---|---|---|
| 9.0 – 10.0 | Best in class | Front-page recommendation; eligible for "Top creator" badge in listicles |
| 8.0 – 8.9 | Excellent | Recommended in listicles and cross-product Versus pages |
| 7.0 – 7.9 | Strong | Recommended for specific reader profiles with caveats |
| 6.0 – 6.9 | Good for the type | Listed; honest pros + honest cons; fit caveat |
| 5.0 – 5.9 | Average | Listed only if directly relevant; minimum threshold for any recommendation |
| 4.0 – 4.9 | Below average | Reviewed transparently but never recommended |
| ≤ 3.9 | Avoid | Reviewed; recommendation explicitly negative; defensive context only |
Last reviewed: 2026-05-26.
Sub-scores per category are shown as integers from 1 to 10 in every review; composite scores are rounded to one decimal place. Categories flagged not independently verified render in italics with a footnote naming the inaccessible sub-criterion and the fallback source consulted.
Are creator scores comparable to AI companion scores or cam-site scores?
No. Composite scores from the four scoring systems on this site (creators 6 categories, AI 8 categories, cam 6 categories, adult games 7 categories) are not directly comparable, they measure different product types with different weights. Cross-product Versus pages render category-by-category narrative comparison ("AI gives unlimited persona consistency; a real creator gives ongoing parasocial connection with a real person") and the verdict explicitly says "depends on what you want" rather than naming a winner.
Forcing a unified composite across systems would dilute the signal in all four. Pricing & Value at 18% is heavy on the creator scoring because pricing-per-creator is consequential. Pricing & Value at 18% is also heavy on the AI scoring but for entirely different reasons (subscription tier versus token economy). Conversation Quality at 16% is meaningless on the creator scoring (no AI to score), and Niche Specificity at 16% is meaningless on the AI scoring (an AI persona's "niche" is reader-customizable).
The four scoring systems are designed to be parallel, not unified. Cross-product Versus pages on bestgirlfriend.ai (e.g., real models vs. AI girlfriend, OnlyFans vs. Candy.ai, Fanvue vs. cam girls) inherit the bridge rule: no composite scores compared, intent-tagged verdict, both can be true simultaneously. The methodology landing page explains the architecture in full.
What about paid PPC bidding on creator names?
Forbidden by every per-model offer in our affiliate partner's catalog. All 22 Model offers carry a "No Brand Bidding" restriction, verified against the offer terms on 2026-05-26. We acquire traffic to creator reviews exclusively via organic SEO, AI search citations, social, email, and direct, never paid Google Ads, Bing Ads, or Meta Ads bidding on creator-name keywords.
The restriction applies to every creator-name search variation: "OnlyFans Bridgette B", "Fanvue Ava Harrington", "Subscribe to Neko OnlyFans". None of these can be bid on via paid PPC without triggering account-level penalties from our affiliate partner. This is in addition to the standard restrictions verified across all 23 Fansite-group offers: No Spam, No Fraud, No Incent, plus per-offer No Chat on every Fanvue per-creator offer.
The editorial impact is structural: creator reviews must be written for organic discovery from the start. SEO + AEO (Featured Snippets) + AIO (Google AI Overviews) + GEO (AI assistant citations from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini) carry the entire traffic acquisition load, with social and direct as secondary channels. We document the restriction transparently here so readers see how our methodology and our compliance posture line up.
How do you handle features behind a paywall?
Paid-tier features (DM response time, custom-request quality, post-paywall production quality, archive depth past free-tier) are flagged not independently verified on the affected category. The category still scores, but a footnote names the inaccessible feature and cites the fallback source: aggregated subscriber reports (≥ 5 independent), creator-disclosed Q&As, or industry press. We never simulate access we did not have.
The honesty rule is identical to the one [Source: Wirecutter, How We Work · verified 2026-05-26] publishes: when a sub-test isn't possible, the absence is named, not papered over. We extend the principle to creator subscription paywalls because they're the largest accessibility gap in this space by design (creators monetize via paywall) and because subscribing to score creates exactly the conflict-of-interest the methodology exists to avoid.
Why don't you score creators on every platform like Fansly or JustForFans?
We score what we can monetize honestly. Our affiliate partner's per-model offers cover OnlyFans (9 individual + master), Fanvue (9 individual + master Lifetime), SextPanther (master Revshare + Required PPS), MYM.fans (Francophone master, V2 only), and Flirtbate (cam-fansite hybrid). Other platforms (Fansly, JustForFans, LoyalFans, ManyVids, AdmireMe) don't have per-creator offer routing through our partner, so we cover them as platform context in our alternatives section rather than per-creator scored reviews.
If and when our affiliate partner adds these platforms, or we sign their direct affiliate programs (Fansly Referral, LoyalFans Affiliates, JustForFans creator-side), they'll be added to this scoring in a future version. The discipline of "score what you can monetize honestly" protects the catalog from listings that exist only to drive PageRank without commercial alignment, a pattern aggregator listicles routinely violate.
What changes trigger a re-score?
Four change types trigger an early re-test outside the published cadence: (1) a creator platform migration (e.g., OnlyFans → Fanvue) triggers a full re-score within 30 days; (2) a niche pivot visible in 3+ off-brand posts within 30 days triggers a Niche re-test; (3) a regulatory or legal incident involving the creator or host platform triggers a Privacy & Compliance re-test; (4) a sub-price change or new bundle/promo triggers a Pricing & Value re-test. Re-tests are scoped to the affected categories only and logged in the review's version history with a delta and rationale.
Minor versions of the scoring itself (point releases) do not trigger re-scoring of existing reviews. New reviews use the new scoring, old reviews refresh on their next regular cadence. Major versions trigger full re-scoring of all published reviews within 90 days, with a notice on each affected page. The version history at the bottom of this page logs every change since first publication.
Can I see test transcripts?
Public-source artifacts are linked in footnotes where they exist: Reddit thread URLs, the creator's own Twitter/X cadence posts, industry-press archives, platform compliance pages. Internal artifacts (profile audit screenshots, aggregated Reddit signal sheets, pricing-check logs) are stored as dated evidence but not published as raw files. Verifiable journalists, academic researchers, and creators contesting their own published score can request a redacted summary by writing to [email protected].
Internal artifacts stay off the public surface for two reasons. Reader experience (raw audit logs are unreadable). And creator privacy: a publicly-traded subscriber-report sheet would harm the creators who provide the underlying signal. The contestation channel is the same as the correction channel. We don't separate them, and creator-side contestations get the same review path as reader-side contestations.
How do I report a scoring error?
Email [email protected] with the URL of the affected review, the specific claim you're contesting, and any supporting sources you can share. Corrections log at the top of the affected page for 60 days, and the version history updates when the change is material. Creators contesting their own published score use the same channel, we never bury contestations from the subjects of review.
Last reviewed: 2026-05-26.
The correction process mirrors the one used by every honest publication in this space. [Source: Wirecutter, How We Work · verified 2026-05-26] publishes a public correction policy; [Source: Consumer Reports, Research and Testing · verified 2026-05-26] maintains an open errata channel. Our process matches theirs: every reasonable contestation gets a documented response, and material corrections publish transparently, including corrections from the creators themselves about their own reviews.
Sources
- The New York Times Wirecutter, "How We Work, Our Editorial Standards and Practices." nytimes.com/wirecutter/about/how-we-work
- Consumer Reports, "Research and Testing, How We Test." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports
- Federal Trade Commission, 16 CFR Part 255, Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. ftc.gov
- U.S. Code, 18 USC §2257, Record keeping requirements (CSAM-adjacent compliance baseline for platforms hosting visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct). law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257
- UK Online Safety Act 2023, Age verification provisions affecting adult subscription platforms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023
- EU General Data Protection Regulation, privacy framework applicable to all EU-resident subscribers and creators. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
- Google Search Central, "Evolving 'nofollow': new ways to identify the nature of links" (rel=sponsored). developers.google.com
Cite this page
If you reference this scoring in academic, regulatory, or journalistic work, please cite as:
Joly, Alexandra (2026). How We Score OnlyFans, Fanvue & Direct Creators. bestgirlfriend.ai. https://bestgirlfriend.ai/methodology/real-models
Frequently asked questions
Last reviewed: 2026-05-26.
Do you actually subscribe to the creators you score?
No. $0 subscription spend is a deliberate feature. We score from public-facing data only, the creator's free preview profile, Twitter/X cadence, aggregated Reddit subscriber commentary (where ≥ 5 reports support a claim), and industry press. Anything we couldn't verify ourselves is flagged not independently verified, with a footnote naming the gap and the fallback source.
What are the 6 scoring categories?
Six weighted categories decide the composite score: Content Volume & Cadence 18%, Engagement & Interaction 18%, Pricing & Value 18%, Niche Specificity & Match 16%, Privacy & Compliance 14%, Production Quality 16%. Three categories tied at 18% reflect the most consequential signals subscribers actually evaluate: how often a creator posts, how fast she replies, and what her subscription actually costs.
Why is Pricing weighted 18%?
It's the most asked-about and the most verifiable signal in the space. Public pricing pages don't lie, bundle savings are computable, free-trial windows are testable via Twitter/X promotional cadence. Subscribers consistently complain about hidden upsells (PPV density, custom-request rate inflation) on Reddit, and our weighting reflects that complaint frequency.
How is content cadence tested?
Public profile audit on the creator's free preview, we count visible posts, sample preview content, check pinned posts for cadence claims, cross-reference against the creator's own Twitter/X promotional cadence. When the platform shows aggregated post counts on the bio (OnlyFans does, Fanvue does), we use those as the floor. Cadence reliability beats burst-mode posting.
How is engagement tested?
Aggregated subscriber reports on Reddit r/onlyfans, r/fanvue_creators, and creator-specific subreddits where they exist. We require ≥ 5 independent reports before issuing a confidence-graded estimate. Below 5 reports, the category is flagged not independently verified. We deliberately do not subscribe to test DM response or tip to test acknowledgement, that's why engagement scoring is partially unverified today.
What does 'not independently verified' mean?
It marks any sub-criterion we cannot test ourselves, typically because the data sits behind a paywall we deliberately don't pay. Categories flagged this way show in italics with a footnote explaining the gap and citing the fallback source, usually aggregated subscriber reports (≥ 5 independent), creator-disclosed claims in public Q&As, or industry press.
How fresh is each score?
Pricing & Value re-tests every 30 days (creators run promo campaigns frequently). Content Cadence and Engagement re-test every 90 days (creator economics drift fast). Niche, Privacy & Compliance, and Production Quality re-test every 180 days. Major events (platform migration, niche pivot, regulatory or legal incident) trigger early re-tests within 30 days.
What are the tier labels?
Composite scores map to seven tier labels: Best in class (9.0+), Excellent (8.0-8.9), Strong (7.0-7.9), Good for the type (6.0-6.9), Average (5.0-5.9), Below average (4.0-4.9), Avoid (≤3.9). Catalog floor 5.0: any creator below 5.0 is excluded from "Best" listicles regardless of commission.
What is the absolute red line on Privacy & Compliance?
Any creator marketed as "young", "teen", or "schoolgirl-presenting" (or any creator whose host platform has a CSAM-adjacent gap (missing underage policy, missing 18 USC 2257 statement when applicable, content-moderation failure involving minors)) automatically scores 1/10 on Privacy & Compliance and is disqualified from promotion on bestgirlfriend.ai entirely. This rule is non-negotiable and supersedes every commercial consideration.
Are creator scores comparable to AI companion scores or cam-site scores?
No. Composite scores from our four scoring systems (creators 6 categories, AI 8 categories, cam 6 categories, adult games 7 categories) are not directly comparable. They measure different product types with different weights. Cross-product Versus pages render category-by-category narrative comparison and the verdict explicitly says "depends on what you want" rather than naming a winner.
Why don't you score creators on every platform like Fansly or JustForFans?
We score what we can monetize honestly. Our affiliate partner's per-model offers cover OnlyFans, Fanvue, SextPanther, MYM.fans, and Flirtbate today. Other platforms (Fansly, JustForFans, LoyalFans, ManyVids, AdmireMe) don't have per-creator offer routing, so we cover them as platform context rather than per-creator scored reviews. They'll be added if and when affiliate routing exists.
What if a creator changes platforms?
A platform migration triggers a full re-score within 30 days. Privacy & Compliance can shift significantly (different platform = different baseline). Cadence and Engagement reset partially (re-establishing reliability on the new platform takes 60-90 days). The review's version history logs the migration event explicitly.
What about paid PPC bidding on creator names?
Forbidden by every per-model offer in our affiliate partner's catalog. All 22 Model offers in the Fansite group carry a "No Brand Bidding" restriction. We acquire traffic exclusively via organic SEO, AI search citations, social, email, direct, never paid Google Ads, Bing Ads, or Meta Ads bidding on creator-name keywords.
Can I see the data behind a score?
Public-source artifacts are linked in footnotes where they exist: Reddit thread URLs, creator's own Twitter/X cadence posts, industry-press archives, platform compliance pages. Internal artifacts (profile audit screenshots, aggregated Reddit signal sheets) are stored as dated evidence but not published as raw files. Verifiable journalists, academic researchers, and creators contesting their own published score can request a redacted summary by writing to [email protected].
How do I report a scoring error?
Email [email protected] with the URL of the affected review, the specific claim you're contesting, and any supporting sources. We log every correction at the top of the affected page for 60 days, update the version history when material, and never bury contestations. Creators contesting their own published score use the same channel, same review path, no separate process.
Related pages
- Methodology landing page, parent overview of the four published scoring systems.
- AI companion scoring methodology, eight-category scoring for AI girlfriend, AI boyfriend, and AI chat apps.
- Cam-site scoring methodology, six-category scoring for live cam platforms with $0-spend testing protocol.
- Adult game scoring methodology, seven-category scoring including the unique Billing Transparency category.
- Real models hub, every creator review currently scored under this methodology.
- Alexandra Joly's editorial bio, Senior Editor profile, credentials, and contact.
- Editorial process, the per-creator workflow from intake to publish.
- Affiliate Disclosure, Score-Lock Framework, score-floor rule, and FTC-compliant disclosure pattern.
Alexandra Joly's editorial bio, editorial lead · Last reviewed 2026-05-26 · Errata log · Editorial process · Affiliate disclosure