Ethics, consent and takedowns
The people on this site are working professionals. A featured performer can ask us to remove her and we will, with no argument and no reason needed. We never mention or link to leaked or non-consensual material. We apply our exclusion rules before scoring, not after.
A featured performer who asks to be removed is removed. We do not argue and we do not need a reason. Email thecamexpert2@proton.me and name the page. You owe us no explanation and no proof.
How to ask for a fix or a takedown
This is the process that our notices point to. It covers every page on the site that names you.
Email us
Write to thecamexpert2@proton.me to have something removed, or to thecamexpert2@proton.me to fix a fact. Add the page address. If you write for a performer, tell us who she is. We will check with her directly, not with you.
You do not need a reason
Performers who have publicly asked not to appear in editorial rankings. We honour removal requests at once and do not ask for a reason. We never ask why. We never ask you to prove harm. A removal does not depend on anything else.
What we do next
We take down her page where one exists, remove her from every ranking, and add her to our exclusion list so a later edition cannot bring her back. We fix factual errors within 48 hours of confirming them, then log them with the date and a description at the bottom of the article.
What is recorded
The corrections log notes that a ranking changed. It does not give the reason, and it does not give your name if you asked for a removal rather than a correction.
Who we do not rank
A place on a ranking vouches for a professional record. In the cases below we will not give that backing. We apply these rules before scoring, so there is nothing to debate afterwards.
✕ Never included in any ranking
- Performers facing credible, unresolved allegations of coercion, assault or trafficking. A place on a ranking vouches for a professional record, and we will not give that where consent is in doubt.
- Anyone whose age at the time of any listed credit we cannot independently confirm as 18 or over.
- Performers who have publicly asked not to appear in editorial rankings. We honour removal requests at once and do not ask for a reason.
- Content, images or links that come from leaks, hacks or non-consensual distribution, however widely they circulate elsewhere.
What we publish, link to and refuse
No explicit media
Every performer featured is an adult professional. Pornstar Lineup hosts no explicit media. The production companies that made the work hold the records that 18 U.S.C. 2257 requires.
No leaks and no non-consensual material
Content, images or links that come from leaks, hacks or non-consensual distribution, however widely they circulate elsewhere.
Where our text links
Our text links only to award bodies, credit databases and reference sites. It never links to explicit destinations, because the links a page carries help decide how it is classified.
Official accounts
Where we show accounts, they are ones the performer runs herself. Links to adult platforms are shown at present. Whether we link to an adult platform is decided separately for each language edition. It is a legal position taken for that market, not a matter of taste. Where an edition switches those links off, they are off everywhere in that edition. The decision is recorded in one place and applied automatically, so the policy we state and the pages we publish cannot drift apart.
How we write about people
Our writing follows the same rules as our scoring.
✓ Fact check
We confirm each date, award and credit with at least two independent sources before a page goes live.
✓ Consent and respect check
We check that the wording treats performers as working professionals. We do not mention or link to leaked, non-consensual or unverified private material.
✓ Legal check
Every listed performer is a verified adult with a documented professional career. Pages carry RTA labelling and point readers to the 18 USC 2257 statement.
No outside influence. Pornstar Lineup is funded by its readers and edited without outside influence. Nobody can pay for a place on a ranking, and no performer, studio or platform can buy, shift or remove a position. Some links to paid platforms may carry affiliate tracking. That tracking never changes a rank or a score.
What we do not claim
Being open about the weak spots in our method is part of the same promise as publishing the method. These are the weak spots we know of.
△ Where this method is weak
- Demand is our shakiest inputWe have measured search interest for only some of the performers scored so far. The others carry editor estimates. This pillar is the one most likely to change as our measurement widens.
- Award archives lean toward recent American workAVN, XBIZ and XRCO are US bodies founded in the 1980s and 1990s. The Recognition pillar therefore works against performers from earlier years or from outside the United States. We adjust by hand and disclose each adjustment. That helps, but it does not solve the problem.
- Craft is a judgement, and people differOne informed desk scoring against the acting-award record beats an order with no reasoning behind it, but it is still one view. We cap it at 15% and show it separately for that reason.
- Credit counts before 2000 are unreliableOlder releases were recorded far less consistently than recent ones, so long careers look shorter than they were. The Longevity pillar offsets some of this but does not fully fix it.
- Scores cannot be compared between listsAn 88 on our Japanese list and an 88 on our MILF list are not the same achievement. Each score places a performer within her own group, so comparing across articles is not something these numbers support.