Last reviewed 2026-09-02
Most “top creator” lists are sold. Positions go to whoever pays the largest commission that month, and the ordering is reverse-engineered afterwards. We think the ranking is the product, so here is ours in full, including what it cannot do.
The inputs
| Signal | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Posting recency | 30% | Days since the most recent public post. The strongest available predictor of whether a subscription will be worth paying for next month. |
| Posting consistency | 25% | Variance in posting interval over the observed window. Steady beats a burst followed by silence. |
| Pricing clarity | 20% | Whether the page states its model — what the subscription includes and whether pay-per-view is central — in a way a buyer can read up front. |
| Platform verification | 15% | Whether the account is verified by the platform itself. Identity only; it says nothing about quality. |
| Listing completeness | 10% | Whether we hold enough supplied, first-party information to describe the page accurately. |
What is deliberately not an input
- Commission rate. What a link pays us has no weight. It cannot; the formula has no field for it.
- Payment for placement. We do not sell positions. There is no rate card.
- Subjective attractiveness ratings. We do not score people’s appearance, and any site that claims to be doing so objectively is describing its affiliate payouts.
- Follower counts. Trivially purchased, therefore worthless as a signal.
How we handle the things we can’t verify
We can observe public activity, stated pricing and platform verification. We cannot observe what is behind a paywall, whether messages are answered personally, or whether content matches its description. So we do not score those, and we do not imply we have. Where a creator states something themselves — that they answer their own messages, for instance — we attribute it as their statement rather than as our finding.
Corrections
Creators and managers can request a correction to any listing at any time, and removal from the directory entirely, no reason required. Requests go through contact and we action them on sight. A directory that argues with the people it lists is not one worth reading.
Honest limitation: a ranking built on public activity data rewards creators who post consistently and publish clear pricing. That is a real bias, and we think it is the right one for someone deciding where to spend — but it is a bias, and you should read the list knowing it.