Creator Removal Review
How we rank leaked-content removal
Primary comparison · Telegram, social and impersonation
Platform outcomes lead; Google supports.
The main comparison now separates Telegram, social-platform posts and impersonation accounts. No channel performance score or overall winner has been calculated from the public coverage statements and selected testimonials. The historical Google models below remain a separate supporting analysis.
Proposed weights, awaiting outcome records
- 40% Verified removals per creator on the channel
- 20% Channel-specific removed / eligible submitted
- 15% Identity-matched creator experiences
- 15% Measured channel turnaround
- 5% Documented coverage and follow-up
- 5% Supporting Google Search record
This proposed model preserves per-creator removals as the largest criterion. Google would contribute at most 5 points out of 100. These weights are not currently applied, and the missing 95 points are not replaced by a rescaled Google score.
Admission and comparability rules
A scored channel record needs a stable verified creator identifier, provider, exact destination, object type, eligible submission date, outcome and verification date. Report messages, channels, posts and accounts separately. Use a common observation window, deduplicate repeated objects, retain unresolved and unsuccessful cases, and report cohort size and tenure. Do not publish private URLs or identity documents.
Per-creator output is the mean confirmed, unique removals per eligible creator in the common window; show its median too. Removal rate uses eligible submitted objects, including pending cases, with pending share disclosed. Turnaround needs matched timestamps and both median and slower-case percentiles. A provider estimate, a filing timestamp and a single reviewer’s experience are not measured averages.
Review evidence needs a matched creator identity, a dated account and clear platform context. Audience weighting is bounded as described below; it does not assume that a bigger audience has more leaks. Separate sponsored or vendor-curated accounts from directly observed customer reviews. No such review score is yet assigned.
Public coverage claims and case reports are linked in the Telegram, social and impersonation comparisons. A missing readable source means not confirmed, not unsupported service coverage.
Supporting analysis: the historical Google benchmark
The supporting historical Google comparison prioritizes observed removal output per recorded owner. Five guides use different disclosed editorial lenses. Scores across differently weighted pages are not directly comparable. The current ranking covers nine selected services in the supplied Google copyright-removals export. It is not an exhaustive market survey, an audit of paying customers or a guarantee of a future outcome.
Evidence reviewed November 8, 2026. Latest request in the supplied snapshot: November 4, 2026 at 01:00:12 UTC. The scan covered 57,703,533 request rows. Later requests and later changes in request status are outside this snapshot.
Google records and provider-authored reports
Our Google benchmark is calculated from the supplied Google copyright-removals export. It is our analysis of those records, not a ranking issued or endorsed by Google.
Fanlock’s Google delisting report is published by Fanlock, one of the services it compares. We identify it as a provider-authored comparison, not independent corroboration, and do not use its figures or conclusions to score providers.
That report uses a September 29–October 29, 2026 filing window and normalized owner names. Our all-time snapshot uses recorded owner IDs through November 4, 2026. Its averages and ours are not directly comparable. Neither dataset measures Telegram removals, social-post deletion or disabled impersonation accounts.
Weights and the current formula
Per-owner output and removal rate. This guide gives more weight to the share of submitted Google URL occurrences marked removed. This is not a source-deletion or speed ranking. These are disclosed editorial priorities, not proof that similar search phrases represent different customers. The evidence register retains the original 45/25/5 reference model for comparison.
| Criterion | Weight | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Mean removed URL occurrences per recorded owner | 40% | Scored |
| Removed / all submitted URL occurrences | 35% | Scored |
| Audience-weighted creator or agency reviews | 10% | Unscored |
| Documented comparative switching outcomes | 5% | Unscored |
| Measured platform turnaround | 10% | Unscored |
| Total removed URL occurrences | 0% | No weight in this profile |
+ 35 × (removed / submitted)
+ 0 × (service removed / highest cohort removed)
The highest mean is Fanlock’s 32128.060071. The largest median is Fanlock’s 19,287. The largest volume is BranditScan’s 331,614,833. Ratios use full precision; the displayed score is rounded to two decimals. The current maximum available is 75 points. We do not rescale it to 100 or treat the 25 unscored points as evidence of poor quality.
This is a weighted sum, not a strict sort by per-owner removals. For example, Bruqi has the third-highest per-owner mean; its combined position also reflects its removal rate and the page’s other stated weights. Changing the weights can change the order.
What “per owner” measures
For each service, we divide total removed URL occurrences by the distinct recorded owner IDs in its grouped reporting profiles. We also show the median owner total and the number of IDs. A Google owner ID is a proxy: it may represent an individual, aliases, a corporate rights holder or an account with very different tenure. It is not independently verified as one active paying creator.
Counts are occurrences in requests, not deduplicated files or unique source removals. The average is all-time and not normalized by months in service, creator audience size, available leaks or case difficulty. A large mean can reflect a different customer mix or a few large owner records. The median helps expose that difference.
Removal percentage and category boundaries
Removal percentage = removed ÷ submitted × 100. Submitted includes removed, not in index, no action and pending. “Not in index” is not added to removed. Pending requests can later change status; no-action outcomes do not by themselves establish an invalid request.
The export concerns Google Search. It does not measure deletion by a hosting site or all activity on other platforms. Google also describes the reporting information as self-reported and identifies coverage and naming limitations. Read Google’s definitions and limitations.
Service identities and reproducibility
We group reporting IDs using observed brand and legal-name aliases, with each ID linked in the evidence register. That grouping is an analytical attribution, not independent authentication of every submitter. Counts and request totals reconciled across 73,765 selected owner/organization pairs against the earlier aggregation.
OnlyFans-focused guides use the same nine-service dataset; it is not filtered to independently verified OnlyFans accounts. Agency pages share that benchmark because the export does not identify agency-managed clients. Agency-specific review evidence is displayed separately.
Creator reviews and audience size
Reviews currently add attributed context, not numeric points. A website feature, customer logo, product mockup and first-person review are different evidence types. Public social posts are observations; no creator interviews have been conducted for this guide. Vendor-published reviews are labeled as such.
Proposed size multiplier for an identity-matched, dated follower count: 1 + 0.5 × clamp((log10(followers) − 4) / 3, 0, 1). That gives 1.00 at 10,000 followers, about 1.17 at 100,000, 1.33 at one million and 1.50 at ten million or more. It is a bounded review weight, not a claim that an audience has a particular number of leaks.
Use a verified count from one clearly identified platform; do not add audiences across platforms. Likes, paid-subscriber rank labels and unverified provider audience claims do not qualify. The current third-party counts are candidates pending direct profile and review-identity checks, so no audience multiplier has been applied. An agency’s social audience is not its managed roster size.
What qualifies as a comparative switch
A change in reporting service is a lead for further research. Awarding switch points requires a matching creator identity, named previous and new providers, a dated account of the change and a documented comparative experience or outcome. Leaving a provider alone does not prove the replacement performs better.
First and last request dates are not subscription or cancellation dates. Overlapping reporters may reflect concurrent representation, delayed submissions or historical notices. Pinkychu and Pinkchyu have different owner IDs and an unverified identity link. No confirmed exclusive switch is established for Pinkychu, Athena Kami, SweetieFox or Sophie Rain in this review.
Platform turnaround
Comparable turnaround needs a valid submission timestamp and a verified outcome timestamp for each case. Report Google, social platforms and source sites separately, with sample sizes, median and slower-case percentiles. Keep unresolved cases visible so fast successes do not obscure failures.
The supplied export lacks outcome timestamps. Provider promises and a review describing a single fast removal cannot establish a comparable platform average. All nine services remain unscored for measured turnaround. The old Google model reserved 10 points; the proposed current platform model above reserves 15 points.
Agency testimonials
Six named agency testimonials were located across Fanlock, Rulta and Ceartas. They are vendor-published statements; agency identities, roster sizes and claimed outcomes have not been independently corroborated. Sidemen is a creator collective, and Wifeysworld is recorded as business/studio evidence, rather than being counted as agency testimonials.
Corrections and the next review
A correction must identify the source, affected owner or reporting ID and the reason for a change. Dates update when research is actually reviewed. Provider relationships belong on the disclosure page. No paid placement, review score or interview status is inferred from a feature or mention.
Open the full evidence register and downloads · Read the publication disclosure