How Legit works
Two probabilities per profile. Never a verdict. Every input is listed, every score carries a confidence level, and nothing anyone pays for can move a number.
The two scores
Being fake and being ghost-written are different problems. A binary "scam or legit" would hide the second one entirely, so we measure both, separately.
Account authenticity
Does this account belong to the person shown? Original media, consistent linked socials, account age and history, absence of stolen-content matches.
Chatter probability in DMs
How likely is it that an agency chatter answers instead of her? Round-the-clock replies, repeated upsell scripts, agency footprints, style shifts reported by subscribers.
Trust index
One readable number for comparison: 60 % authenticity, 40 % inverted chatter probability. A summary of the two scores above, nothing more.
Bayesian, not a star average
A five-star average is trivially gamed and says nothing about who left the stars. We start from evidence and let contributions move the needle only when they earn it.
Automatic prior
Reverse image search, linked-social consistency, account age, bio history and known agency footprints pre-fill every profile before anyone votes.
Weighted reports
A swipe plus three structured questions. Each contribution carries the weight of its author, not one vote each.
Manipulation checks
Velocity spikes and correlated accounts are quarantined. Forty votes from day-old accounts move nothing and become a signal themselves.
Honest confidence
Thin evidence ships as low confidence and says so, instead of dressing a guess up as a percentage.
It can be estimated before anyone votes, from public signals — linked socials, content volume against account age, verification badge, posting rate, bio, avatar. Automatic evidence alone never earns more than medium confidence, and never lands at 0 or 100.
Whether someone else answers the DMs is behavioural. Nothing on a public page reveals it, so it stays unscored until subscribers report. We show "not enough evidence" rather than a number built from proxies.
When a platform exposes too little, both gauges stay empty. The profile still exists, still lists what we could and could not read, and carries no figure at all. An invented number is worse than no number.
Platforms are not equal here. Fansly publishes a rich public API, so a Fansly account can be scored the moment it is submitted. OnlyFans renders everything in the browser and blocks datacenter traffic, and MYM exposes nothing profile-specific at all — accounts there stay unscored until our rendering worker is in place. We would rather say that plainly than paper over it.
Who weighs what
The anti-gaming design is the product. Weight is earned, never bought, and we never ask for an account before you have contributed something.
One creator, many handles
Profiles track creators, not handles. A rename, a second platform, a fresh account after a ban — all of it merges into one reputation instead of fragmenting into three.
Three anchors
The platform's internal ID, which survives renames. A perceptual hash of the avatar, which survives recrops. Linked socials, which tie platforms together.
Consolidated scores
When the same creator runs OnlyFans and Fansly accounts, the profile lists both and the scores cover the person. Reputation follows her, not the paywall she posts behind.
Merging is never a user action
Tying two accounts together merges two reputations, and a wrong merge is invisible to whoever reads the result. So contributors can only suggest a link. Accounts are joined automatically when an identity anchor matches, or by a moderator — never on one person's say-so.
Old URLs keep working
Previous handles join the profile's history and their URLs redirect to the current one, so a rename never orphans what people already know.
"Known as": public names, weighted
Handles are unreadable and change often, so profiles also show the name people actually use. That name is crowdsourced and weighted, never counted: a name pushed by ten fresh accounts loses to a name reported by two long-standing contributors.
Names she has published herself, on an account she controls — Instagram bio, X, a link-in-bio, her own site.
Legal names, locations, employers, former identities she has moved away from. Removed on sight, and it costs the contributor their entire weight.
Any creator can contest a name by claiming her profile. No payment, no ticket, no delay.
The ranking only goes up
We publish the accounts with the strongest signals, and only those. A profile enters the ranking with at least 25 weighted contributions, confidence above low, authenticity at 70 % or more and chatter probability at 45 % or less.
A ranking of the worst accounts. A low probability is a warning to read the signals yourself; turned into a leaderboard it becomes an accusation, which is exactly what this project refuses to make.
Profiles below the bar are simply absent from the ranking. They keep their page, their listed signals and their right of reply.
The badge, and what we actually sell
Legit has to pay for itself without ever selling a score. So we sell distribution and insight to creators, and nothing else.
Free, forever
Reporting an error, contesting a signal, asking for a "known as" entry to be removed. Anything that could change what the page says about someone is free, for anyone, with no account.
The creator plan
Ownership verification, the live badge for your link-in-bio, profile analytics, and impersonation alerts when someone steals your content. This is the paid product — free while we are in beta, and we will tell you before that changes.
What paying never buys
A better score. The badge serves the current number: if it drops, the badge drops with it. It also always carries the handle and the number of reviews behind the score, so it cannot be lifted onto another account.
One practical note, because it shaped the design: Linktree and most link-in-bio tools accept a link and a thumbnail image, not HTML or iframes. So the badge is served as an image as well as an embed — the image is what actually works on a link-in-bio, the iframe is for sites you control.
Creators: what exists and what does not
There is no "claim your profile" ritual. It would be a door onto nothing: a profile is public data and public reports, and neither becomes yours by pressing a button. So there are exactly two things a creator can do here.
Report an error — free, for anyone
Anyone can flag a factually wrong signal, a public name that should not be there, or an account wrongly tied to a profile. Creators included, at no cost, with no account required. A contested signal is marked as disputed on the page while it is reviewed. This is not a favour: publishing a score about someone without a free way to challenge it would be indefensible.
The creator plan — paid
Ownership verification, the live badge, profile analytics and impersonation alerts. Free while we are in beta. Verification happens as part of joining, which is also what puts the "creator verified" marker on the profile.
Privacy by design
Pseudonymous accounts
Magic link, no password, no real name, no public profile. The email is hashed and deleting the account leaves your contributions anonymous.
Nothing leaves
Hashed IP addresses, EU hosting, and no sharing of what you check or report. That is not a policy promise, it is the architecture.
Creators are people too
We only use strictly public data, we host thumbnails rather than hotlinked images, we blur what is flagged, and we run a documented erasure process.