How we rate pornstars
Every performer gets a FapStarsDB rating from 0 to 100. It's a measured signal, built from data we observe directly in studio scene catalogs, not from popularity polls, traffic, or external review scores.
Scene volume
Total scenes we've directly catalogued across every studio she works with. Counted from studio tour pages, not third-party claims.
Why log scale: the difference between 10 and 50 scenes is meaningful. The difference between 500 and 2000 is much less so. We use a logarithmic curve that saturates near 500 scenes.
| Scenes catalogued | Volume points |
|---|---|
| 5 | 8.8 |
| 25 | 16.0 |
| 75 | 21.3 |
| 200 | 26.1 |
| 500+ | 30.6 (max) |
Cross-site & network spread
Across how many distinct studios and parent networks she's appeared. A performer who shoots for one studio her whole career scores lower than one who works with several brands and networks.
Why this matters: raw scene count alone rewards "local heroes": performers tied to a single studio. Spread captures industry footprint: working with multiple brands means she's been booked, vouched-for, and can carry across catalogs.
| Distinct studios | Distinct networks | Spread points |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 1.8 |
| 3 | 1 | 7.7 |
| 7 | 2 | 17.3 |
| 10+ | 3 | 25.0 |
| 10+ | 5+ | 29.7 (max) |
Recency & activity
How recently she's released a scene. Falls back to declared career status if no scene dates are recorded. A performer who shot her last scene last month scores fully; one who retired ten years ago is heavily discounted.
Why tiered, not linear: the industry treats "active in the last year" as fundamentally different from "active two years ago." A step function reflects how casting and discovery actually work.
| Activity signal | Recency points |
|---|---|
| Last scene within 12 months | 29.7 (max) |
| Last scene within 36 months | 21.6 |
| Older, declared active | 18.0 |
| Older, status unknown | 16.2 |
| Declared retired | 12.6 |
| No scene history at all | 7.2 |
Award recognition
Wins and nominations from the industry boards we track: AVN, XBIZ, XMA Europe, XRCO, Venus, the Inked Awards. Every one of them is a public record with a year and a category behind it, listed in full under Awards.
Why a win is worth five nominations: a win is a board's verdict, a nomination is a place on its shortlist, and shortlists run long. The 2026 XMA Europe alone named 980 nominees. Counting the two the same would reward turning up.
Counted once: boards publish the winners inside the nominee list, so the same award appears twice in the record. It scores as the win, not as both.
| Record | Award points |
|---|---|
| No award record | 0.0 |
| 2 nominations | 0.4 |
| 1 win, 3 nominations | 1.6 |
| 5 wins, 10 nominations | 7.0 |
| 10+ wins | 10.0 (max) |
The ceiling is deliberately hard to reach. Across the whole index only a handful of performers hold ten wins or more, Angela White among them at fourteen.
Worked example
Three performers from our actual catalog. Same formula, different totals. Notice how scene count alone is a poor predictor: Ashlynn has the most scenes and the lowest score, because her catalogue sits on two networks and stops in 2014.
Ashlynn's volume is the highest of the three (117 scenes), but a catalogue spread over two networks and a retirement dating to 2014 pull her well below performers with cross-studio reach and current work. Her one win and one nomination add 1.20 and do not change that. Local-only volume shouldn't outrank diversified, recent output.
What doesn't influence the rating
- Looks, body type, ethnicity, age, measurements
- Niche, tags, genre: a teen specialist and a fetish veteran are scored the same way
- Ratings or scores from third-party review sites
- Whether we have an affiliate relationship with the studio
- Social-media follower counts
- Bio completeness (incomplete profile shouldn't lower the score)
How often it updates
The score recalculates automatically whenever data changes that could move it:
- After we parse a new studio's scene catalog (new scenes, new performers, fresh dates)
- After bio enrichment from external databases (career status, debut year)
- Before every site rebuild, so the listings you see are never stale
Known limitations
- Scene visibility. We score what we've catalogued. A performer's scenes on studios we haven't parsed yet don't count toward her volume.
- Network signal is sparse today. Most studios in our catalog right now are independent (no network parent). The network bonus will activate as we add big network catalogs.
- Award coverage is uneven by board. Our award record is deepest for AVN and thinnest for the boards that publish badly, so a performer whose recognition sits with a board we cover lightly is under-credited on that component.
Questions or corrections? Reach us at support@fapstarsdb.com.