Our Reviews

Every review follows the same structure. Each part must be complete before we publish it.

• A dated evidence log. Every statement of fact is either something we checked on the live site on a given date, or information from a named source. The reviews below contain 124 entries, an average of 18 per review. We publish this log on the review page so that readers can check it.
• Written sections. These cover the features of the site, how you browse it, the range of content, account features, legal and trust information, loading speed, pricing, and where its visitors come from. There are 67 sections so far, averaging 1,135 words per review.
• Pros and cons. 76 in total. Each point is based on a fact established elsewhere in the same review.
• Named alternatives. 12 comparisons. Each review points readers to other sites worth considering.
• Questions and answers. 53 so far, written in the form that readers are most likely to ask them.
• A written explanation of the rating. This must be consistent with the rest of the review. We also state who the site suits and who should avoid it.
• A correction log. Every editing pass is recorded with its date. There are 17 entries so far.

Each review passes through seven stages. If a review does not meet the standard at any stage, it returns to an earlier one rather than continuing.

1. Plan. We identify the type of site and decide which criteria apply to it. We then set out the sections and list what needs to be verified.
2. Gather evidence. We examine the live site section by section, and record what we find together with the date.
3. Write. We draft the review from the evidence already gathered.
4. Editorial review. A separate check of the draft for accuracy, consistency, and any statement not supported by evidence.
5. Plain-language review. A dedicated stage that rewrites anything requiring specialist knowledge to understand. This stage may change how something is expressed. It may not change what was found.
6. Validation. An automated check against our editorial standards: all required information present, no unexplained technical terms, and a rating consistent with the text.
7. Final approval. A decision on whether to publish. A review with an unresolved gap in its evidence remains unpublished.

We report what we looked for as well as what we found. Every entry in an evidence log is given one of four states, and we always say which one applies.

• Found. We checked it directly and recorded the date.
• Not found. We checked, and it is genuinely absent. For example, a site may not publish a refund policy. This is useful information for a reader.
• Unclear. The available information conflicts or is incomplete. We explain why.
• Cannot be checked. Confirming it would require an account, a paid tool, or activity outside the scope of our reviews. We say so rather than estimate.

Recording that we checked something and did not find it is more useful to a reader than leaving the question out of the review.

We set clear limits on what we assess. These limits are deliberate, and we state them so that readers know what a rating is based on.

• We do not assess the content itself. We do not rate video or image quality, production standards, or performers. We assess the site: how it is built, what it offers, what it costs, and how clearly it presents its terms.
• We do not create accounts. Registering is a transaction on another company's system. We describe what a registration form asks for and what the site states you will receive, as that information is published on the page. We do not submit the form.
• We do not generate material on AI sites. We assess the published pricing, the sample galleries, the stated content policy, and the privacy terms for uploaded images.

Where one of these limits leaves a question unanswered, we record it in the evidence log and say so on the review page.

Information a site publishes about itself carries limited weight. Every review therefore includes research into independent sources. We search for the name of the site together with terms such as review, scam, legitimate, and complaint, and read what discussion forums and consumer-complaint services report.

We group these findings into themes and present them as reports from users. We do not present them as our own testing. For subscription sites we look specifically for complaints about billing and cancellation, as these are the most reliable warning sign in this sector. Where a search returns nothing, we record that the search was carried out and which terms were used.

We reduce a rating only for a genuine problem with trust or quality. For example:

• The operator of the site is not identified.
• An advertised feature does not work, or is empty.
• Charges are disclosed only at a late stage.
• Cancelling a subscription is made difficult.
• Required legal pages are missing.
• The site depends almost entirely on a single source of visitors.

We do not reduce a rating because a site is small or specialised. That affects whether a site suits a particular reader, not the quality of the site, and we say so on the page where it applies. The written explanation must support the rating. Where it does not, we change the rating.

Sites change over time. When we re-check a site and find that something is different, we record the date and the change in that review's correction log. We do not amend a review without recording it. Every review shows the date it was tested and the date it was published, and each one is scheduled for a further check.

PornSurfer is funded mainly through affiliate partnerships. If you register with a site through a link on this website, we may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Links to reviewed sites are marked as sponsored.

These arrangements do not affect our ratings, our rankings, or the content of a review. Full details are set out in our disclaimer.

Our full methodology sets out the separate criteria we apply to free video sites, subscription sites, live cam sites, and AI image sites. These four types are assessed on different terms. Our team page lists the people who write the reviews. Every review names the person who tested that site.