What an IP address explains, and what only the platform knows.

EDGE: READY
More options
What are you checking?
EXAMPLE Checked static example Cache n/a NOT LIVE
IP

8.8.8.8

EXAMPLERUN A LIVE CHECK
ASN
AS15169 · Google LLCgoogle.com
LOCATION
US · California, Mountain View
IPBot
🇺🇸 US · California, Mountain View
IPinfo
🇺🇸 US · AS15169
GeoLite2
🇺🇸 US
DB-IP
🇺🇸 US · California, Mountain View
Bright Data
🇺🇸 US · California, Mountain View
ROUTE
ANNOUNCED 8.8.8.0/24
IP TYPE
PUBLIC INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE
Not assessedIPJURY SCOREEXPERIMENTAL · NOT A PROBABILITY IPJURY VERDICT EXAMPLE

Run a live check for an evidence verdict and experimental interpretation.

Why this result · full calculation

Run a live check. The example is not scored.

    Evidence confidence is not prediction accuracy. A provisional range spans policy outcomes for unanswered questions; it is not a probability interval.

    OPEN FULL EVIDENCE REPORT

    JURY READY

    Enter an address, or check your own connection · the example below is replaced in place

    FULL REPORT IDENTITY · SOURCE MATRIX · SIX-AXIS VERDICT · EVIDENCE RECORD
    EVIDENCE SNAPSHOTSEPARATE AXES · NOT A SCORE
    ANONYMITY
    No direct anonymity evidence observed
    ABUSE EVIDENCE
    No abuse evidence in covered sources
    COVERAGE
    6/7 jurors responded
    01

    IDENTITY

    COORDINATES
    not loaded in static example
    ROUTING
    ROUTE ORIGIN OBSERVED
    PREFIX
    8.8.8.0/24
    TIMEZONE
    America/Los_Angeles
    REVERSE DNS
    not loaded in static example
    STACK
    IPv4
    RANGE
    8.8.8.0 – 8.8.8.255
    REGISTRY
    not loaded in static example
    02

    SOURCE MATRIX

    4 location sources agree at country level · — not covered · W/H withheld

    SIGNALIPBotIPinfoGeoLite2DB-IPIPtoASN
    COUNTRYUSUSUSUS
    CITYCalifornia, Mountain ViewCalifornia, Mountain View
    ASNAS15169AS15169AS15169AS15169
    PROXYNO
    VPNW/H
    TORNO
    HOSTINGNO
    ABUSENO
    03

    SIX-AXIS VERDICT

    NETWORK ROLEHIGH
    Public internet infrastructure

    Service role · anycast context · operator identity

    ANONYMITYMEDIUM
    No direct anonymity evidence observed

    No proxy, VPN, or Tor finding in covered fields

    ABUSE EVIDENCEMEDIUM
    No abuse evidence in covered sources

    This means “not observed,” never “clean”

    GEO CONTEXTLOW
    US · single geolocation estimate

    Country-level context; physical location not proven

    ROUTINGHIGH
    Route origin observed · RPKI state withheld by licence

    Origin ASN · announced prefix · route-origin conflict

    COVERAGEMEDIUM
    6/7 jurors responded

    Named jurors · lineage families · abstentions visible

    04

    EVIDENCE RECORD

    JURORAXISCLAIMCONF.STATUS
    Network identityIPBot networknetwork roleAS15169 · Google LLCHIGHRESPONDED
    Operator and role profileIPBot classificationnetwork rolepublic infrastructureHIGHRESPONDED
    Anonymity signalsIPBot classificationanonymityno direct proxy/VPN/Tor evidenceMEDIUMRESPONDED
    Direct threat evidenceIPBot evidenceabuseno direct record in covered evidenceMEDIUMRESPONDED
    REPORT ipjury.com/check/8.8.8.8 EXPERIMENTAL INDEX
    TERMINAL curl ipjury.com/8.8.8.8 irm ipjury.com/8.8.8.8
    IPJURY.COM · EVIDENCE, NOT AN ENTERTAINMENT SCORE

    IPJury uses the IP2Location LITE database for IP geolocation. This product includes GeoLite Data created by MaxMind, available from https://www.maxmind.com. IP Geolocation by DB-IP. Full source credits: source register.

    05

    OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE VERSUS PLATFORM-PRIVATE SIGNALS

    What IP-side evidence can I include in a support request?

    Provide the checked address, time, named findings and coverage gaps alongside your own error message. This supports investigation without asserting that the address caused the challenge; account, browser and destination-private signals are outside this record.

    Evidence scope and register licence-review dates — not live lookup dates
    SourceRegister review
    IPBot Direct Evidence
    IPJury experimental interpretation policy

    Source availability depends on the current deployment and each returned record. These review dates do not establish when a particular IP was observed. Method axis-scope-2026-09-15 · Score ipjury-score-v3.

    Unusual activity detected. Verify you are human. This content is not available in your region. Your account has been restricted. Four different messages, and the question underneath all of them is the same: is it my IP, or is it me?

    What is observable about an address

    Six things can be established from public and licensed evidence, and IPJury reports them separately rather than blending them:

    • Network role. Residential, mobile, business, hosting, public infrastructure. The role does not identify what caused a particular challenge.
    • Anonymity evidence. Covered proxy, Tor and privacy-relay findings, with unsupported VPN and residential-proxy fields explicitly withheld.
    • Abuse evidence. Whether a record exists against this exact address, against its prefix, or not at all in the sources that answered.
    • Geolocation context. Named location estimates and any registration-country difference, not a measured explanation of region-related friction.
    • Routing. The source-reported origin and range. RPKI validity is withheld under the active source permissions.
    • Coverage. Which jurors answered, which abstained, and how fresh the evidence is.

    What no IP tool can see

    These are examples of other inputs a service may consider. This lookup does not measure their relative importance or attribute a particular decision to one:

    • Account age and history. A week-old account and a six-year-old account with the same IP get treated differently, and should be.
    • Device and client integrity. Browser fingerprint, automation markers, emulator traits, app attestation.
    • Behavior. Request rate, navigation shape, timing, and how closely a session resembles previous ones from that account.
    • Payment history. Chargebacks, card country, prior disputes, billing-address consistency.
    • Session continuity. Cookies, stored tokens, and whether this login looks like a continuation or a fresh unknown.
    • Private reputation data. Internal signals the service never publishes, plus commercial feeds it does not name.
    • Policy. Licensing territory, sanctions, age gating, and product rules that are decisions rather than detections.

    How the friction differs by service family

    Use these as questions to investigate, not measured brand behavior or a claim about unpublished weights.

    AI and model services
    Ask whether the reported error concerns quota, account policy or network traffic. A hosting label alone does not distinguish these explanations.
    Video and audio streaming
    A region message makes location estimates relevant context, but the tool cannot inspect the service’s territorial rights or account settings.
    Payments and fintech
    Keep IP evidence separate from instrument, transaction and account facts that this tool does not have. Do not use the IPJury index as a payment decision.
    Social platforms and communities
    A support request can include IP-side evidence, but the tool cannot see private moderation, account or device records.

    What an evidence record is legitimately for

    Nothing here obliges any service to do anything, and IPJury has no visibility into any service's decision. IPJury does not claim that a platform uses this index or identify which outside data it consumes. What the record does do:

    • Documents address-side findings. A named finding can support investigation. A quiet record cannot exclude the IP as a factor or prove that another cause is more likely.
    • Documents a support contact. Named sources, stated bases, and a timestamp are a better attachment to a ticket than a screenshot of a number.
    • Separates what you can change from what you cannot. Different kinds of issues call for different evidence; this record cannot diagnose an account problem from a network label.
    06

    A NUMBER NEEDS ITS EVIDENCE

    IPJury keeps network type, anonymity, abuse, location, routing and coverage separate. Its optional experimental index explains a published policy over those facts; it never replaces the named evidence verdict or conceals missing information.

    MYSTERY SCORE MODEL
    83/100

    What does 83 measure? Who supplied it? Is hosting being treated as abuse? Did one heuristic outweigh a direct record? A number cannot tell you that two of its sources flatly contradicted each other.

    • Cross-axis averaging
    • Hidden source lineage
    • Missing source treated as “false”
    • Disagreement averaged away
    • Platform outcome implied
    EVIDENCE + EXPLAINED INTERPRETATION
    BANDDISPUTED RULEsource-conflict ROLEhosting ANONYMITYno direct evidence ABUSEno record observed GEOcountry disputed ROUTINGorigin observed COVERAGE6/7 responded

    One rule read one axis and named the state. The axes it did not read stay beside it. “Disputed” and “too little coverage to say” are answers a single number cannot express.

    07

    THE FIVE RULES OF EVIDENCE

    [ READ FULL METHOD ]
    1. 01

      Vote only on the same axis

      A proxy flag, an abuse report, a hosting role, and a city estimate are not interchangeable votes.

    2. 02

      Direct evidence outranks a prior

      An exact-IP record is different from an inference based on the ASN, prefix, or network category.

    3. 03

      Deduplicate source lineage

      Three websites backed by one upstream database do not become three independent evidence families.

    4. 04

      Let jurors abstain

      Timeout, no IPv6 coverage, disabled license, or missing record is shown—not silently converted to “no.”

    5. 05

      Explain dissent

      CGNAT, anycast, reassignment, data age, and route context can all produce legitimate disagreement.

    09

    QUESTIONS THE SCORE CANNOT ANSWER

    Why does a service challenge me with a verification prompt on nearly every visit?

    Repeated challenges do not identify their cause. Address-level evidence is one part of the investigation; account, browser, session and behaviour signals can also matter. Record the time and connection context, then use the evidence report to ask support a specific question rather than assuming the IP caused the decision.

    Do online services use IPJury or the sources it displays to decide about my account?

    IPJury makes no such claim and has no visibility into any service's decision. It reports what its own named sources returned about the address, nothing more.

    My address shows no findings, so why am I still being challenged?

    The covered sources cannot see every signal a destination uses. Account, device, session, behaviour and private datasets may matter; a quiet result here cannot exclude the IP as a factor or identify the actual cause.

    What is worth including when I contact a service's support about this?

    The address, the time you checked it, and a record that names its sources and states each basis. That documents the address-level facts; it does not oblige anyone to reach a particular conclusion.

    IPJURY // RECORD

    Methodology