Paranormal Classification Systems | The Horror Collection

For clarity and consistency across articles, I use two standardized classification tools when evaluating haunted locations and the entities or phenomena associated with them: Longland Scale (to measure overall paranormal activity intensity) and a Threat Level ranking (to assess potential danger to investigators or visitors).

Below is a detailed explanation of the paranormal classification systems used, including the criteria and the rationale for the ratings.

Summary

What Is the Longland Scale?

The Longland Scale is a 10-point classification system originally developed by British paranormal researcher Dr. Evelyn Longland in the 1970s and later refined by field investigators worldwide.

The scale is designed to quantify the perceived strength and complexity of paranormal activity at a given site, independent of the danger the activity may pose. Think of it as a “Richter scale” for hauntings: it measures intensity and scope, not necessarily malevolence.

Level	Name	Description	Typical Phenomena Observed
L-0	Null	No measurable paranormal activity.	None. Site is paranormally “dead.”
L-1	Residual	Simple, repetitive energy imprints with no awareness or interaction.	Faint footsteps, phantom smells, repeating sounds or apparitions that never acknowledge the living.
L-2	Mild Intelligent	Low-level intelligent responses; entity is aware of the living but interaction is minimal.	Doors opening/closing in direct response to questions, light touches, whispered names, basic EVP responses.
L-3	Moderate Intelligent	Clear, repeatable intelligent interaction; entity can manipulate multiple objects or communicate coherently.	Objects moved with purpose, full-sentence EVPs, apparitions that react to observers, temperature fluctuations tied to presence.
L-4	Strong Intelligent	Dominant entity or multiple entities capable of sustained interaction and environmental manipulation.	Poltergeist-like activity, prolonged apparitions, coherent disembodied voices audible without equipment, physical manipulation of investigators (pushes, scratches).
L-5	High Manifestation	Powerful, persistent phenomena that affect large areas of the location simultaneously.	Simultaneous multi-room activity, full-body apparitions visible to multiple witnesses, drastic EMF/temperature swings, levitation of objects.
L-6	Extreme Manifestation	Activity borders on the cinematic; reality itself seems altered in the presence of the entity/entities.	Time distortion reported, objects materializing/dematerializing, shared hallucinations, spontaneous fires or water manifestation.
L-7+	Anomalous	Phenomena that defy current paranormal models; often involves non-human entities, extreme poltergeist effects, or reality-warping events.	Portal-type activity, drastic physical transformations in witnesses, possession-like symptoms, events captured on multiple independent recording systems that later show inexplicable corruption or additional figures.

Sites rated L-6 or higher are exceedingly rare and almost always require extensive corroborating evidence from multiple investigation teams.

Threat Level Ranking (TL)

While the Longland Scale measures raw paranormal power, the Threat Level specifically evaluates the risk to human safety—both from the entity itself and from environmental hazards often exacerbated by paranormal activity.

The scale runs from 1 (essentially harmless) to 10 (immediate life-threatening or demonstrably demonic):

Threat Level	Category	General Risk Profile	Typical Indicators
TL-1–2	Harmless	No realistic possibility of physical or lasting psychological harm.	Benign residual playbacks, friendly spirits, locations with only mild orb or EVP activity.
TL-3–4	Mildly Threatening	Minor physical contact possible; psychological impact usually limited to unease or temporary fear.	Light pushing/shoving, minor scratches, oppressive atmosphere, objects thrown with little force, sleep disruption if overnight stays attempted.
TL-5–6	Potentially Aggressive	Entity has demonstrated willingness and ability to cause injury; aggression is situational.	Hard shoving, deep scratches, hair-pulling, objects hurled with force, growling/black shadow figures, sudden illness or extreme dread.
TL-7–8	Dangerous	High probability of serious physical injury or severe psychological trauma; entity actively malevolent.	Violent attacks resulting in bruises, cuts, broken bones; possession symptoms, spontaneous bleeding, fires, or structural damage triggered paranormally.
TL-9–10	Life-Threatening / Demonic	Entity has caused or credibly attempted lethal harm; may exhibit classic demonic/oppressive traits.	Documented fatalities or near-fatal injuries directly linked to activity, extreme possession cases requiring exorcism, inhuman entities, sulfuric smells, spontaneous combustion events, etc.

Factors Considered in Threat Level Assessment

The final TL is a combined evaluation of two primary categories:

Environmental/terrestrial hazards

Even completely non-paranormal locations can become deadly when isolation or decay is extreme. Paranormal activity often amplifies these risks by disorienting investigators or directly causing structural failures.

Isolation (distance from help, cell service, extraction difficulty)
Structural integrity (collapsing floors, asbestos, mold, unstable staircases)
Natural hazards (flooding basement, abandoned mine shafts, extreme cold/heat)
Man-made hazards (exposed wiring, chemical contamination, squatters, or guard dogs)
History of mundane fatalities or suicides on-site (these often correlate with increased aggression)

Paranormal danger factors:

Documented physical attacks (severity and frequency)
Evidence of malevolent intent (mocking, threats, religious provocation response)
Inhuman characteristics (crawling figures, extreme height distortion, sulfur/black mass)
Attachment/possession incidents linked to the location
Rapid escalation when religious items, prayers, or challenges are introduced
Correlation with violent historical events (murder, torture, ritual abuse)

A location can receive a high Threat Level even at a modest Longland rating if environmental dangers are extreme (e.g., an abandoned sanatorium on a cliff with rotting floors might be L-2/TL-7). On the other hand, an intensely active but benign entity might be L-5/TL-1.

Both systems are used together to give you a complete picture of what you might encounter.

Hoax Confidence Rating (HCR)

An exclusive, evidence-based, credibility index for haunted locations, ghosts, and cursed or haunted objects. The HCR is a proprietary 1–10 analytical scale developed and used exclusively by The Horror Collection. It answers one question that no other paranormal resource systematically addresses:

“How likely is it that this case — in its entirety — is the product of deliberate fabrication, extreme exaggeration, commercial promotion, or modern folklore rather than a genuine anomalous phenomenon?”

Unlike subjective scores used elsewhere, the HCR focuses solely on evidential integrity and historical authenticity. It gives researchers, investigators, and serious readers an immediate, at-a-glance credibility assessment grounded in verifiable documentation and red-flag analysis.

HCR Scale

Score	Classification	Meaning & Diagnostic Criteria
1/10	Overwhelmingly authentic	Multiple independent sources predating 1900 (newspapers, church records, death certificates, diaries) + surviving physical evidence + an unbroken chain of custody and/or testimony.
2/10	Extremely likely authentic	Solid pre-internet documentation (1920–1995), corroborated by unrelated witnesses, municipal records, or academic references; no financial motive detected at origin.
3/10	Probably authentic	Strong 20th-century primary sources, reputable institutional involvement (police, universities, hospitals), absence of clear profit-driven narrative.
4/10	Leans authentic	Solid documentation with minor gaps, inconsistencies, or reliance on oral tradition that has remained stable over decades.
5/10	Neutral / Inconclusive	Evidence is evenly split or the case only entered the public record after 2005 with no discoverable earlier trace.
6/10	Leans fabricated	Primary narrative originates online or from paranormal television; heavy reliance on a single witness or family; clear commercial timeline (book/merchandise/tours).
7/10	Probably a hoax	Known promoter with multiple questionable cases; major contradictions in timeline or physical evidence; financial surge immediately following publicity.
8/10	Very likely a hoax	Partial admission of embellishment, proven modern replication of “antique” item, or documented viral-marketing campaign.
9/10	Confirmed hoax with lingering legend	The creator or primary promoter has publicly admitted fabrication, yet the legend continues to circulate independently.
10/10	100 % proven fabrication	Object created for social-media content, active marketplace listing still visible, or judicial finding of fraud.

Comprehensive Factors Used to Assign a HCR Score

Factors that lower the score (increase authenticity):

Archival evidence predating the internet era (especially pre-1980)
Independent corroboration from institutions (coroner reports, fire-department logs, property deeds showing unexplained sales)
Consistent phenomenology across decades and unrelated witness groups
Scientific or academic studies (university parapsychology departments, materials analysis, geophysical surveys)
Predictable phenomena that later occurred and were documented in real time
Physical evidence is still extant and available for examination
Absence of monetization at the point of first public disclosure

Factors that raise the score (increase the likelihood of a hoax):

“Grandma’s attic” / “estate sale” provenance with no paper trail
Origin story tied to an eBay, Etsy, or Craigslist sale advertised as “haunted”
Primary witness owns or profits from tours, books, merchandise, or paid appearances
Refusal to allow an independent investigation or a sudden “loss” of key evidence
Photographic or video evidence displaying obvious digital manipulation or modern artifacts
Timeline alterations between interviews, books, and television appearances
Promoter has a documented history of marketing multiple paranormal cases
Sudden surge in reported activity coinciding with media contracts
Use of modern paranormal television tropes (orbs, EVP phrases, REM pods) absent in early accounts
Disappearance or destruction of the object/location immediately after skeptical scrutiny is announced

Why the HCR is Important

1) It separates scholarship from entertainment

While most websites repeat legends without critical filters, the HCR instantly signals which cases belong in academic discussion and which belong in the world of modern creepypasta.

2) Protects historical integrity

By highlighting fabricated or heavily exaggerated narratives, the HCR helps prevent contamination of legitimate folklore archives.

3) Offers complete transparency

Every article on The Horror Collection includes the exact reasoning and key factors behind its assigned HCR, allowing readers to verify or challenge the assessment.

4) Creates an industry benchmark

No other paranormal database currently applies a rigorous, reproducible authenticity metric across haunted locations, entities, and cursed/haunted objects. The HCR positions The Horror Collection as the most credible and analytical resource in the field.

Cryptid Credibility Index (CCI)

The Cryptid Credibility Index (CCI) is a strictly evidential 1–10 scale designed to measure the probability that a reported cryptid represents an undescribed, extant (or recently extant) zoological taxon rather than a product of misidentification, cultural folklore, psychological phenomena, or deliberate deception.

Unlike popularity rankings, media exposure indices, or subjective “scariness” scores used elsewhere, the CCI evaluates only the strength, independence, and verifiability of the evidence base. It is deliberately agnostic toward cultural significance, witness sincerity, or perceived threat level.

The index serves four core functions within serious cryptid research:

(1) It provides an immediate, reproducible credibility benchmark that separates cases warranting continued scientific attention from those that can be archived as resolved misidentifications;

(2) It allows direct comparison of evidential quality across geographically and morphologically disparate cryptids;

(3) It protects the field from contamination by documented hoaxes and viral misinformation;

(4) It offers investigators and readers a transparent decision tool for allocating field resources, laboratory analysis, and publication priority.

CCI Score	Classification	Explanation
1/10	Proven misidentification or hoax	Fully explained by known animal, costume, CGI, or deliberate fraud (e.g., Minnesota Iceman, Jacko the “captured Sasquatch” 1884)
2/10	Almost certainly misidentification	Overwhelming scientific consensus (e.g., Loch Ness plesiosaur sightings = giant eels/sturgeon/wakes; all “clear” photos debunked)
3/10	Highly doubtful	Only anecdotal/blurry evidence; strong cultural folklore but zero physical traces that survive scrutiny
4/10	Possible but weak evidence	Consistent eyewitness descriptions over decades, yet no physical evidence beyond ambiguous footprints or hair samples
5/10	Plausible unknown species	Multiple independent eyewitness accounts + some physical evidence (casts, hair, scat) that has not been conclusively identified as known species
6/10	Probable undiscovered species	High-quality photos/video + casts with dermal ridges + hair with anomalous mtDNA + consistent indigenous testimony stretching centuries
7/10	Strong evidence	Clear daylight footage, multiple independent specimens photographed, or type specimens examined by credentialed biologists (e.g., mountain gorilla pre-1902)
8/10	Near-certain	Repeated modern high-resolution evidence + pre-colonial indigenous accounts + active scientific expeditions recovering new traces every few years
9/10	Effectively confirmed	Living animals repeatedly photographed/filmed by unrelated parties in multiple countries; only awaiting formal taxonomic description
10/10	Scientifically accepted	Species formally described and entered into zoological record from former “cryptid” reports (e.g., okapi 1901, giant squid, Komodo dragon, platypus)

A CCI of 7 or higher identifies cryptids that meet or exceed the evidential threshold historically required for eventual formal taxonomic description (e.g., okapi, mountain gorilla, giant squid).

Factors that Lower the CCI Score

These elements, when present and independently corroborated, move the rating toward 8–10 and indicate a case that cannot be dismissed under current zoological knowledge.

Pre-1900 written or iconographic records from multiple unrelated sources (explorer journals, missionary reports, indigenous codices, or colonial administrative documents).
Consistent phenomenology maintained across at least three centuries and multiple cultural/linguistic groups with no contact.
Physical evidence (hair, tissue, scat, whole specimens, or diagnostic osteological material) subjected to peer-reviewed forensic or genetic analysis yielding results incompatible with known regional fauna.
High-resolution daylight photography or video from multiple independent observers in different decades that has withstood stabilisation, photogrammetric, and anatomical scrutiny.
Footprint casts exhibiting dermal ridges, mid-tarsal flexibility, or other non-human primate traits confirmed by primatologists or forensic podiatrists.
Indigenous oral histories predating European contact by centuries describe the same diagnostic traits later reported by modern eyewitnesses.
Active, ongoing field research programmes run by credentialed biologists or academic institutions that continue to recover novel trace evidence.
Official acknowledgment or internal documentation by government, military, or conservation agencies treating the taxon as biologically plausible (e.g., FBI entomology file 1976–1977, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1975 protected-species atlas entry)

Factors that Raise the CCI Score

These elements, singly or in combination, move the rating toward 1–4 and indicate a case that is most likely attributable to misidentification, cultural invention, hoax, or modern media contagion.

Origin of the narrative post-1950 with no discoverable pre-1950 references in newspapers, explorer accounts, indigenous traditions, or archival records.
All purported evidence consists exclusively of blurry photographs, out-of-focus video, or single-witness anecdotal reports under poor lighting or visibility conditions.
Documented hoaxes, costumes, or taxidermy fakes originating from the same region and time period as the primary sightings.
High-resolution images or footage that, after stabilisation, enhancement, or forensic analysis, are conclusively shown to depict known animals, CGI, or human-manufactured objects.
Clear financial or promotional incentive at the point of first public disclosure (merchandise lines, paid tours, television deals, viral marketing campaigns).
Rapid surge and later decline in sightings immediately following local tourism initiatives, documentary airings, or viral social-media posts.
The phenomenon effectively ceases after public education campaigns, species reintroductions, or improved lighting/installation of trail cameras in the reported area.
Morphological or behavioural traits that directly replicate global archetypal folklore motifs (vanishing hitchhiker, demonic livestock killer, winged humanoid) without unique diagnostic features.
Repeated failure of promised physical evidence (bodies, clear photos, DNA samples) to materialise despite decades of claims by the same proponents.
Admission of fabrication, partial hoax, or staged footage by primary witnesses, photographers, or expedition organisers.