Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » Should A Bonus Site Be Rated?
1-14 of 14 Posts Page 1
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

11-13-12  02:30pm - 745 days Original Post - #1
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Should A Bonus Site Be Rated?

I've reviewed a few sites that belonged to a network myself but always wondered how to rate them.

Should not the whole be rated and some of the pluses and minuses of its various sites be mentioned in one main review for the whole network, rather than doing reviews and rate each site within that network as if it stood by itself?

E.g. If I went to many of the sites at 21Sextreme and reviewed them individually then their score would suffer severely because they have been dormant since 2009 (just an example) and the quality is not so hot.

But if I were to review the whole network my score would improve because the sum of the network is fine and I see those sites as an extra bonus.

Another thing, how do you give a fair rating to a bonus site that is not part of a network?

There was a review today (super.skinny.girl) that scored one of these sites extremely low, without taking into consideration that it was only a small part of a larger site,
"Young.Legal.Porn."

If one looked at that site first and reviewed it would one not add an extra point or two on the strength of that "bonus" they provide, even though the content is limited?

BTW, the review was fine I am simply questioning the scoring and review of "bonus" sites?

What do you say, Khan?

11-13-12  03:42pm - 745 days #2
Khan
PornUsers Staff




Posts: 1,662
Registered: Jan 05, '07
Location: USA
I fear my answer is going to come off as a non-answer.

You see, we have no real preference as to how networks are handled. It's very much up to the individual user as to how *they* prefer to handle it. In practice, I've seen it handled a number of ways.

Some users are content to review only the main network site. Others do a full review of the main site and maybe submit short reviews of other key sites w/in the network. Still others submit reviews for most (if not every) site w/in a network. This last one seems a bit excessive *to me* but I'm sure confident arguments can be made for the benefits of that way of handling it.

Obviously, to review a site it'd have to have its own listing page.

Also note, we don't like to see reviews w/ elements cut-n-pasted from another submission. So, if you're going to write separate reviews, write separate (and unique) reviews) Oh, and if you're saying basically the same thing a for a number of sites, you shouldn't expect to earn the max points/raffle tickets. Although we've been pretty generous to date with this as long as it seems each review was written from scratch.

So, rather than ask me, you might want to see how your fellow users reply to this one. They can better tell you how they prefer to see it handled. Oh, and we never tell a user how to assign points to a review. We provide the general guide seen on the submission page but that's not (in any way) enforced.

Sorry I couldn't give you a more specific answer. Hopefully, you'll see some other replies that'll give you a better answer. Senior Administrator
PornUsers.com

"To obtain a man's opinion of you, make him mad."-Oliver Wendell Holmes

11-13-12  03:49pm - 745 days #3
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by Khan:


I fear my answer is going to come off as a non-answer.

You see, we have no real preference as to how networks are handled. It's very much up to the individual user as to how *they* prefer to handle it. In practice, I've seen it handled a number of ways.

Some users are content to review only the main network site. Others do a full review of the main site and maybe submit short reviews of other key sites w/in the network. Still others submit reviews for most (if not every) site w/in a network. This last one seems a bit excessive *to me* but I'm sure confident arguments can be made for the benefits of that way of handling it.

Obviously, to review a site it'd have to have its own listing page.

Also note, we don't like to see reviews w/ elements cut-n-pasted from another submission. So, if you're going to write separate reviews, write separate (and unique) reviews) Oh, and if you're saying basically the same thing a for a number of sites, you shouldn't expect to earn the max points/raffle tickets. Although we've been pretty generous to date with this as long as it seems each review was written from scratch.

So, rather than ask me, you might want to see how your fellow users reply to this one. They can better tell you how they prefer to see it handled. Oh, and we never tell a user how to assign points to a review. We provide the general guide seen on the submission page but that's not (in any way) enforced.

Sorry I couldn't give you a more specific answer. Hopefully, you'll see some other replies that'll give you a better answer.


Thanks for taking the time to answer, Khan. At least now I know the official position .. and I am very much looking forward to the input of my fellow forum members or anyone who likes to do reviews.

11-13-12  05:05pm - 745 days #4
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
I think Khan summed it up pretty well.

When I was actively doing reviews, I tried to review each and every site on a network. This can be incredibly time consuming, however, and it becomes increasingly difficult to say something new about the site. It is in that regard that I really do not envy the 4 reviewers of TBP in their jobs.

These days, my viewpoint toward reviews has changed a bit. I used to place much import on getting down the technical details about the site, but frankly, TBP and other sites handle that pretty well. Now I'm more interested in reviews that talk about the experience of being a member of the site, an editorial, essay style review rather than a laundry list of specifications. The Pros / Cons are still a good place to slap some technical data and give a quick summary of the review, but the "Bottom Line" is really were the meat of the review should be for me.

So in that context, I feel reviewers should focus on sites that they have a specific opinion about. Unless the site is so important that it would seem strange to not talk about it. Looking at movie reviews, I would forgive a movie reviewer for reviewing Disney's Aladdin, but skipping the direct to video sequels. Similarly, I'd forgive a reviewer for reviewing a network site and 5 sites within that network that they particularly liked/hated but skipping the 19 remaining sites that they were rather ambivalent toward. I would expect a brief mention of those 19 in the review of the main network site. I also wouldn't be surprised if the text of that review directed readers to the other 5 site-specific reviews rather than covering those sites in depth within that review as well.

I'm not hugely interested in reviews from people that have no interest in the content at any level. You won't ever see me reviewing a foot fetish site - it bores me and other than telling you about the technical details, I don't think my opinion of the content would be helpful at all. I will never hold it against a reviewer for sticking to niches that they enjoy. I do believe that one should always explore and constantly redefine the boundaries of their interests, but that is just an interesting way to live and not something I'd impose on others. It goes along with: The unexamined life is not worth living. and Vivir con miedo es como vivir a medias. (Translated: "A life lived in fear is a life half lived.") But I digress.

Anyway, review the sites that most interest you and leave the rest to a footnote, that is my recommendation. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo

11-13-12  05:15pm - 745 days #5
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
My feeling is, first of all, there is a difference between a bonus site and a site which is one site within a network. A network consists of several sites from the same provider. A bonus site is just something they give you when you join the main site.

If you are considering the component sites of a network, then I think it is a good idea to give each component site its own stand-alone score, assuming that it can be joined by a stand-alone membership. The "Only" sites would be an example of this.

A network should be scored on the basis of the total content provided by all sites in the network membership.

A bonus site should not get its own score if it can only be accessed by joining the site that offers it as a bonus. In that case, the bonus site's content should instead be taken into account when scoring the main site.

When I say "should", I mean "IMHO"

I should also add that a "network" that consists of sites that cannot be joined separately is not a true network. It is merely one site that has been split to make it look like you are getting a lot of sites.

If a network consists of sites that can be joined separately but where the reason for separate sites is not clear, then I think that this should detract from the score of individual sites. In such a case, it seems that content has been withheld from one site to encourage you to join the network or one or more component sites. Edited on Nov 13, 2012, 05:28pm

11-13-12  05:27pm - 745 days #6
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,546
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
In my past reviews, I've wandered all over the place in including or excluding the network when reporting on a single site in that network. In many of my reviews, I specifically said that the score I am giving to a specific site is raised because of the value of the other sites in the network that are included with a membership.

But I don't follow any hard and fast rules about scoring a site, or even in discussing the Pros, Cons, and Bottom Line. I try to write a review that makes sense to me; but there are times when I wish the review had more flavor, that would give a better image of what the site is.

11-13-12  09:35pm - 745 days #7
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Seems that for me it all depends on the site is it really an addition, or designed to entice others into thinking the site network is bigger then it is. I have been members in both cases. A safe place seems to only rate the parent site unless it is obvious the addition is not an addition and therefore would warrant its own rating.

Most reviews usually rate or mention the bonus sites, and for me that usually enough.

CT Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

11-14-12  02:48am - 744 days #8
tangub (151)
Active User



Posts: 51
Registered: Feb 03, '10
Location: UK
Originally Posted by messmer:




E.g. If I went to many of the sites at 21Sextreme and reviewed them individually then their score would suffer severely because they have been dormant since 2009 (just an example) and the quality is not so hot.





Surely that is a perfect reason why individual sites within a network should be reviewed. Maybe some people will be joining the network for those specific sites and then be pissed off when they find out the sites they were interested in are no longer updating and the quality is not so good. Reviewing the network as having xx amount of sites and xx amount of weekly updates of HD videos might not be so helpful if the one sight somebody might have specifically signed up for has been dead for 3 years and has no HD content.

From a personal point of view I like to see reviews and ratings for individual sites within a network. Take the sister site 21Sextury for example; being in to softcore solo glamour photography there's probably only 2 or 3 sites in that network that interest me namely Pix and Video, Sweet Sophie Moone and possibly Club Sandy so its much more helpful to me being able to read reviews specific to the sites I'm interested in. Many network reviews for 21Sextury might not tell me a lot about my specific interests whereas Rusty J's brilliant review of Sweet Sophie Moone from a couple of years back tells me everything I want to know about that site.

11-14-12  08:17am - 744 days #9
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Would be nice if there was a review, and then perhaps a small area to put notes on sub sites ?

Not that the website owners would try and over sell, but makes me wonder if a network only has limited contents should they benefit in having access to reviews that users may click and join when their effort is not as good as others ?

I am trying to think of a good analogy , ummmm.

Say you advertise and advertise to get your garage sale known, you put up signs advertise and the day of the sale your neighbor opens up a sale next to you in his driveway. All your hard work and expense and he got the same attention for nothing.

I am thinking somewhere like that is a non-maintained or poorly maintained site should they get the same benefits of multiple access reviews like those that work hard to promote the sub-sites ?

I don't have the answer just questions that had me curious.


CT Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

11-14-12  10:11am - 744 days #10
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Thanks for all the helpful answers, guys. I gotta go because I live in a top floor apartment whose roof has developed a serious leak during rain storms .. and it is pouring at the moment with workmen drilling holes and making a general mess in order to find out where the leak is located. See you in a day or so!

11-14-12  04:49pm - 744 days #11
Drooler (220)
Active User



Posts: 1,693
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
My inflation-battered on this is that usually bonus sites aren't much to croon about, so reviewing one is kind of like reviewing a used car with 100,000 plus miles on it and all that goes with that.

That's why in my own reviews, bonus sites almost always get mentioned and commented on, but they aren't the cat's meow. They're more like hairballs patted into a corner somewhere.

And Messmer, good luck getting those leaks fixed. How can you "skip" an ad that's already being shown to you? Edited on Nov 14, 2012, 04:53pm

11-14-12  06:06pm - 744 days #12
rearadmiral (334)
Active User

Posts: 940
Registered: Jul 16, '07
Location: NB/Canada
While I usually join a network to get access to one or two sites I'll usually end up downloading scenes from all of them. I tend to write long reviews and take days to do it so writing a review for each site just isn't going to happen for me. So I usually write a review of the site that lured me in and the network itself. But... I realize that the sites I like might not be what others are interested in so if time permits I'll put some information in a comment on the page for the sites I haven't reviewed, especially if there is information that others might want, like the fact that it isn't updating or updates infrequently. If the information isn't readily available I'll include the number of scenes and data like that too. I figure this is a good compromise so I'm not flooding the site.

11-19-12  10:40am - 739 days #13
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by Drooler:


And Messmer, good luck getting those leaks fixed.


It is going to be an awful mess, Drooler. They discovered that it wasn't the roof at all but a drain pipe allowing the accumulated water to drain from our flat roof after a heavy rain fall, and it is located DIRECTLY OVER OUR BATHROOM! So tomorrow they are going to create a huge hole in the ceiling in order to get at the corroded pipe. I hope they won't use any welding equipment in fixing it. Most of our maintenance men are the usual Jack of all trades and masters of none, so anything could happen.

11-19-12  04:45pm - 739 days #14
Drooler (220)
Active User



Posts: 1,693
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by messmer:


It is going to be an awful mess, Drooler. They discovered that it wasn't the roof at all but a drain pipe allowing the accumulated water to drain from our flat roof after a heavy rain fall, and it is located DIRECTLY OVER OUR BATHROOM! So tomorrow they are going to create a huge hole in the ceiling in order to get at the corroded pipe. I hope they won't use any welding equipment in fixing it. Most of our maintenance men are the usual Jack of all trades and masters of none, so anything could happen.


Eww, well, that sounds like a fine bit of engineering in the first place. And one thing I've learned, though under less stressful circumstances, is that the accumulation of water will hasten the process of metal pipe corrosion. I mean, it was just water all over the kitchen floor and leaking to the ceiling below; that's all.

So from one experienced in the wicked ways of water to another, GOOD LUCK! How can you "skip" an ad that's already being shown to you?

1-14 of 14 Posts Page 1
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.02 seconds.