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 » What should a PU review include?
1-50 of 83 Posts Page 1 2 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

04-25-08  05:06pm - 2350 days Original Post - #1
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,058
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
What should a PU review include?

[As a precursor, this thread was started back in 2008. Since then, this thread has been added to the "PU Review Rules" section as link for new members to explore in helping them write reviews. Feel free to read the whole thread (it is entertaining and thought provoking). However, if you just want the highlights try the "Toadsith Cheatsheet Post here and the "Revised Toadsith Cheat Sheet" for writing reviews. For writing reviews on a site where TheBestPorn has written a version 2.0 review, go here. All links are contained within this thread.]

OK, so how many of us have read a PU website review that says "Lots of hot girls but limited content available" and wondered what that really means. A lot of PU members say in their profiles that they don't like reading bad reviews. The PU support staff give a general guide to what makes a good review but no specifics are offered so we are basically left to our own judgment as to what we include in our reviews.

I have nothing against this format and I appluad PU for giving reviewers a lot of flexibility in creating their reviews. However, in this humble chimp's opinion, I think we could all benefit by including a few basic concepts in our reviews. The suggestions I offer are meant to take up minimal space in the review while providing some good basic information for all of us. My suggestions are also meant to help people with a range of technical skills.

So here are my basics as to what a review should include in order to benefit the rest of us.

First, take a minute and look at what other PU reviews have said, what the TBP has said and what the site tour says. If there is no TBP review or only an express review, then you should be prepared to say a little more. The same goes if you are the first PU user to review the site or if the website only has general information in their tour (ie: "50,000+ photos and 200 gigs of video"). If the "site facts" listed on TBP are out of date, be prepared to update those figures. Once you've taken this into consideration your review should cover the following:

A. Exclusive Content: Is there exclusive content or not. If you don't know it's fine to say you don't know.

B. Content Available: Don't just say "lots of videos" or "only a few pictures". Ambiguity doesn't help in this situation. If the website or TBP doesn't break it down real well, tell the rest of us what to expect in real numbers. I would like to know how many sets are available in what categories. A sample review might say "A mix of content with 250+ downloads in six categories including hardcore, solo and lesbian with solo being the largest at 100+". Again, what you say will vary depending on the site but specific numbers help more than general statments about content. If the content is high rez or bad quality, let us know that too.

C. Video Content: As I said above, tell us roughly how many downloads and/or streams are available. Also, please tell us what the download options and stream rates are. A sample review might say "150+ downloads and streams available with sizes up to 720x540 at rates over 1 meg per second". If you don't know the technical specs and site doesn't state them you could say "downloads available in small, medium and large format". Also, let us know if there is DRM, if there are consistent download problems or if there are problems with slow downloads. If you're worried about room in your review, you can always put this information in the "pros/cons" section since there is plenty of room to type in that section.

D. Pictures: A lot of PU users focus mainly on the videos, which is fine, but some of us are into pictures. Please let us know if there are pictures and what the maximum picture size is (1200x800 for example). If you don't know what the max picture size is you could say "max pic size is full screen" and we'll get the idea. If there is a big discrepency between the number of videos available and picture sets available please tell us. Ideally, I would like to know how many picture sets there are and in what categories. Also, let us know if zip download is available.

E. Bonus Content: Let us know if bonus content is available or if the site is part of a network.

F. Updates: Does the site regularly update or not. Again, just a quick note is useful.

I have basically drawn the line at these six categories. I know that other people might want to know other facts but I've tried to limit my suggestions in order to maintain maximum flexibility for the reviewer while giving the rest of us good information. I think the average reviewer could cover the concepts I laid out in about 250 characters which leaves plenty of room to include whatever the reviewer wants.

If I could impart any lasting advice it would be to use hard numbers in describing the content of the website in your review and not just general statements. Edited on Sep 01, 2009, 05:01pm

04-25-08  05:27pm - 2350 days #2
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Oh dear, this thread is going to really bring my OCD tendencies into the spot light. ::sigh:: I'll upload my Porn Users Cheat Sheet when I get home. "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

04-25-08  05:34pm - 2350 days #3
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,058
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
I posted this thread with the "King of Prose" (Toadsith) partially in mind. At any rate, I thought it was a topic that deserved some discussion here. I look forward to your dissertation ;) Edited on Apr 25, 2008, 05:58pm

04-25-08  06:25pm - 2350 days #4
littlejoe (23)
Active User

Posts: 48
Registered: Jan 25, '07
Location: earth
if u want site facts go here: http://www.thebestporn.com/home.html

if u want peoples opinions of site read them here

04-25-08  08:05pm - 2350 days #5
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Wittyguy:


I posted this thread with the "King of Prose" (Toadsith) partially in mind. At any rate, I thought it was a topic that deserved some discussion here. I look forward to your dissertation ;)


Haha - The King of Prose - I really like that title! "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

04-25-08  08:08pm - 2350 days #6
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by littlejoe:


if u want site facts go here: http://www.thebestporn.com/home.html

if u want peoples opinions of site read them here


The problem with looking toward TBP for site facts is sometimes their reviews are years old. While they do sometimes update site facts independently of the reviews, I think it is in the best interest of the community to include as many relevant site facts as possible in one's review to make it as useful to the reader as possible. An veritable One-Stop-Shop, if you will.

That, at least, is my philosophy on the site facts for reviews. I understand that some users don't have the time and / or patience to collect all the facts and frankly I'd rather them jot down their opinion than not review at all. "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

04-25-08  11:39pm - 2350 days #7
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Ok, as Wittyguy accurately predicted, this is going to be a long one from me...again. Lets start with my Porn Users Cheat Sheet (PU Cheat Sheet.txt to be precise):

Originally Posted by Porn Users Cheat Sheet:


VIDEO CONTENT
* Previews / Trailers?
* Screenshots?
* High Res. Video Format?
* DRM?
* Video Resolution?
* Video Bit Rate?
* Watermarks?
* Video Quality? (Crisp or Fuzzy)
* Number of Videos?
* Update Rate?
* Full Length Videos?
* Avg. Video Length?
* Video Available in Sections?
* Download Managers?
* Download Speeds?

PHOTO CONTENT
* Photo Resolution?
* Watermarks?
* Photo Quality?
* Zip Files?
* Number of Sets?
* Update Rate?
* Matched to Video?

SITE DESIGN
* Search Engine?
o Search by Body?
o Search by Action?
o Search by Model Name?

* Simple Design?
* Browsing Categories?
* Extra Features?

MODELS / CONTENT
* Exclusive?
* Originality?
* Models Attractiveness?
* Amateur / Professional?
* Good Angles?
* Good Lighting?

EXTRAS
* Bonus Sites?


Formatting Note: I've bolded key words to make skimming this article easier.

I have this little document open during the review writing process to make sure I don't forget any site facts or opinion pieces that should be included. It is a catch-all of sorts, not all sites have answers for each bit, but it pretty much covers every site I've run across. I've modified it quite a bit over the past few months, this is probably revision 4 or so.

Now, one has to take into account that I'm a bit fanatical about information acquisition for a review - I literally count every single video to give a precise number so people can see the site's progression while reading through all the reviews (32 videos in '07, 83 in March of '08, and so on). If the site is video focused, and it is a pain-in-the-ass to count the photo sets, I sometimes guesstimate that figure. Of course if the reverse is true, then my actions would be reversed.

Lets get some chapters going here...


Video Content

As you see above, this is the most specification heavy chapter of a review. There is so much data you potentially can collect here. The question of course is: Should you?

Largely personal preference of the reviewer - so my preferences weigh heavily on the organization of the cheat sheet in this arena. The main governing preference here is quality. I always download the highest quality content the site offers, no exceptions. This means that I do not report on the low quality content. I give the maximum video resolutions. I'll only list multiple resolutions if the contents max. resolutions vary throughout the site. The same goes for photos - maximum resolutions only.

I personally loathe split video files and would never download them when given the option of a full-length single file, so I don't report on them unless they are the only available option. The same goes for the silly mobile phone and iPod friendly videos. I'm quite curious as to who is gleefully downloading these videos and watching them on the bus-ride to work - in the US, at least, you could get arrested for such activity (as silly as that law is).

How a user decides to download content is a very important aspect of the website experience, so reporting on video previews and screenshots can be quite useful - some sites let you go on the faith of your knowledge of the listed performers, a single photo and a title. That is a long stretch from the downloading confidence one gets from sites like 21 Sextury.com or Brazzers Network that provide full, edited video previews of every scene. The user is usually investing at least 10 or 20 minutes in downloading a full scene, so knowing approximately what that scene includes is rather crucial to avoiding Downloader's Remorse. (Cheesy, I know, as usual I couldn't help myself.)

The average video length is a guesstimation again - no need to setup a spreadsheet and run the numbers - it just helps potential members get a feel for what their money will be getting them.

Video Quality is entirely subjective, but sometimes the raw figures don't tell the truth. All Internal is a perfect example - their video specs are off the charts amazing. Unfortunately they can't yet afford proper HD video equipment that will get the razor edge crispness that the specs promise. Surprisingly (almost somewhat disturbingly) Ghetto Gaggers and its sister sites are using this technology and are phenomenally sharp.

Two very easy questions to answer in every review are: DRM? and Watermarks? A simple yes or no, will suffice. Don't forget that Porn Users doesn't want us discussing ways to circumvent DRM, so don't waste space on that. Also, for any user that doesn't know the term "watermark" this is simply referring to the application of a website logo over the video (or photo) to brand it and protect against copyright infringement. Sadly most sites do this.

Judging the update rate for a site's content can be rather difficult at times. In the past I have achieved it by simply making a note of it each time I saw a new video posted or checking the dates on the files on my hard drive so I could see when I downloaded them. Ideally the site will list this, or even advertise how frequently they update and stick to it come hell or high water.

Download Mangers - any hardcore porn user is going to already know the pain of living in one of the circles of Hell if they try to acquire content without a download manager. Tedious doesn't even begin to describe it. These days nearly every site can use a download manager of one form or another. Many sites use some form of CAPTCHA-style challenge-response test to keep bots from entering their site. Browser integrated download managers bypass this problem easily.

So when it comes to discussing a site's compatibility with download managers it usually comes down to the question of Download Acceleration. Again, for users that don't know about this, allow me to explain. For most broadband users... I write my reviews with only broadband users in mind, I feel for you dial-up users, I really do. I was there for many years, but I mean come on, get satellite if nothing else is available. Let the hungry mouths starve, porn is more important. But I digress. For most broadband users the download speed bottleneck is not on their ISP's end but rather at the starting gate with the provider's server. The server can be configured to allow only so much bandwidth per connection to it. So download accelerators, the sneaky, little fiends they are, will connect to the server multiple times and request different parts of the file. As each connection gets that set download speed, you are effectively downloading the file at a multiple of however many connections the accelerator has made. Now the servers have become wise to this and will limit the number of connections one IP can make, sometimes as low as one - which means download accelerators won't work, or worse, can even cause the server to deactivate your account temporarily. I generally will say yes or no to download managers and acceleration with perhaps a little note telling readers how many connections they can make.

Download Speeds is a relatively new addition to the Cheat Sheet and I'm not entirely sure how useful it is to the reader as it is dependent on how much acceleration the site allows, the site's server speed, the amount of internet traffic at the times I'm downloading and my ISP. That is a boat load of variables, but my manger gives me that number when it is downloading, so it easy to collect and I pop an approximation into the review text anyway.

Yowza, that's about it for Videos... moving on!


Photo Content
Photo Resolution is quite easy to determine - load up one of the large size photos on the site, right click on it and hit properties. Almost any browser will give you the pixel dimensions right there. I don't bother with explaining how many or what percentage are landscape or portrait oriented.

The Photo Quality is another subjective, gray-area type subject. Some sites feature scanned content, either due to older photos or simply strange photographers - this can cause for low quality photos - washed out colors, dust, scratches and so on. However, the biggest culprit for bad quality photos is excessive compression on JPEG images (by far and above the dominate photo file format on the internet). Unlike its older sibling, BitMap - JPEG has the capability to be compressed - limiting the number of colors or using a data saving visual trick known as "dithering".

Rather than providing the exact color, Dithering limits the color pallet and intermixes two close approximations of the color (one on either side of the correct color on the color wheel) and thus giving the illusion of the correct color. JPEG Dithering is annoying as hell when it becomes strikingly apparent - it shows up most as sort of speckled noise at the edges of two very different colors. For example a nude model standing in front of a blue curtain - you would see this strange jagged halo around the edge of the body as the image software was trying to accommodate the extreme color gradient while using as few colors as possible. The higher the compression, the chunkier and noisier the photo will look.

Photo Quality does not apply to the technical skill of the photographer, it simply is to address how well the original photo is presented to the end user.

Watermarks, Zip Files and Matched to Video are this section's easy Yes / No answers. For the definition of watermarks please see the Video Content section. Frankly every site that has even small sets of photos should provide zip files for each set so the user doesn't have to spend their life clicking away at each photo to get it on their hard drive. Sadly a surprising number don't provide that feature. I never select exactly what photos I want so I don't usually report if the site lets you do custom zips. I sort of see that like buying a music CD and burning only the tracks I like immediately - if I respected the artist enough to buy the album, I should listen to those other tracks as well because they probably know something I don't. On a couple of Tom Waits CDs I own - some of the tracks I absolutely hated at first are now my favorites.

Matched to Video simply means, does the video scene have a complimentary photo set that shows exactly or approximately the same content. DDF Productions appears to do two shoots in a row, one for the video and one for the photo - but the content is nearly the same for each so I would call that a matched photo set.

Unfortunately some sites don't let you browse their photo sets easily, so finding the number of sets can be difficult. You might have to click on each scene and then check if it has a link to the photos. If that is the case, either guesstimate it or just explain that there are some photo sets. If you can provide an exact figure, that is even better.

As discussed in the Video Content section above, the update rate can be difficult to determine. You can use the same tactics I mentioned before, but hopefully the site will list the updates for you.


Site Design
If you had to leave one category out, this would probably be it. However, as a professional webmaster, graphics artist and web designer - this matters a bit to me. So in that spirit, lets talk about simple design. Ideally a site should be instantly navigable - no learning curve what so ever. The only sites that can get away with that are fashion and art sites that have to be breathtakingly trendy and innovative. So if you had to hunt around to find the model director a nice NO can be the answer here. I could go on and on about my opinions on how sites should and shouldn't be laid out, but this is about the review, not building a site.

It is rather impossible to navigate any sizeable site without some form of browsing categories - the most common is a simple model directory with the models listed in alphabetical order. However even today you will run across site missing this - like Nasty Makeup and its sister sites in the ATX Network.

The perfect Search Engine really is my Holy Grail; so few sites even attempt it that even a simple one wins points with me. So far the most complete and user friendly one I've run across was on Abby Winters - you could select massive numbers of variables (body type, hair color, you name it) and whittle down the searches or do keyword searches or any strange combination. It was wonderful and easy to use. So if a site has one, be sure to mention it as that can be a real plus for many users.

As for the ambiguous extra features I have on the cheat sheet, that is really a simple reminder to comment about strange gadgets that don 't fall into the previous categories - for example Abby Winters user created content lists or forums - not common enough to earn a spot on the cheat sheet, but interesting enough to mention in the review.


Models / Content
This category mostly will end up being discussed in the Bottomline as it largely is opinion. First lets start with the few simple facts, is the content exclusive and what are the models? Amateurs or Professionals?

I generally rely on the site to tell me if it is exclusive or not, granted it isn't the most accurate way of doing it - but I simply cannot verify the claim with out being suddenly granted with the curse of omniscience (Omnipotence is a blessing, Omniscience is a curse - because then you'd never truly enjoy a new movie again.). The same is true about the status of the models, but with a bit of experience in viewing porn, you get pretty good at picking out the pros (Usually because you recognize them).

The question of originality is of course a matter of opinion but it really is matter of how much the content producer stick to a specific formula, as frankly finding a genuinely original idea that startles and amazes is unlikely. Many sites tend to fall into the comfortable rut of a formulaic shoot that causes the scenes to blends together once you've watched ten in a row. Sometimes you can't knock them for the quality of any one scene, but once you are looking at the forest, you realize all the trees look bloody similar.

The attractiveness of the models is one hundred percent subjective and yet vastly important. A review is hardly an empirical analysis of a site. I believe it needs to contain facts but it is largely opinion and your readers will begin to learn how well your opinion matches their own and make better decisions based off the descriptions of your opinion. So definitely do not shy away from stating if the models just didn't attract you or vice versa.

Good Lighting can be discussed as simply as stating that you could see all the details easily or more specifically as to how accurate skin tones were and if the colors were washed out or not. Again subjective, include as much as matters to you. The same goes for the camera angles - some people want the model's crotch hovering inches from the lens, others want to see the model's body from head to toe. Do not be afraid to discuss it, any information is better for your readers - if they agree with you or not.


Extras
If you are reviewing a small site that is part of a big network, it is important to list that it is tied in with a whole bunch of bonus sites. It would be ridiculous to complain about Real Wife Stories being very small without pointing out that it is part of the massive Brazzers Network. On the other hand, some sites have these after thought style cheap, streaming content sites that are only interesting if you are incredibly bored and have looked through all the exclusive content on the main site. I don't tend to mention those add-on bonus sites.


The Review's Pros and Cons
The vast majority of the above discussion is designed for points to be included in the Pros and Cons. Porn Users' admins have been kind enough to give us a rather sizeable 1000 character limit for each - so it is wise to use it. Every conceivable specification that you want to include should be in one of those two sections, because the Bottomline is your opinion piece, and opinions can be lengthy so you have to conserve those characters.

However, 1000 characters can also be diminished very quickly - so don't include any unnecessary words. You simply want to get the information across - fast, simple and direct. The butchering of grammar is OK as long as it has a bullet in front of it.

On the bullet topic, that is one of personal preference - but you have to have some sort of character there. Porn Users doesn't support special characters. So traditional ASCII bullets are out, but a popular choice is "+" for Pros and "-" for Cons. I use the simple apteryx (*) for mine as it looks the most like the normal bullet to me. I also add a space after it to make everything line up nicely and not look scrunched up, but that's me - I obsess about things like that.

One last thing about the Pros and Cons - just because they are the best location for specifications it does not mean that you should not put opinions in there. A short & sweet opinion like "Many Unattractive Models" is fine. That would be a definite negative and should be listed.

The Bottomline
This is the big one - and by far the most difficult section of the review to write as well as advise upon. The Bottomline is intended as a summary, an opinion piece and a finisher all-in-one. There needs to be one easy to find sentence that sums up your overall recommendation for the site. Yet this is also the time to discuss the style of the content, the feel of it. All of the intangibles that form the so-called "X-Factor" that can make or break a site. Some sites just ooze personality and quirky charm that make overlooking their flaws easy - others have exquisite quality but leave you cold and uninterested.

The Bottomline is your time to explain that phenomena. To explain that numeric score you put down at the beginning. To explain why a reader should or should not join the site. The Bottomline has one hell of a responsibility, despite the weight of the specifications lifted from its shoulders.

The overall tenor of the bottomline very much depends on your writing style. Some users are very conversational, it is how they think and they simply can't get the point across without that charming ramble. Others cut straight to the point.

The advantage of short, direct commentary is it gives you more space to hammer a specific point home if you feel it needs some extra enumeration. As my forum posts frequently reflect I tend to be rather verbose. Consequently, I spend probably a third of my time with the review editing down my comments so it will just barely sneak under that character limit. I think it is important to point out that not everyone needs to fill out the bottomline to the extreme. Many of us do it, but sometimes there just isn't a hell of a lot to say. The Pros and Cons will tend to be pretty plentiful if you go on the data collection rampages that I do, but if you simply were not wowed by the site in any way, shape or form - simply focus on getting that recommendation sentence in there and just touch on the subjects that come to mind and post that sucker. It is better to get the review up rather than racking your brain over what else you could include and then ending up not posting it at all.

Terminology
I am rather clinical in my usage of terminology during reviews. It is my "Professional" voice of sorts. So to achieve this any anatomical reference I make will generally be referred to by its common medical name. I also generally refer to the women as "models". It seems more respectful to me and adds that air of detachment that I like to have in my reviews. This relates back to the Bottomline and the balancing of your personal opinion versus a more generalized analysis of the site.

By keeping a bland and beige terminology throughout the review, you also are less likely to cause too much of an emotional response from the reader and therefore keep them absorbing information rather than thinking "Gee - 'Bitch' is pretty harsh, this guy must hate women." If I do seek out an emotional response it is always humor as that too keeps the reader focused on the review. It is that wonderful look-at-me tool that causes comedians to enter their profession.

Still, there is an agenda to the professional stylization in my reviews and it is this: I wish for porn to keep becoming more and more respectable. TBP and Porn Users are wonderful sites in my eyes because the site owners are treating porn with respect - change the titles of the various categories and the look of these sites would not be odd for a car review site (excluding the shortage of photos). While I can enjoy the fantasy of these sites that claim "She's a whore that likes being treated like dirt" - I think it is crucially important for the industry to not only realize but make publicly apparent that these models are skilled professional entertainers that should be respected for the hard work they put into their performances. Not everybody will do what these people do, just like how one Canadian comedian went on stage wearing nothing but one sock for his stand-up routine, yet now Jim Carry is a much respected performer. I feel that porn performers, male and female, should have the opportunity for similar respect.


Conclusion
There you have it - the philosophy and psychotic obsession behind the typical Toadsith review. The above is the largely the reason why I have only posted 19 reviews. The fact-of-the-matter is I have a full time job and simply cannot dedicate my life to writing reviews for porn sites. Sure - it would be a pretty sweet job, but sadly I have bills to pay and nobody has offered me a paying position, lol

Anyway, I have high hopes for the influence of this site, it is still reasonably young and I think will become more and more respected as time goes on. I hope that the reviews will become regular reading material for webmasters around the world and be catalysts of change for the better. Despite a few bouts of despair and pessimism circulating around the forums about new porn, I honestly do believe porn hasn't been better - sure it has changed since the 70's but it will keep evolving and changing. I'm excited about what the future holds and what the past has taught us. As the internet matures so will internet porn and I'm quite happy I will be able to witness that. The realm of porn has expanded so much that, in the monkeys and the typewriters fashion, we are bound to keep getting good content. Hopefully PornUsers.com's reviews will always be on the forefront, sorting out the good from the bad.

Cheers!
Toadsith

P.S. I apologize if there are any crazy typos or grammar errors - it is almost 3 in the morning and I worked 13 hours today, so I am going to bed. Maybe I will edit it later. "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

04-26-08  03:19am - 2350 days #8
Colm4 (10)
Active User



Posts: 98
Registered: Sep 22, '07
Location: Holland
I would like to see that download speeds is given more attention in reviews.
As movie sizes are growing (sometimes over a gig for a single movie) as HD is becoming the norm, download speeds are very important.
If I download a movie, I want to see it in 5 minutes and not an hour, which is the difference between a download speed of 70kb/s and 700kb/s.
Speeds usually are dependant of the time of day (I can see the difference when, for example, America is asleep), so it's important to test this speed at different times.

04-26-08  06:25am - 2350 days #9
atrapat (112)
Active User



Posts: 182
Registered: Apr 19, '08
Location: Non-USA
Thanks Wittyguy and Toadsith for your posts. I've only had time to make 3 reviews and your expertise is very much appreciated. I feel my own idea of what a review should contain wasn't that wrong.

I still have doubts, though, regarding how to choose the rating figure. I've seen the scoring guidelines at TBP for official reviews and they are quite thorough. I was tempted to try to use them here but it looks like PU reviewers are allowed a more general approach.

Let's say that after writing the pros and cons, I conclude that a site is Average; but how should I decide whether it's a 70, a 72 or a 79? Should I raise the score over 80 if, despite having a lot of room for improvement, I really enjoyed it / would recommend it?

04-26-08  07:10am - 2350 days #10
Drooler (218)
Active User



Posts: 1,684
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Thanks for starting this thread. If there's one thing that makes me gasp (again!) in frustration is "Hi-Rez pics" or something vaguely similar in a review. It means NOTHING!! It's like saying that a BLT is freakin' sandwich!

But thanks to you and especially Toadsith, who seems able to type comprehensibly at 110 wpm, 20 pages per sitting, a lot of ground has been covered already.

I've been tolerant and, wishing not to ruffle feathers, have not taken any reviewers to task for what seem to me to have been obvious omissions of points of fact. Hopefully this thread will serve as a "rising tide to lift all boats." Anyway, we'll see. Good DNA, good T 'n A.

If the scene is going to be any good, the title for it had better have an exclamation mark.

04-26-08  02:06pm - 2349 days #11
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by atrapat:


Let's say that after writing the pros and cons, I conclude that a site is Average; but how should I decide whether it's a 70, a 72 or a 79? Should I raise the score over 80 if, despite having a lot of room for improvement, I really enjoyed it / would recommend it?


Scoring is really difficult and I can hardly say I'm an expert at it - my skills set definitely lies in writing the review and not picking the number. However, my general rule of thumb is this: Anything above 90 I'm saying everybody should join at least once - it is that good. If the score is above 80, it has some definite flaws, but if you the content is to your liking, you are getting a pretty good deal for your money. If it is above 70 the site really needs to improve there may be some good content here but a lot needs to be fixed before this is worth the money. Anything below 70 just run away, take your money else where!

As for the difference between an 85 and an 87, eh - I dunno, I try to compare it to other sites I've scored and figure out a number, but honestly - a 5-star or 10-star rating system would be a hell of a lot easier than this 100 point system. "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

04-26-08  02:36pm - 2349 days #12
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Drooler:


Thanks for starting this thread. If there's one thing that makes me gasp (again!) in frustration is "Hi-Rez pics" or something vaguely similar in a review. It means NOTHING!! It's like saying that a BLT is freakin' sandwich!

But thanks to you and especially Toadsith, who seems able to type comprehensibly at 110 wpm, 20 pages per sitting, a lot of ground has been covered already.

I've been tolerant and, wishing not to ruffle feathers, have not taken any reviewers to task for what seem to me to have been obvious omissions of points of fact. Hopefully this thread will serve as a "rising tide to lift all boats." Anyway, we'll see.


I know what you mean about not ruffling feathers, my general tactic is to simply keep replying to the review until I get all of the information I wanted out of the reviewer. I of course only bother to do this to sites I care about, but I like to think that reviewer will make a mental note of those questions and try to answer them the next time they do a review. This actually worked on me early on when ace of aces asked me if the reviews were available in a single file or not - I now include that data in all of my reviews.

I think a lot of people just write up the review on the fly and don't have much of a game-plan as to what needs to be covered. Hopefully this thread will serve to give them some good ideas. I doubt everybody will start doing "Toadsith Standardized Porn Reviews", lol Though that would be sweet - largely because I'd love to see a published book of those standards sold in college book stores across the country. If people just take a bit more time to collect a bit more information, I think their review qualities will start climbing rapidly.

Oh - btw, I only type at 70 wpm - but I have a secret weapon: I use the Dvorak keyboard layout, so I can type non-stop for hours on end without fatigue - it might not help the boredom factor if I tried a 10 hour typing shift, but me hands could do it :-)

For those that don't know, August Dvorak, distant relative of the famous composer, developed the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard in the 30's to replace QWERTY which was designed to separate common letters so the typing arms wouldn't jam. It is much less strain on the hands and is said to be faster, though I type at the same speed as I typed on QWERTY. The home row on a Dvorak keyboard goes like this: AOEU HTNS

Check it out on Wikipedia if you want to learn more. I recommend the layout for everyone. Every OS supports it and your hands don't get tired typing. I switched over about seven years ago already a very good typist in QWERTY and it took me about 4 months before my brain stopped switching into QWERTY occasionally mid-sentence. The interesting thing, is you can teach yourself to maintain both formats, now-a-days I have much difficulty typing in QWERTY, but I used to be able to switch back and forth with about 10 minutes of rough patches in between. "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

04-27-08  10:19pm - 2348 days #13
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,058
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
Once again, Toadsith comes through. Personally, I'm not going to add much to this thread; this is a free community and I don't want users to feel like I'm telling them what to include.

As for Drooler's and Atrapat's comments about how to score a site, I don't think there is an easy answer to that one. One person's idea of primo material can be another person's idea of boredom.

However, I think if you take some of the ideas posted here for what a good review should include you'll find the scoring a bit more manageable. Fox example, a site that has a lot of material but has mediocre quality and download options probably won't score as high as a site with a less quantity but better content and technical quality. That's how it seems to go in my book.

I'll go out on a limb here and say the point that Toadsith and I are generally trying to get across is that if you are trying to post a good review then some of the nitty gritty aspects of a site do matter. By including them in a review you show that you are serious (more likely to be trusted) and, in turn, your scoring will be more consistent and perhaps a little easier to perform. Edited on Apr 27, 2008, 10:56pm

04-27-08  10:30pm - 2348 days #14
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Wittyguy:


I'll go out on a limb here and say the point that Toadsith and I are generally trying to get across is that if you are trying to post a good review then some of the nitty gritty aspects of a site do matter. By including them in a review you show that you are serious (more likely to be trusted) and, in turn, your scoring will be more consistent and perhaps a little easier to perform.


Word.

::grins:: "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

04-28-08  11:52am - 2347 days #15
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,058
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
I previously said I wasn't going to add much more to this thread ... and I lied. One thing I did want to toss into the mix was the use of price as a score factor.

TBP has done away with price on their reviews and most review sites don't use price which I generally think is a good thing. Personally, I try to consciously avoid including price. However, I think reviewers should disclose if they are factoring price into a review or qualify their review in "the bottom line" section if price is a consideration.

04-28-08  11:59am - 2347 days #16
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Wittyguy:


TBP has done away with price on their reviews and most review sites don't use price which I generally think is a good thing. Personally, I try to consciously avoid including price. However, I think reviewers should disclose if they are factoring price into a review or qualify their review in "the bottom line" section if price is a consideration.


Very true, I don't worry about price in my reviews, and the general assumption of the community is that the review's score doesn't count the price. So yes - please do mention if that is changing your score.

Frankly, I don't understand the hubbub in another thread where people are worried about doing reviews of sites with complimentary membership passes if they don't factor in the price to their score anyway. Do they really believe all those respected movie reviewers pay to see the hundreds of movies they watch every year? "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

05-19-08  05:34pm - 2326 days #17
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,058
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
I don't really have anything new to add here. I'm adding to this thread to bump it up to top of forum page because I've noticed a number of newbie reviews recently that are pretty much worthless. I hope some of them, if they're going to keep adding reviews, take at least something from this discussion.

10-09-08  10:23pm - 2183 days #18
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Any chance this thread could be made into a sticky thread?

I think it would tell a lot to new reviewers about what the community is looking for in a good review. :-D "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

10-09-08  11:29pm - 2183 days #19
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,046
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by Toadsith:


Any chance this thread could be made into a sticky thread?

I think it would tell a lot to new reviewers about what the community is looking for in a good review. :-D


Yea allot of thoughts here for sure.

10-11-08  05:57am - 2182 days #20
Khan
PornUsers Staff




Posts: 1,629
Registered: Jan 05, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by Toadsith:


Any chance this thread could be made into a sticky thread?



I can pin it for a week but that's gonna be about as long as we'll want to have it sticky. It's a good thread, to be sure but we're not looking to have permanantly pinned threads at this time. Senior Administrator
PornUsers.com

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

10-11-08  11:15am - 2181 days #21
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Khan:


I can pin it for a week but that's gonna be about as long as we'll want to have it sticky. It's a good thread, to be sure but we're not looking to have permanantly pinned threads at this time.


Ok, cool - thanks :-) "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

10-12-08  11:38am - 2180 days #22
Riffy (1)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 73
Registered: Jul 30, '08
Location: Scotland
Originally Posted by Toadsith:



Also, for any user that doesn't know the term "watermark" this is simply referring to the application of a website logo over the video (or photo) to brand it and protect against copyright infringement. Sadly most sites do this.



Hi Toadsith
Regarding your comment in your excellent article here about watermarks.
I personally don't mind them as long as they're not too big or obtrusive.
I use them on my videos purely to help ID them if they turn up somewhere they shouldn't. www.rockchicksandbikerbabes.co.uk

10-12-08  11:54am - 2180 days #23
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Riffy:


Hi Toadsith
Regarding your comment in your excellent article here about watermarks.
I personally don't mind them as long as they're not too big or obtrusive.
I use them on my videos purely to help ID them if they turn up somewhere they shouldn't.


I certainly understand the drive behind watermarks as a necessity to protect one's content from being stolen by competitors, I simply object to it on an aesthetic basis. It can be learned to ignore, but the simple matter is that it's still modifying the video image at all times and not serving in anyway to help the story line, improve the style of the content or anything. Essentially it is there for the benefit of the content providers not the viewers.

A lot of sites advertise that they provide DVD quality video. One pretty universal factor with DVDs is the lack of a water mark. Most television shows have watermarks showing up frequently, but when they go onto DVD, that watermark is gone. Still, I'd love for porn content providers to learn from the big TV networks. The watermarks the networks use is usually a very basic corporate logo that is quite small, entirely monochrome, and at least 50% translucent. A lot of major sites provide their full web address in full color with full opacity - that is a helluva lot more distracting than it needs to be.

So I understand why watermarks are often a necessary evil, but I will still rejoice in any review whenever I find a site that doesn't use them. For if we don't critique the aesthetic of the content, what use are we as reviewers? "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

10-12-08  01:46pm - 2180 days #24
Riffy (1)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 73
Registered: Jul 30, '08
Location: Scotland
Well said Toadsith.

I see where you're coming from.

I'm thinking my watermark is perhaps a wee bit intrusive although not as bad as some.. maybe I'll have a look at this... yes

Thanks
Riffy www.rockchicksandbikerbabes.co.uk

10-12-08  03:22pm - 2180 days #25
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,046
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
I think one thing I see missing is details on solo sites that do not give clear details on the poses etc.
I have joined some sites that look nasty ( a good way) and are tame, then like digital desire for example looks weak and there are some intense very intense solo masterbation scenes but the site look tame by glance. So whhat I am getting at is is it just stripping and boob play or tools and intesity? Inquiring minds would like to know. One being mine and I see it absent from 98% of the sites do not give detail on solos as much as other review for BG GG ETC.

Thanks

10-12-08  03:38pm - 2180 days #26
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Cybertoad:


I think one thing I see missing is details on solo sites that do not give clear details on the poses etc.
I have joined some sites that look nasty ( a good way) and are tame, then like digital desire for example looks weak and there are some intense very intense solo masterbation scenes but the site look tame by glance. So whhat I am getting at is is it just stripping and boob play or tools and intesity? Inquiring minds would like to know. One being mine and I see it absent from 98% of the sites do not give detail on solos as much as other review for BG GG ETC.

Thanks


So you are saying that type of action present on the site should be described in better detail? That seems reasonable enough, the only potential downfall is that what one viewer calls "nasty" another viewer calls "the missionary position". None-the-less, I'll make a note in my PU Cheat Sheet and try to describe a representative scene so the viewers get a taste of what they'd be purchasing, content wise. "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

10-12-08  03:40pm - 2180 days #27
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Riffy:


Well said Toadsith.

I see where you're coming from.

I'm thinking my watermark is perhaps a wee bit intrusive although not as bad as some.. maybe I'll have a look at this... yes

Thanks
Riffy


No prob :-) Always glad to hear from webmasters. Also, do note that, for me at least, a water mark isn't a big issue. It is more of an annoyance at best - with the exceptions of the few that place water marks over the focus of a picture or move it around the picture so you can't learn to ignore it. "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

10-12-08  03:43pm - 2180 days #28
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,046
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by Toadsith:


So you are saying that type of action present on the site should be described in better detail? That seems reasonable enough, the only potential downfall is that what one viewer calls "nasty" another viewer calls "the missionary position". None-the-less, I'll make a note in my PU Cheat Sheet and try to describe a representative scene so the viewers get a taste of what they'd be purchasing, content wise.


I think on sites where its hard to tell whats offered ya that would be nice. Seems that others get confused like 1day for example awsome site but ppl say cons because not allot of BG hardcore. But the site doesnt say BG hardcore lol But if it did have lots and didnt say it , would be nice to know too.

10-12-08  03:46pm - 2180 days #29
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Cybertoad:


I think on sites where its hard to tell whats offered ya that would be nice. Seems that others get confused like 1day for example awsome site but ppl say cons because not allot of BG hardcore. But the site doesnt say BG hardcore lol But if it did have lots and didnt say it , would be nice to know too.


Ah - basically explain when a site's preview page and the actual content differ - gotcha, that makes sense. "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

10-12-08  05:01pm - 2180 days #30
Riffy (1)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 73
Registered: Jul 30, '08
Location: Scotland
Originally Posted by Toadsith:


No prob :-) Always glad to hear from webmasters. Also, do note that, for me at least, a water mark isn't a big issue. It is more of an annoyance at best - with the exceptions of the few that place water marks over the focus of a picture or move it around the picture so you can't learn to ignore it.


Cheers
Just so I've got your complete view on this at least...

What's the LARGEST a watermark can be before its a pain?

What's the best position for it? Bottom right seems most popular? www.rockchicksandbikerbabes.co.uk

10-12-08  06:26pm - 2180 days #31
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,944
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by Riffy:


Cheers
Just so I've got your complete view on this at least...

What's the LARGEST a watermark can be before its a pain?

What's the best position for it? Bottom right seems most popular?


I don't mind too much the use of water marks. It's preferable to DRM's. If the water mark is the kind that's see through then it can take maybe 10% of the screen on either the bottom right or bottom left. If on the other hand it's in a bright color then it has to be less than 10%. A good rule is if the water mark distracts from the action then it's too big, too bright or really badly placed. Long live the Brown Coats.

10-12-08  07:07pm - 2180 days #32
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Riffy:


Cheers
Just so I've got your complete view on this at least...

What's the LARGEST a watermark can be before its a pain?

What's the best position for it? Bottom right seems most popular?


I'd say try to keep it less than 15% of the screen. It should be monochrome and translucent (opacity should be 25%). While most porn producers do like the bottom right, the proper position is bottom left. This is because, humans taught to read standard left to right, top to bottom style writing scan images the same way. That is they look first at center of the top third of the image, then they look at the top left corner and scan down to the bottom right corner. So the bottom left corner is the easiest place to ignore something. To this effect, you'll notice most of the broadcasting companies put their watermark in this position.

I captured a frame from an episode of the FOX Television show "Fringe" and mapped it out a bit.

FOX Watermark on "Fringe" "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

10-13-08  07:53am - 2180 days #33
messmer (137)
Active User



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


I'd say try to keep it less than 15% of the screen. It should be monochrome and translucent (opacity should be 25%). While most porn producers do like the bottom right, the proper position is bottom left. This is because, humans taught to read standard left to right, top to bottom style writing scan images the same way. That is they look first at center of the top third of the image, then they look at the top left corner and scan down to the bottom right corner. So the bottom left corner is the easiest place to ignore something. To this effect, you'll notice most of the broadcasting companies put their watermark in this position.

I captured a frame from an episode of the FOX Television show "Fringe" and mapped it out a bit.

FOX Watermark on "Fringe"


Hey toadsith, my personal view is that 15% would still be too large and I prefer my logos on the bottom right because that's the last place I look at. I hardly notice them there ... as long as they are not 15% of the picture then you can't help but notice. I totally agree when it comes to monochrome and translucent.

And talking about TV, most Canadian broadcasters have their logos on the bottom right and translucent. Edited on Oct 13, 2008, 07:58am

10-13-08  08:56am - 2179 days #34
Riffy (1)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 73
Registered: Jul 30, '08
Location: Scotland
TV watermarks here in Britain tend to be top left and generally pretty unobtrusive. www.rockchicksandbikerbabes.co.uk

10-13-08  10:45am - 2179 days #35
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by messmer:


Hey toadsith, my personal view is that 15% would still be too large and I prefer my logos on the bottom right because that's the last place I look at. I hardly notice them there ... as long as they are not 15% of the picture then you can't help but notice. I totally agree when it comes to monochrome and translucent.


Anything over 15% would be huge - that example image was 8% the width and 6% the heighth of the video. I was just trying to give a maximum cover-all circumstances rule. I think all things considered - everybody knows that the smaller you can get away with the better.

Originally Posted by messmer:


And talking about TV, most Canadian broadcasters have their logos on the bottom right and translucent.


Originally Posted by Riffy:


TV watermarks here in Britain tend to be top left and generally pretty unobtrusive.


I suppose it isn't that surprising that there isn't a world wide standard on this, hell we can't even agree on standardized video formats most of the time. I would still contend that in terms of human perception, the bottom left corner would be the least noticed for most of western society just because of the way we read - but keep the logo quiet and any corner should do fine. "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

10-13-08  12:24pm - 2179 days #36
Monahan (40)
Active User



Posts: 331
Registered: Jan 17, '07
Location: SF Valley, CA
I can accept watermarks, now that I've gotten used to them, and can handle the discretely small ones that appear on most porn these days.

However a practice that seems to have fallen into non-use is the intermittent watermark; one that appears periodically, then goes away. (These days I see it only on in flight movies where a two liner pops on once in a while that says, "Licensed for use on United Airlines (or whatever)")

That way it's less obtrusive and won't cover an important body part during a scene that features energetic consensual sexual activity.

11-25-08  03:33pm - 2136 days #37
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,058
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
Nothing particularly new to add here. Just putting the last bump on this thread to top of threads heap of again.

I also wanted to note that Rick was kind enough to post a link to this thread on the Porn Users Introduction Page under the Reviews heading (here's the link: http://www.pornusers.com/terms.html#reviews ) so hopefully more people will come across it when they first sign up.

Cheers.

11-25-08  07:34pm - 2136 days #38
Khan
PornUsers Staff




Posts: 1,629
Registered: Jan 05, '07
Location: USA
We feel the information in this thread is VERY useful. Especially in letting new Users know what kind of info their fellow Users are looking for.

But for the record ...

Please do NOT feel we're saying what's described here is the only kind of Review we want to see. Each user has their own style and their own level of commitment to writing Reviews. We'd hope no-one is ever reluctant to submit a Review just because they can't (or won't) go to the depths outlined in the posts above. Senior Administrator
PornUsers.com

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

11-25-08  07:49pm - 2136 days #39
TheSquirrel (53)
Active User



Posts: 693
Registered: Oct 29, '08
Location: UK
I think this is a great thread for sure. I agree about the watermarks. I hate them. Now there's only one way to get rid of them. It's the same principal we apply to DRM and sites that use download limits. If you don't like it, don't give the site your money.

I'll be patronising once again and say that's what I like about PU. We find out from reviews what the drawbacks are BEFORE we part with our money. This knowledge gives us an advantage over most. It helps us, but it also helps to improve the porn industry, by directing our money towards sites we consider better quality and more deserving of our money. It is natural selection at work. Almost Darwinist.

11-25-08  08:20pm - 2136 days #40
badandy400 (103)
Active User



Posts: 840
Registered: Mar 02, '08
Location: ohio
Watermarks are annoying to an extent. In videos i actual prefer them, but on in the first few seconds. This is a huge help when it comes to organizing, especially if you organize by website like I do.

However, I did say the first few seconds. Not the entire video such as some people believe is needed. Having it at the onset of the video is enough to get the idea across. Anyone who is willing to spend the time cutting the first few seconds of a video off to get ride of a watermark is willing to remove it from the whole video.

In pictures it is not so bad if it is small and out of the way. It should never, ever come even close to the model. I get SO PISSED OFF when a watermark and in some case a full blown stamp covers the model! "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~

PU Interview

11-25-08  10:41pm - 2136 days #41
IKnoPorn (22)
Active User



Posts: 61
Registered: Jan 15, '07
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted by badandy400:


In pictures it is not so bad if it is small and out of the way. It should never, ever come even close to the model. I get SO PISSED OFF when a watermark and in some case a full blown stamp covers the model!


Ron Harris has the absolutely worst watermark I have ever seen. Typically a HUGE "(C)RONHARRIS.COM" either in the lower right corner, or worse, in his older videos, centered in the lower half of the screen, often OVER the model's genitalia!!! Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb. - Batman

11-26-08  10:29am - 2135 days #42
Monahan (40)
Active User



Posts: 331
Registered: Jan 17, '07
Location: SF Valley, CA
Originally Posted by IKnoPorn:


... centered in the lower half of the screen, often OVER the model's genitalia!!!
Yes. That's not good. It's almost as bad as when the watermark covers her pussy.

;o)

11-26-08  05:00pm - 2135 days #43
Drooler (218)
Active User



Posts: 1,684
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by badandy400:


Watermarks are annoying to an extent. In videos i actual prefer them, but on in the first few seconds. This is a huge help when it comes to organizing, especially if you organize by website like I do.

However, I did say the first few seconds. Not the entire video such as some people believe is needed. Having it at the onset of the video is enough to get the idea across. Anyone who is willing to spend the time cutting the first few seconds of a video off to get ride of a watermark is willing to remove it from the whole video.

In pictures it is not so bad if it is small and out of the way. It should never, ever come even close to the model. I get SO PISSED OFF when a watermark and in some case a full blown stamp covers the model!


You're saying the same thing I've been saying. In pics, the watermark should never be close to the model.

Good watermarks are small. Skokoff, which I recently reviewed, has a nice small one that you don't notice much. It just gives the name of the site, and it's not some garish piece of visual pollution that looks like a mass-produced decal that some 3-year-old runs around and slaps on everything under the sun until one of his parents realizes, in horror, what the little tyke has been up to for the last couple of hours.

Perhaps the worst example I've ever seen was a sub-site called "Banana Babes" or something like that. That thing was awful. Completely ruined what could have been some really nice pics. Makes me think that some people just produce porn, while others are in charge of doing the bit of enjoying it. Or at least trying to.

But even a small and modest watermark can do harm when it's, say, stuck in the model's hair. I don't care how much extra work it is. I say, "Never put the watermark on the model."

I'm waiting for the day when a site uses this as a selling point, showing a pic ("Them") that has the watermark on the model covered by a big, red circle with the slash in the middle, then showing an "Us" pic with the watermark moved safely away, and under that a statement such as "We NEVER put the watermark on the model!" That would be a turning point.

But I do agree that they are helpful in identifying which site the content comes from.

For vids, the first few frames, before the scene begins, can suffice for that purpose. You know: Name of site (cue swishing noise that sounds like one of those doors opening on the starship "Enterprise"), then name of model, then title, and from there, just the scene, please. Good DNA, good T 'n A.

If the scene is going to be any good, the title for it had better have an exclamation mark.
Edited on Nov 26, 2008, 05:11pm

11-26-08  07:38pm - 2135 days #44
IKnoPorn (22)
Active User



Posts: 61
Registered: Jan 15, '07
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted by Drooler:


Good watermarks are small. Skokoff, which I recently reviewed, has a nice small one that you don't notice much. It just gives the name of the site, and it's not some garish piece of visual pollution that looks like a mass-produced decal that some 3-year-old runs around and slaps on everything under the sun until one of his parents realizes, in horror, what the little tyke has been up to for the last couple of hours.


LOL! What a great way of putting it, that's basically what's like, someone that just discovered what spray paint is.

One thing I've seen a couple of times, is instead of a watermark, use the "meta data" that is available for any image, music, or video file. Basically, this meta-data is where the producer/owner can put whatever information they want. For example, in Windows Media Player, there is a tiny area beneath the video where the video maker can place copyright information or whatever the heck they want. What's great about this is, it's kind of like closed captioning, it isn't on top of the imagery you're looking at at all, instead it is on the bottom of the image, and you can even turn it off if you don't like it. Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb. - Batman

11-26-08  07:39pm - 2135 days #45
IKnoPorn (22)
Active User



Posts: 61
Registered: Jan 15, '07
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted by Monahan:


Yes. That's not good. It's almost as bad as when the watermark covers her pussy.

;o)


Sorry, sometimes I watch my language a little too much! Touche! Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb. - Batman

11-27-08  06:07am - 2135 days #46
Drooler (218)
Active User



Posts: 1,684
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by IKnoPorn:


One thing I've seen a couple of times, is instead of a watermark, use the "meta data" that is available for any image, music, or video file. Basically, this meta-data is where the producer/owner can put whatever information they want. For example, in Windows Media Player, there is a tiny area beneath the video where the video maker can place copyright information or whatever the heck they want. What's great about this is, it's kind of like closed captioning, it isn't on top of the imagery you're looking at at all, instead it is on the bottom of the image, and you can even turn it off if you don't like it.


BodyInMind does something similar with photos. Every time you download a zip, they warn you that they embed your ISP info into each pic. (I've not actually seen this info in any of the pics.) Yet they also have a watermark, the kind that stretches across the top (or was that the bottom?) of every image.

If such a thing actually works, it would be nice if it were just a standard feature for all sites. That would help to deter copyright violations, and then I don't believe they'd even need watermarks. Good DNA, good T 'n A.

If the scene is going to be any good, the title for it had better have an exclamation mark.

12-30-08  07:30am - 2101 days #47
ramscrota (12)
Active User



Posts: 54
Registered: Jul 04, '07
Location: Geelong Vic Australia
One vital point about reviews is they must include comments about the QUALITY of the material. By this, I don't just mean the lighting, etc, but whether the photoraphers / videographers have got a genuine sense of the erotic, or whether they seem to be following repetitive standard formulas. For example, I prefer pubis hair, but the real problem is thst most photographers seems to know jackshit about how to photograph a pussy, shaved or not.
Regarding bonus material: I tend to be suspicious of sites that mave truckloads of bonus material - it's usually an indication that their core material is fairly crappy. I prefer less material of HQ, rather than heaps of mediocre rubbish.

12-30-08  06:02pm - 2101 days #48
TheRizzo (23)
Active User

Posts: 44
Registered: Jun 11, '08
Very old thread, but this is why I love Pornusers. More up to date reviews of the sites I like. I do enjoy reading the new/updated TBP reviews when all 4 do a detailed review but I must say sometimes it seems like the 4 TBP reviewers hurry through theirs and miss a lot of key facts/details that you get from the Pornusers side.

One of the biggest faults I find is they get easily confused with the exclusive/non exclusive stuff. Sites that obviously are 95% or better exclusive content get labled as not enough exclusive or mostly licensed and that urks me a bit as it seems to me they rushed their reviews.

Which I can understand as I am sure they have a ton of reviews to do and only so little time to actually spend time looking at the sites.

05-19-09  02:19pm - 1961 days #49
Wittyguy (95)
Active User



Posts: 1,058
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
Yup, pushing this one to the top of the heap again. I just wanted to add a couple of things here.

First, a lot of reviewers here like vids and make very little mention of pics (some of you do, I'm just generalizing here). Some of us like me and Drooler dig our pics. If the site you're reviewing has pics, please take a minute a let us know what size they are (largest size) and the number of sets available. That would be great and fill in some blanks that TBP doesn't yet cover.

Second, not to be Out-Toadsithed I blatantly stole from Toadsiths earlier post (post number 7 above) and put together my own modified "Toadsith Review Cheat Sheet" that adds and subtracts from his original list to provide what I think is a better review platform:

VIDEO CONTENT
* Screen size / resolution and is HD available?
* Any DRM or any download limits?
* Watermarks? (only mention if annoyingly large or block out the action)
* Video Quality? (Crisp, fuzzy, average, etc.)
* Number of Videos? (preferably by category: HC, lez, solo, etc.)
* Full Length Videos or clips or both?
* Streaming video options available if any?
* Avg. Video Length? (Mention only if very short or very long, TBP does mention this in their reviews)
* Download options? (WMV, Mpeg, Quicktime, etc.)
* Download Managers? (only if you tried to use one, Badandy will love you for this)
* Download Speeds? (fast, OK, or slow -- mention download bitrates if consistent and you know what they are)?

PHOTO CONTENT
* Photo Resolution (mention largest size available)?
* Watermarks (only mention if annoyingly large or cover the action)?
* Photo Quality (grainy, poorly lit, sharp, out of focus, etc.)?
* Zip Files and if zip available in multiple photo sizes? If there is a problem with zip names please note this.
* Number of Sets in various categories (hardcore, lez, solo, etc.)
* Matched to Video? (purely optional, also good to know if pics have less action than the vids as they sometimes do).
* Average number of pics per set if possible

SITE DESIGN AND GENERAL QUALITY
* Search Engine? If so, is it good (can search under mulitple options like body type, boob size, action, etc.) or less so (no search or just categories)?
* Search by model name and/or model directory and is directory complete?
* Site Design? (only mention if really bad or really good)
* Update schedule? (once a day, once a week, etc.) and if site, if a network then "sites", is still updating with new content.
* Advertising? (Mention if annoying or too much)
* Cross sales on signup? (always note if this is the case).
* Problems with billing or cancellation? (others might be best served by posting a comment separate from the review).
* Lots of deadlinks or nonloading features? (Again, note only if a problem with this).
* Note if any problems getting timed out on a site so that donwloads can't finish.
* If a network, number of sites and general content on the various sites.

MODELS / CONTENT
* Exclusive content or not so much if you know?
* Originality (only mention if a unique or well done niche)?
* Models Attractiveness?
* Amateur / Professional in terms of models and quality?
* Good Angles or Lighting? (optional, discuss if very good or very bad).

EXTRAS
* Bonus Sites (only mention if decent quality)?


Obviously, this is a bit over the top in terms of what I would expect or even what I do in each review. However, as we all want to be like Toadsith here's a starting point ;)

05-19-09  02:54pm - 1961 days #50
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Wittyguy:


However, as we all want to be like Toadsith here's a starting point ;)


Glee! ^_^ "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

1-50 of 83 Posts Page 1 2 Next Page >
 
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 0.04 seconds.