Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : greg909 (2)  

Feedback:   All (38)  |   Reviews (3)  |   Comments (10)  |   Replies (25)

Other:   Replies Received (36)  |   Trust Ratings (11)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 26-38 of 38 Page :    < Previous Page

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Visit Club Seventeen

Club Seventeen
Reply of spazlabz's Reply

I agree there is some quality content now, and the girls are the most genuinely teen-looking anywhere! But I do have some criticisms still, which I hope you can address:

1. The thumbnails are square and only show about 60% of the represented image. This makes it near impossible to judge what's in the image itself, without actually viewing it. This drove me crazy! Most other sites show full-image thumbnails, so why can't you guys?

2. There are so few sets where we get to see the girls in close, full-frontal without some obstruction in the way (usually a dildo or their hands.) Once undressed, it's straight to the dildo or fingering. Hey, some of this is OK, but almost every set is just annoying. A lot more straight head & pussy views of these great girls, please, without dildos or hands!

3. The site is very, very slow.

Thanks for listening.

02-11-11  03:38pm

Visit Cosplay Deviants

Cosplay Deviants
Reply of tangub's Reply

I'll second that. 900 pixels hardly even qualifies as "small" today. Wake me up when you have 2000 pixels or higher.

10-03-11  04:40pm

Visit FTV Girls

FTV Girls
Reply of EverNight's Review

I did a subscription here recently. The HUGE turnoff for me is that FTV Girls is one of those sites where you can only download the bigger images as a zip file -- the entire gallery or nothing. So it's a loooong download, followed by unzipping, followed by editing and copying, etc. I gave up after a while -- far too much effort.

Also, as the reviewer said, every set is repetative.

03-19-14  10:48am

Visit Girls Dot Com

Girls Dot Com

Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: Some pretty girls -- or at least they would be if you were able to see them clearly
Cons: Extremely poor image quality: they're the kind of picture quality you'd have seen back in early 90s internet sites.

Very limited content. The site boasts about having huge numbers of sets, but what they don't tell you before joining is that those sets are made accessible on a rotating basis. Only a few sets are accessible each month. So you can't even get to most of the old stuff.
Bottom Line: Don't waste your time! This site is paranoid about people downloading lots of its content, so it employs various techniques to prevent members from easily getting to everything. And trust me -- you wouldn't want to anyway, because the image quality is worse than that on most free sites.

11-27-09  11:34am

Replies (1)
Visit Karup's PC

Karup's PC
Reply of Karup's Reply

Good to hear. I hope you will also use a low enough compression that it doesn't strip all the fine detail out. This is a problem on many sites where they boast about big sizes, yet the actual detail is no better than smaller sizes due to too much filtering. I look forward to checking the site out in the future.

12-01-11  09:48am

Visit Karup's PC

Karup's PC
Reply of Karup's Reply

Well it doesn't say what those concerns were. But the biggest concern for most of us is when exactly will Karup increase your images sizes to meet today's expectations (i.e. 3000x2000 or higher)?

11-30-11  06:26pm

Visit Need A Pee

Need A Pee

The Photosets

Just having checked this site out, I found the photosets very disappointing, quality-wise. The preview page says "1200dpi x 1200 dpi" which is pretty meaningless. The images are actually about 1200x900 pixels, which fills about half my screen -- not exactly HD by today's standards! Furthermore, most pics are somewhat blurry (with false sharpening). Also note that of the small number of photosets (33), most are of the same model, called Rebekah.

Actually, I preferred the videos here, and I'm not usually a video man, so that may say something.

12-09-09  11:55am

Replies (1)
Visit Nubiles.net

Reply of messmer's Review

The thing that keeps me away from Nubiles the most is that all the girls are completeley shaved. I mean, even if they had 1 out of 5 models that were natural then it would be nice. But there are none. It's another ALS if you ask me, but with inferior photography.

10-21-11  10:50am

Visit Teen Dreams

Teen Dreams


So what's the actual dimensions of the photos here? And how far back in time do the "ultra HD resolution" photos go? Are they riddled with excessive false sharpening, which I seem to remember from a couple years ago.

Just wondering if it's worth a revisit, although I don't care about the videos.

11-29-09  03:30pm

Replies (2)
Visit We Are Hairy

We Are Hairy

Room for Improvement

I like this site and really want to see it succeed, especially with so few quality hairy sites out there. But more and more, it's starting to feel just like ATK Hairy. Most of the models are the same ones that appeared on ATK a month or so before, and there isn't much turn-around. The same old faces keep reappearing. Also, although the image size is bigger than ATK, the fine detail in pictures just doesn't come anywhere close to what you'd see on Met-art or a few other high-quality sites. This might be down to poor photography, but at 3000 pixels, you should be counting pores on the skin, yet many sets on WAH just look soft in close-up.

The poses are also getting to be quite boring. Every set is much the same, with corny lingerie up to the last page.

As I said, I want this site to succeed and be good, but it's getting too repetitive and the image quality isn't among the top sites. I'll see how it looks in the future.

11-22-10  06:32pm

Replies (6)
Visit Wet And Pissy

Wet And Pissy
Reply of LPee23's Review

I might add that for those of us more into the still pictures, they are mediocre quality at best on this site, and usually miss the best action. As for the videos, great quality, but far too much other stuff like dildos and glasses for my liking.

03-19-14  11:01am

Visit Zemani


Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: - Attractive collection of girls
- Good lighting and composition in most sets
- Site navigation is fine
- I guess the videos are OK, although check out other reviews for those... it's not my scene
- Pictures look OK at 1200 pixel resolution
- A few natural bushes, in addition to the usual dominance of completely shaved models.
Cons: - So-called "poster size" images (the "big" size option) are horrible quality with no fine detail in the vast majority of photosets.
Bottom Line: Sorry, but I just had to blow the cover on this site. The Best Porn gave Zemani's image quality an "A+" which is so, so misleading. (Misleading enough that I signed up in the hope that things were good there now, but I was very disapointed.)

You guys at The Best Porn should take a second look -- you said the images are so sharp even when you zoom in on the big images (which are 4000 pixels or higher.) Well that's because they've applied HEAPS of false sharpening. Maybe 1 or 2 percent of sets are OK, but the other 98% are full of digital artifacts like jagged edges and pixelation in the model's eyes that look like they upscaled the image from a smaller size. Last year I commented on the full-size sample images, and they have taken them off the site now, only offering small samples in pop-up boxes. I'm not surprised. Beware!

It's a shame, because if the images were high quality like Met-art (which they're not) then they'd have a great site because the girls, settings and compositions are just fine.

06-21-11  06:26pm

Replies (2)
Visit Zemani


Picture Quality

Hmm, after reading reviews by you other folks, I checked out the samples on this site. Yes, very disappointing. The so-called "super high-res" 4000 pixel images appear to be just tiny images that have been upscaled to 4000. There's no detail in the images at all.

I really wish more sites that cheat this way (calling pics "high res" when they're not) would be called out over it. Anyone can take a 1000 pixel image and rescale it in Photoshop to 4000 or 6000, but what's the point? We want REAL hi-res, i.e. images that were actually captured at 3000+ with their original fine detail.

06-04-10  02:48pm

Replies (1)

Shown : 26-38 of 38 Page :    < Previous Page

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.


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 0.51 seconds.