| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
Reality Kings
(10)
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Comment
What is the euphoria about?
OK, the price is fine but…
A: There is a daily download limit xMB, which is not mentioned anywhere – I think – and that xMB include the entire bunch of sites… I.e. a little bit from here and a little bit from there – adding up to xMB and you are out for 24 hours.
B: The server they use for uploading (to discount customers only?) must be 10-15 years old – offering a measly (up to!) 750 kB/s. Very frustrating if you have a download capacity of 20MB/s!
C: My download manager (IDM) does not seem to work with rk.com – and that is a first.
Besides,
1. I am sick and tired of seeing all the commercial crap that clutters each and every page.
2. More of the ‘sickening stuff: “voted World’s Best Porn Site” – That must have been done by someone with very little experience of what is on offer out there!
AMEN!
|
05-24-10 11:22am
|
Reply
2
|
Asian Apple Seed
(0)
|
Reply of
stefanzo's Comment
Your comments saved me US$40 in money...
and a ship load of GRIEF!
Thank you!
|
05-09-09 01:23am
|
Reply
3
|
G Queen
(0)
|
Reply of
WeeWillyWinky's Review
I am amazed.
In your 'review/cons:' you have NOT mentioned that the site has a daily download limit of 1.5 GB.
That, if anything, is a con!
|
04-05-09 06:27am
|
Reply
4
|
LBFM
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
There has been a mix-up.
The prices given by the editors are the prices for 'lbfm' - not 'g-queen'!
The correct prices are on page http://www2.g-queen.com/eng/join.html
|
10-28-08 07:53am
|
Reply
5
|
LBFM
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Thanks, it is a start...but did you got the price right?
|
10-27-08 06:42pm
|
Reply
6
|
LBFM
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
Firstly I want to apologize for not having noticed before that ‘www2.g-queen.com’ has a daily download limit of 1.5GB (the last item on F.A.Q.), which makes the site less interesting: No information is given about the video clips sizes, which makes one doubt if it is possible to download the lot (presently 121 of them) within a month.
That apart, (I quote “…something that is not truly unique…”) maybe you would be generous enough to let me know where else one may find a plentitude of Shaved Japanese girls?
I have seen enough amateurish drivel (“reviews”) to let myself into that business. It is, in my opinion, better left to the professionals. Besides – they are paid for it.
|
10-26-08 06:07pm
|
Reply
7
|
LBFM
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
An email was sent to the admin. @ TBP before my comments were posted.
|
10-26-08 11:06am
|
Comment
8
|
LBFM
(0)
|
|
10-25-08 02:31pm
Replies (10)
|
Comment
9
|
Little Lupe
(0)
|
|
08-24-08 10:10am
Replies (1)
|
Comment
10
|
Club Jenna
(0)
|
|
08-09-08 04:22pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
11
|
Rachel Aziani
(1)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
Hello badandy400,
My disappointment with reviews in general is based on the lack of (visible) consistency or accountability in the setting of scores. TBP for example do not show on what criteria they give scores. (‘Porninspector’ does something like it, but not enough.)
On whatever grounds you use (download speed, DVD quality, HD and so on)… If a table is set up - showing the scores (0-10/10, or 0-100/100 etc.) - and the same table structure is used over the board one gets COMPATIBLE results. The AVERAGE gives the score…
Let’s look at what happens when a new factor, like HD, comes in to the valuation;
At present you have no room for manoeuvre. (You have “painted yourself into a corner”.) With a template, as suggested, you don’t have that problem as you simply add HD to the template. – That’s basics in any valuation process.
Your point about Criticising or Creating a review is taken. My reason for not doing the latter is that I have neither time nor interest for it. Besides, I leave that to you guys. You are paid for it (I hope...).
If I have to choose between Camaro and Firebird, I stick to my bike until I have enough money to by a proper car like BMW or Mercedes…
I should not have bothered with Rachel Aziani in my last posting – I had not done so before.
My visit to Rachel Aziani was just a sidekick to AZIANI.com.
My comment to ‘ace of aces’ was as a reply to his childish previous remark, and ‘13’ is the impression I got of his mental age. I do not apologise for it.
|
08-04-08 05:52pm
|
Comment
12
|
Oye Loca
(1)
|
|
08-04-08 02:54pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
13
|
VideoBox
(11)
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
Thanks Wittyguy.
I do not spend much time in this club and am therefore not well versed in moving around.
Could you let me know how I reach "Sites that Charge More in Eur than US"?
|
08-04-08 02:15pm
|
Reply
14
|
VideoBox
(11)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Well, I don't agree with you about the Japanese videos in general as the 'hairsuite' is not to my liking.
But do I agree with you about the male fuckers in American porn videos.
I could not for my life call them 'performers' as they obvioulsy - not beleiving their luck - fuck for pleasure. And to add to their disgrace, some of them seem to have obtained an ego larger than Rhode Island.
Where does the business get all these disgusting freaks/creepes from?
I really feel sorry for the girls who have to put up with it...
If that is the power of the 'mighty'$, I am immensely thankful to my parents: that I was not born or bred in the $ zone.
|
08-02-08 08:14pm
|
Reply
15
|
VideoBox
(11)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
Hello fellow pornuser,
It surprises me that anybody actually listen to any of the sound crap, which is added on to porn videos.
It must be @ least thirty years ago when I found that the usage of the 'mute' button vastly enhanced the viewing of porn videos.
...and so it is going to be - for ever!
|
08-02-08 07:49pm
|
Comment
16
|
VideoBox
(11)
|
|
08-02-08 07:33pm
Replies (4)
|
Reply
17
|
Rachel Aziani
(1)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
Aren't you too young for this?
I get the impression that you can hardly be older than 13 years of age.
|
08-02-08 06:54pm
|
Reply
18
|
Rachel Aziani
(1)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
The intelligent reader would have concluded that I was not 'bitching' about Videobox, but gave an example of how reviewers manage to paint themselves into a corner.
At first I thought "Why bother?", but for your benefit I shall explore;
As I was replying to 'ace of aces' 'review' on this site...what would be the point of making a statement, or comment, to the aforementioned 'review', on the Videobox site?
I have previously declared (nearly) all and every 'problem' I have with the 'Rachel Aziani' site... Although I could add that it is a bit too repetetive, but then again, that is just how it is with all the single model sites.
If anything, I should add to my original comment to 'ace of aces' 'review': What "hardcore"? The closest to it I have seen would not even shock a religious fanatic.
As for 'bitching' about Videobox...
1. I don't really have much critisism about the site, but what I have, I shall account for when it comes to that - probably in September this year.
2. As I mentioned before, I am not happy with the inflation of points given to websites by reviewers in general. Unfortunately I have not found a proper forum, where to vent and/or discuss these matters. As it stands, the whole point system is, if anything, ridiculus.
More often than not, sites are not compatible on the same criteria - although they are given points as if they were.
As an example;
Presently I am subscribing to xmovies.com, which TBP has given a score of 86.3. (I cannot make out what the 86.3 relates to.)
In comparison with Videobox, which has a TBP score of 98.0 one is led to believe that Videobox is vastly superior to xmovies.com. I, however, do not see it in such easy terms.
Whilst Videobox is outstanding in it's quantity of videos as well as how they handle their data base, it is comparably shortcoming in other aspects, where xmovies.com excels like website speed, download speed and quality of video clips, and not least; an actual, working and polite customer service (24/7!).
Between the two, I have come to the conclusion that, for the best result, one should work the two places in tandem. AMEN!
|
08-02-08 06:44pm
|
Comment
19
|
Oye Loca
(1)
|
|
08-02-08 05:21pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
20
|
Rachel Aziani
(1)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
A "review" should be as objective as possible.
Else it is not a 'review' but an opinion.
Having got your point of view clarified, I shall not bother any further to read any of your "reviews" as I can se no value in them.
|
07-02-08 04:10pm
|
Reply
21
|
All Internal
(0)
|
Reply of
Flimo's Comment
Can only say one thing about it:
Don't go there if you are European.
Even for us, who are in the United Kingdom, they charge in Euros - despite our currency is GBP.
Some time ago I wrote to these guys and asked how they could justify this excess charge for Europeans - and got a load of waffle in return.
Asking them if they charge the Japanese the same amount in Yen, I had no reply...
|
07-01-08 06:31pm
|
Reply
22
|
Rachel Aziani
(1)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Review
What a load of rubbish! (If the '99' is out of 100.)
I have previously complained about the trend among all (professional) website reviewers.
'Ace of aces' have obviously fallen into the same trap.
A typical example is 'VideoBox', which is given 98/100 by TBP.
Shortcomings @ 'VideoBox';
1. Not all videos are of DVD quality.
2. Many 'updates' are 'recycled' old videos.
3. ...and last, but not least: No HD quality to be seen anywhere!
In conclusion I ask; would an adjustment (improvement) with regard to the 'shortcomings' only be worth 2% - or less?
Obviously not.
|
07-01-08 05:00pm
|
Reply
23
|
Rachel Aziani
(1)
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Comment
Hi,
TBP has got the figures wrong.
Presently there is a trial offer @$4.95 for both the Aziani sites.
|
07-01-08 04:19pm
|
Comment
24
|
Rachel Aziani
(1)
|
|
07-01-08 04:16pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
25
|
Oriental Orgy
(0)
|
|
05-11-08 01:26pm
Replies (0)
|
