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 : skippy (50)  

Feedback:   All (137)  |   Reviews (27)  |   Comments (18)  |   Replies (92)

Other:   Replies Received (85)  |   Trust Ratings (23)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 26-50 of 138 Page :    < Previous Page - Next Page >

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Visit Nextdoor Models

Nextdoor Models

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: Some of the models are really beautiful
Most are at least good looking
Most are natural, not enhanced.
100% original content
Exclusive models as far as I can tell
Reasonable variety of body dimensions
Cons: Well....
Sets are not dated.
Unknown update frequency.
Can't tell if sets are recycled.
No HD found so far
Images and zips are 1600x1067 MAX!!
Navigation is a little clunky
Site is mostly bathing suit and lingerie shots.
Models are not very animated (most just standing)
Softer than soft core...really a bikini site with extras.
Not a particularly good value at $29.95.
Bottom Line: About 210 models and 1475 sets.
Very few videos but all are decent quality.
Sets have between 30 and 120 images.
Vast majority of sets are bikini/lingerie sets.

This is an odd, sort of misidentified site and I just can't understand why they didn't define it better. (Sorry TBP...) Probably 97% of the girls are NOT NUDE! This would be a classic tease or bikini site if it were not for the occasional nude set. Even the nude sets, most of them anyway, are not particularly revealing. I've seen more on the Chive, Maxim or free web sites. Much more. But then, oh wait, there are two or three models that get naked and provide extreme close-ups. Waaaat? What's THAT about? No wonder TBP had such a hard time defining the site. It's like the sock drawer of nude sites! Most things in there match up with a specific genre ou would expect, but rogue loners to make you wonder what's going on....

Maybe the next best way I can define this site, besides as a tease site, is outdated. Navigation is good but not ideal. You can filter the models by odd preferences like "wet" (as in water),"fishnet", "see-thru", "blond" and, oh yea, "nude" and even "extreme close up" which is just wierd compared to the rest of the site. You can't select multiples, so no way to see wet blonds, etc. And "see-thru" applies to a top worn over a bathing suit as often as something you can actually see parts through.

When you select a model, you get a list of her sets. The sets have tags like "fishnet", bathing suit", "nude", etc. that match the search parameters. These are site defined. Select a set and you get the first batch of 30 thumbnails. If there is nudity, it is often very late in the set. Some sets have over 300 images, so you have to go through 10 pages or more to see everything. You can also navigate directly to a page. Or you can download the entire set in a zip file.

The sets are not dated, so you have no idea how old they are. You also don't know how many images are in a set until you look. The image or file sizes are also not listed. The tags are helpful, but "nude" in this case might mean a nip slip. Ad if the model is nude, chances are pretty good that they superglued her legs together. Many of the girls that are nude are all crossed up like they have to pee! Some are only topless. One kind of interesting thing is that the girls may go nude but cover up everything with thier hands....until they turn around. That all of a sudden you'll get this beautiful standing rear view. The photographer seems to have a knack for these rearview shots as they occur pretty consistently in clothed and nude models.

Oh, yeah. The photography. Competent. Nothing special. No photoshopping. Some studio sets. Since most of the girls are clothed, it looks like the photographer often takes the models to a local hotel pool or maybe some gardens someplace. You can tell that many of the model sets were shot on the same day with the same locale. Nothing even remotely exotic in the locations.

Now if you are LOOKING for a bikini site, this one is probably not bad, but the occasional rogue naked close-up model kind of messes up that niche.

If this were my site, I would probably break it up into a "network" of three sites that might include bikini, lingere and nude sites. The price I paid, $29.00 was probably about $10.00-15.00 high considering comparable sites with tens of thousands of high-resolution images and HD videos.

Bottom line? If you are looking for some exclusve non-nude photography and don't mind a little nudity mixed in, this is a good site for you. If you are used to the top softcore sites, pass on this one...at least until the price comes down.

02-08-13  10:32pm

Replies (0)
Visit Passion HD

Passion HD

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: Videos are available in a variety of formats including HD. Models are generally very attractive. A few well known models.
Cons: The advertising seems a little deceptive. There are only about 120 videos on the site, with Videos dating back only to November of 2011. That would be 1-3 videos a week since inception. Videos rarely depict the same imagery as the teaser images they are linked to (in any quantity at least..10 minute video, 5 seconds of a particular angle or shot and that's what they tease you with.).
Bottom Line: Nope, sorry. Stay away from this one until it gets a LOT more content and they tweak the formule a bit. The advertising showing slick scenes, awesome couples or groups and amazing "first person" angles does not really reflect what is on the site.

This site includes some Porn Pro-like footage with the objective of selling it in more of an X-Art.com format. It almost works, but very, very little of the material is...artsy enough to pull it off and only a few of the participants look like they are enjoying themselves or their partners. Look at the images depicting the scenes and you think holy crap this is going to be hot! What you get when you watch are a lot of OK, moderaately dissapointing sex scenes in very similar bright white settings with entirely too much footage from the same angle (across the bed on the side). It is almost clinical! Several of the videos look like they take place in the same rented villa in Arizona or California someplace. When there are several videos of the same girl, they are all pretty clearly from the same day no matter how hard they try to change things up. And much of the sex, which should be OMG hot, ends up looking like acting...mediocre acting...not that the industry has any really great acting, but the couples should at least be into each other.

There are a few models you would recognize; Zoey and Jessie, for example. I have NEVER seen Jessie or Zoey, two young, vibrant, energetic and attractive models, not entirely enjoying themselves...except here. Here the sex looks like work. (Jessie has a scene where 90% of the time she is getting screwed on a piano bench with her head slamming against a baby grand piano. That So did not look comfortable or fun!)

I rarely find a site that I can't recommend. Unfortunately, I can't recommend this one.

09-18-12  08:32pm

Replies (2)
Visit 18X Girls

18X Girls

Status: Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: Some nicely done videos
Some great looking models
Decent collection
Cons: This is actually a referral site.
All or most of the content is from third party libraries or sites getting referrals.
Site layout and navigation is inconsistent and generally awful.
Preview page is not representative of content
Preview page makes many models look under 18 (scary)

Update 3 times a week, maybe.

Cross selling on every page. (From the sites with the content)
Bottom Line: I've reviewed a pretty significant number of websites, So I hope the PU webmasters understand that as the consumer reports of porn, they need to watch out for misrepresentation.

At first, this seems like one of those sites that is trying to model itself in the image of WOW or W4B. The recent videos, though not exclusive, are very nicely done and follow that genre.

There is a section called DVD movies. Click on it and you are taken to an area with commercial streaming DVDs. It is a really poorly implemented area, though, because each video includes an option for HD, but generates an error when you click on HD. These are mostly old DVD from before 2008 or so, probably from a commercial re-licenser/aggregator.

Then, as you navigate through the site, there is also a large collection of videos that generally remind me of the stuff you can find on RedTube or other free sites. It is not bad, but I've seen much of it elsewhere. Funny thing...once there, you can't get back to the main page. This is because you are no longer on 18X. You are actually on a different site called Webmaster central. Another content aggregator. Another funny thing. Many of the videos have the lower corner blurred out or have been cropped to eliminate a watermark. This is probably because the aggregator bought the rights to these videos from sites that no longer exist.

But here is where the really sleazy website garbage comes in...stuff this site deserves to get slammed for. The Thai girl on the preview page named Eaw is not on the site. She can only be found by clicking on the "tour videos" link at the top. "tour videos" interesting description. I'm thinking it really means "Browse videos".... Ah, there she is, 2nd one down. Click on it, and up comes a video of the girl and some screen shots along with "click here for more" So I click on it and....What the fuck?...I'm redirected to a site called "Thai Girls Wild" and invited to join! Are you f-ing kidding me!!?? There below Eaw is a nearly famous picture of the beautiful Melena from Met-Art, also on the preview page. I follow the link and, BAM, it actually takes me to a Met-Art sign-up page! The girl on the top of the page, named Alyssa Hart here, is actually a referral to a site called Petite18.com.

Wow, so I've paid to see models from the preview page who are actually not on this site at all except for a few images and one video that are REALLY on sites that are paying this site for referrals. NOPE! NOPE! NOPE! DON'T DO THAT! IT IS AMONG THE MOST DECEPTIVE THINGS A PORN SITE CAN DO!

So...bottom line? Well, as far as I can tell, there is either no or very little original content on this site. It is an aggregation of libraries and referral agreements that provide content from other sites. And in addition to that, the site is deceptively advertising models on its preview page that are actually bait images for referrals to other sites.

As unlikely as I think this is,it is entirely possible that the webmasters of this site do have some unique content, are trying to create something and are only a referral site while they build up their collection. If that is the case, I apologize. However, you are deceiving people and my score reflects my disgust for this kind of deception.

I have never had to say this in a review before, but STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS SITE!

12-06-14  06:13pm

Replies (1)
N/A Reply of skippy's Poll

I think this may be a case of different strokes for different folks, but I do get pretty disappointed when I see a really beautiful, pristine model with a new, blatantly obvious tattoo. Example: Melena Morgan pre-tattoos? Awesomely beautiful. Malena Morgan with tattoos? Either clearly branded as a porn star or spending a lot of time on the softer sites covering them up.
A lot of these girls don't realize that they are their own canvas. It is what makes them so amazing. The minute they agree to be somebody else's canvas, it takes some, sometimes ALL, of that amazing away. Or maybe to put it more directly...when have you ever heard anyone say "That girl was hot before but that new tattoo makes her look even better!" Yup....never.

06-26-15  06:09pm

N/A Reply of Denner's Poll

I find that the TBP reviews are a little too positive sometimes, but there are often very well written PU reviews. In the end, you have to take a leap of faith no matter how good the reviews and previews are, but it helps a lot to have both professional and PU reviews.
The Better Business Bureau and Yelp have both been proven to accept payment for a higher score. I don't really think that happens in porn site reviews....yet. A site can plant a positive user review (which you can usually see through), but for the most part, I like how honest the user reviews are.

06-06-15  06:37am

N/A Reply of surferman's Poll

It depends entirely on the scene and the purpose of the video. POV scenes, for example, often don't have much of a set up but sometimes, like in a few of the W4B videos, the set up adds a lot to the scene. So I had to answer "other".

06-06-15  06:06am

N/A Reply of LPee23's Poll

I'm on the fence about this one for two reasons.

Many of you remember Savannah. Those who don't should look her up. She was an amazing porn star that committed suicide in 1994. Would it not make sense to remove her images? I had a lot of pictures of her but the thought that she blew her brains out made them considerably less appealing.

In other cases, some models request to have their images removed after they retire and move on. Marketa Belonoha is probably the best example of a spectacular model who has moved out of nude modeling and has asked the sites that showcased her to take down her images. Many sites honored that request but many did not. (She had a micro-site called Marketa4U.com in the Watch4Beauty network but took that down.) These day's you can't hide your past, but I think it is respectable to try to hide it from your kids until they are old enough to understand. Cases like these are reasonable when it comes to taking models off sites. (Marketa was one of my all-time favorite models, so I already have nearly every image ever shot of her.)

Other good reasons for pulling models include that they were minors when the shoot occurred or that the model release or image sale to that particular web site was disputed/pirated. Occasionally, when a site is sold, there are disputes about who actually owns the rights to the images (i.e. the site or a past partner in the site). That happens remarkably often and the safest thing is for the sites to remove the disputed images.

All that said, I do not think that old shoots should be arbitrarily pulled unless the quality is so bad the images or models degrade the impression of a web site. I just went back and looked at some Penthouse stuff shot in the mid-90's. Great stuff, but the images are 600x400 MAX so they have been remanded to the deep archives. What do you do with that stuff? If the originals can't be re-scanned, then I have a hard time blaming the sites for removing them.

The good news is that there is a shitload of great, new, high-resolution stuff out there and in terms of disk space it is pretty much doubling every year. We all like our old favorites, but there is a new girl somewhere getting naked for us every day!

Shit. Another novel. Sorry!

05-31-15  06:48pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Funny thing. I think we all trust CCBill and Epoch because we have used them so much and know what to do when it comes to cross-listings and cancellations, everyone's biggest gripes. CCBill and Epoch have their own sites where you can find your subscriptions and cancel them without having to go through the web site you signed up with. Most of the other billers exist because a) they undercut the above two with lower fees to the web site, b) the web sites don't want to make it too easy for you to cancel, or c) it is the web site's own billing system, so both. Using that logic, I always have to think twice before signing up with a different biller.

I have been screwed out of a couple of hundred bucks by websites/billers that have no clear cancel process, that require you to PHONE them several days in advance to cancel, or that cross list and don't send you any kind of email that you have subscribed to something other than what you intended. CCBIll and Epoch don't do that. (And no matter how careful you are, some sites manipulate their pages in an effort to trick you into a cross-listing. The most common is the "oh, you got that wrong" trick where they show you an entry error, but FAIL to highlight that the cross-listings have quietly been rechecked.) With CCBill and Epoch, you can point this out to them immediately when you sign up and they will reverse it or you can at least see the extra subscription on the biller's site and cancel it before you are charged the big monthly fee. Good luck with other billers.

A simple analogy is that when I buy something on eBay, I expect to be able to pay for it with Paypal. If an eBay seller doesn't use Paypal, I really have to wonder why. As an eBay seller, I use Paypal to ensure that people know they can pay for it easily and that they get all the buyer guarantees that come with it. CCBill and Epoch are the Paypal of porn. Most webmasters who don't use CCBill or Epoch are at the very least, being cheap and at worst, trying to get an extra month's subscription or perhaps a cross-listing fee out of you by making it harder to cancel.

All that said, if a new biller sends me an email with my sign-up information when I sign up and has a separate site that allows me to cancel easily, I will gladly use it. I just can't think of a good one other than the CCBill or Epoch.

Wow, what a novel! Sorry!

05-31-15  05:41pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

OK, everybody here needs to look up "Illusory Superiority" right now. (I'm joking, but look it up anyway.)

05-21-15  09:59pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

I have a large house with 6 wireless access points and 3 SSIDs including a guest network for my kids friends to use. It is all tied to gigabit Ethernet run into most rooms (I still prefer wired connections when possible). I have a dedicated Windows server for audio, video and Tivo file storage (about 16 Terabytes now)in an A/V closet that includes whole-house audio and a managed Cisco gigabit switch with POE. I just checked and there are 28 DHCP lease connections including A/V components (stereos, Blu-ray players, TVs and 3 Tivos), 4 game consoles, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads, a Nook and 7 computers....all connected through a Docsis 3 router to one really shitty Comcast cable connection. I guess that would make me a computer nerd. When I load Net-stumbler onto one of my laptops, I can see 18 different wireless networks from my bedroom and I live on a pretty big piece of land. Apparently, I am surrounded by nerds, too. If you live in an apartment, grab a copy of net-stumbler so you can identify the least used wireless channels and reduce interference from your neighbors.

05-21-15  09:51pm

N/A Reply of Zaphodd42's Poll

Free sites provide an opportunity to see new things that you would not ordinarily see in your proverbial back yard. The new higher end sites like Watch 4 Beauty post on the free sites and draw a lot of customers that way. Now days the POV sites are the big deal. I will also sometimes scan free sites for interesting models, then go to one of the porn wiki sites to find out where the model is. Found some interesting sites that way.

05-21-15  09:25pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Sorry, but Keds, Sketchers, hi-tops, anyting sneaker-ish is just absurd. Nice heels or barefoot is fine.

05-21-15  09:18pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Does a 4G cell connection count? I'll go to Reddit or Tumblr on a public wifi or 4G but very discreetly.

05-21-15  09:17pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

A few of my favorite models are total stunners but have tiny scars in one place or another (i.e. leg or knee). By looking for and finding the scars, I can tell whether the images are PhotoShopped. Same with moles. No moles at all? Probably shopped.

05-21-15  09:13pm

N/A Reply of careylowell's Poll

It is very annoying to me that the price of the European sites have not gone down much. The only occasional deal is in annual subscriptions.

05-21-15  09:07pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Frequent to me means at least daily. Once a day would be daily. Multiple times a day? What would you call that?

05-21-15  09:04pm

N/A Reply of Cybertoad's Poll

Wow. Porn destroys a lot of beautiful women but some are just amazing for a decade or more. This may also depend on the intensity of the activity. Some exceptional European photo models are still going strong after 10+ years, but they just do photos and solo videos. Personality has so much to do with it. Smart, interesting ones that control their careers can go the distance.

05-21-15  09:00pm

Visit DDF Network

DDF Network
Reply of RustyJ's Reply

Hey RustyJ, I think you hit the nail on the head with the feel in House of Taboo. It is glam bondage. There is a lot of make-up and nice fetish clothing but no real roughness at all. (Straight peeing should not be in this category these days.) But here's the deal. Even with light bondage, the model needs to be tied up well or tied firmly to something. Bondage is about trust, after all and faking bondage destroys the trust concept. When I look at the images here, many, many of them show a girl in handcuffs that aren't clasped or a girl tied in a way that she can clearly slip her hands or legs out of. And seeing a girl that is tied up suddenly slip free and masturbate SO defeats the purpose of the set. Yes, Kink.com is pretty brutal and the models are usually not glamorous, but there are other sites that strike a MUCH better balance between fake glam and "OMG she's tied down tight to that machine and has come so many times she's drooling uncontrollably" bondage. I'm not a huge Hustler fan, but the Hustler Taboo site does glam bondage pretty well. Check it out if you haven't already.

05-21-15  08:38pm

N/A Reply of LPee23's Poll

Watching American porn where the girls talk (as in, talk at YOU) in English is great, but many American models are...um...too enhanced. The volume of young, fresh, natural interesting European models is just amazing. One category you missed is Brazilian. Holy shit some of those women are unbelievable...even with the enhancements.

05-21-15  08:21pm

N/A Reply of Monahan's Poll

I have three that I now buy annual subscriptions to...no brainer when they go on sale for, like, $89.00 a year (that's three months if buying monthly). Then I buy monthly subscriptions when I see something interesting, so I probably have 4-5 at a time.

05-21-15  08:14pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

I have several home-built computers and keep them for 5+ years but do incremental upgrades between major overhauls. I bought the fastest AMD CPU made about 2 years ago and it is still up there, so I recently upgraded the motherboard (new chipset), memory and installed 2 SSD drives...one for the OS and one for cache. The thing boots up in 7 seconds and pegs the top of the Microsoft Experience index (for what that is worth) at 7.9 in every category. The biggest bang for the buck speed-wise these days is in Solid State drives. Just upgrade your drive. Seriously. Do it.

05-21-15  08:07pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

The problem with the 3D technology sites use today is that it is old tech, as in red-blue tech. I have not seen any decent polarized (modern TV) 3D porn yet. Making polarized 3D look real takes a LOT of processing power when rendering (creating) and a decent amount when displaying. I'm not sure the industry can afford it.

05-21-15  07:56pm

N/A Reply of Drooler's Poll

A lot of sites don't really separate video from photo updates, so it is really by the image or thumbnail. It also depends a lot on what I'm in the mood for. Some sites are predominantly video so I will browse until I find a model I like and then browse for more of her. Bottom line though, it is the thumbnail that decides if I click to watch the video. There has to be something really appealing in that thumbnail for me to click on it.

05-21-15  07:42pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

It's all about the package. There needs to be beauty, some softness and some firmness. ...and absolutely no hard steroid face. Huge muscles on a girl? Pass. Ballet dancer body? Yes, please. Flexibility turns me on, too. There are a couple of girls on Met Art that are athletic and flexible but not too muscular.

05-16-15  01:08pm

Visit DDF Network

DDF Network

OK, fixed and signed up at $24.99

I got a nice reply from the webmaster (thank you!) and finally signed up at $24.99. So far, I like what I see!

04-23-15  06:56pm

Replies (1)

Shown : 26-50 of 138 Page :    < Previous Page - Next 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 0.74 seconds.