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).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : Marcus (45)  

Feedback:   All (398)  |   Reviews (23)  |   Comments (19)  |   Replies (356)

Other:   Replies Received (159)  |   Trust Ratings (24)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 26-50 of 403 Page :    < Previous Page - Next Page >

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Review
26
Visit Sexy Pattycake

Sexy Pattycake
(0)

60.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Updated: 03-10-12  04:12am  (Update History)
Reason: Comprehensive rewrite as am a current member
Pros: - Good balance of photos and videos, all of which is downloadable
- Patty is a very pretty, young-looking blonde non-nude tease
- Gets very close to nude while leaving something to the imagination
- Website takes full advantage of her eternal youthful looks
- Features forum and blog, both of which are active
Cons: - Website seems stuck in the 90s in many respects
- Most videos are short and poor quality
- Photo galleries are tiny, normally with only 30-40 pictures
- Slow update schedule compared even to other sole tease sites
- Some content is 'limited time' so won't appear in archive
- Best content is saved for overly expensive downloadable ZIPs
Bottom Line: I must admit I have a soft-spot for Patty, but this a hugely disappointing website offering content that might have been acceptable 10 years ago, but is definitely a long way behind what I'd expect in 2012, even bearing in mind this is a solo website.

Membership costs $29 via CCBill. Do not get fooled by the offer of discounts for long-term members - you save only $2 for every six months you remain a member (maximum two discounts).

Frankly, the content and number of updates don't warrant a six-month membership, and if you do want to remain a member for several months, then you can save $22 by buying their 90-day membership.

Their preview area is probably a fairly accurate representation of their member's site. Once inside, you have options at the top for a blog, bio, photos, videos, webcam and forum.

The bio has full stats for Patty (height, weight, vital stats), favourite films etc, plus a short introduction. The blog is a relatively new addition to the site and is updated occasionally with thoughts from Patty and a few candid pictures.

There are around 200 galleries, but not a single gallery I viewed had over 50 photos. The photos themselves are only 1024px on their longest side, which is pretty low-fi nowadays, even on my little monitor. I can't think of any other website that consistently offers such low-res photos in such small galleries. The photo content is good, but you feel like you're only getting half of the story as there are so few photos.

Navigation-wise, galleries are arranged onto 13 pages with a thumbnail gallery of photos. You can save all pictures, but there are no downloadable ZIPs.

Content-wise Patty is a great tease. She must be in her late 20s now, but hasn't aged at all. Most galleries have her removing her underwear, there are handbras, implied nudity and often slips here-and-there. Sometimes she'll have a dildo or something, but from what I've seen there's no insertion.

They definitely take advantage of her youthful looks. Lots of candy colours, Patty wearing bunny ears, posing in front of cuddly toys, lots of Hello Kitty backgrounds etc.

Video-wise, there are around 250 videos, which - at best - are only OK quality-wise. The very best quality is 768px wide which, again, is very low quality for 2012. Most videos (and I mean around 200 of the 250 available) are 352px which, for videos released in 2010, is very bad (and I don't have particularly demanding standards, either).

Most of the videos are her stripping on a bed, playing in the shower or doing a strip tease to teeny bop music. She's pretty good, and there are nip slips scattered throughout the latter videos, but the quality is poor to the point there's little-or-no pay-off in that respect.

Most of the scenes are split into two-or-three parts. With other updates in between, along with a pretty pedestrian update schedule, it's likely to be several months until you manage to download the whole scene.

The videos are arrange chronologically, with a thumbnail preview and an option to stream a few of the newer ones. Only one format is downloadable (MP4 for newer videos, MPG for the majority), no indication of file size (although most are 50-200mb) or running time (most are 5min long), and no description other than the video title.

There is a section for webcams, which is an archive of screenshots from her webcams. Most of the webcams seem to just be the same as her videos or galleries, but there are hundreds and hundreds of small (600px wide), blury screenshots. No videos and no clue as to where her webcams are available or when the next show is.

The forum is active, and Patty clearly has passionate fans. No input from what I can see from Patty herself though, and although there's a 'Patty Tweets' thing on the membership homepage, I'm not sure if she's on Twitter or not as there's no link to it, so I think it's just a kinda member's only news feed. No sign of interaction here, either.

Unfortunately, the best content is saved for ZIPs which have to be bought on top of membership. There are discounts for members, but at $35, it's still hugely expensive and 'In Training', though hot, was hardly on another level to what's available on her site. Another cynical aspect by her webmasters is splitting member's videos into 3 parts, so with updates in between, you have to remain a member for months to get a whole scene.

To summarise, Patty is wonderful, but her website is hugely disappointing, particularly compared to other solo tease websites. A lot of the content is pretty samey, the update schedule of one update a week maximum is pretty disappointing, as is most of the content.

680x354 videos, 1024x680 pictures and 30 pictures per gallery might have been OK ten years ago, but definitely aren't in 2012.

Patty's site is a jack of all trades, master of none. The video content, pictures and interaction from Patty are all below average. Patty is great, but her website has hardly moved with the times.

01-01-12  09:12am

Replies (2)
Review
27
Visit Bryci

Bryci
(2)

60.0
Status: Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
Pros: - Bryci is incredible hot with a great body
- Lots of content, good balance of pics and vids
- Good value with lots of other girls too
Cons: Awful webmaster. I had problems with my ADSL and my IP number was blocked. No problem I thought, and emailed the webmaster. He basically called me a liar and a thief and wouldn't humour me at all. I understand the need to protect content, but the way it was dealt with was totally over the top. I explained what happened, even listed the 10-or-so videos I had downloaded to prove only I had been a member but he wouldn't even listen. A huge shame as it's a great site
Bottom Line: An incredible website but let down by an incredibly arrogant webmaster. It was a huge shame because it was definitely the kind of website I could see myself joining and rejoining constantly.

12-31-11  07:10am

Replies (4)
Review
28
Visit Anna Angel

Anna Angel
(0)

55.0
Status: Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
Pros: - Anna is incredibly hot with a fantastic body
- Large archive of content and videos
Cons: - Unable to save pictures as they're sliced up into mosaics - essentially you cannot save ANY pictures or ANY videos
- No 'new' content being added
- Anna has gone to ground - no updates or interaction from her now
Bottom Line: This website has had a high fall from grace. It was once one of the best at looking after members, constantly updating - it was a masterclass in amateur websites.

Sadly you are no longer able to save ANY content (not even photos) and Anna and the webmaster no longer seem to care about their members. A real shame.

12-31-11  07:32am

Replies (3)
Reply
29
N/A Reply of Drooler's Poll

One of my girlfriends looked like Sarah Peachez. Coincidentally her name was Sarah too. She was incredibly promiscuous, had a lot of fun with her in the few years that we were together :)

09-16-14  09:56pm

Reply
30
Visit Facial Abuse

Facial Abuse
(1)
Reply of pornpundit's Comment

I suspect it is probably because sites glorifying 'abuse' are likely to get blocked in certain countries (eg, the UK).

09-01-14  01:42pm

Reply
31
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

I think so, yes, when you consider that your porno pound goes towards paying the models/talent gets their fair share, the webmaster(s) get their cut, any outfits and props, any studios they may need, the photography equipment, the web hosting and bandwidth plus probably a million other things I've forgotten.

09-01-14  12:52pm

Reply
32
Visit Brazzers

Brazzers
(4)
Reply of Roberto281's Comment

Wow, let us know the outcome for this. If it's true, it's yet another example of cynical, sneaky 'customer service' whereby they try and trick more money out of subscribers.

And these websites wonder why subscriptions are down. Yes, piracy and tube sites have a lot to answer for, but my list of sites that I will not join is getting longer and longer by the day and Brazzers is on the verge of being added too.


08-19-14  11:22pm

Reply
33
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Most of the sites I join are solo sites, and honestly, most have a pretty lousy track-record of updating in that I have often joined just as they stop updating. The idea that this could happen when I commit to a 3-month membership really puts me off.

With the big network sites, I normally dip in-and-out membership-wise, so I'll join for a month, catch up with updates, then rejoin a few months later.

Also, I don't normally like to have more than one or two memberships at the same time, so I don't like to put all my eggs in one basket.


08-17-14  01:31am

Reply
34
N/A Reply of Drooler's Poll

I really like it, so long as it's not a substitute for a real update. For me, a model's personality is really important and it's a big reason why I like models like Riley Reid.

08-15-14  09:31am

Reply
35
N/A Reply of Monahan's Poll

Twice, and both times it was resolved. First time was with Chica's Place, and they sorted it pretty much immediately. The other time it was with Bryci's site which was sorted after quite a protracted discussion.

08-13-14  11:41pm

Reply
36
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

I completely agree with Pat, I voted no too. It's not the same thing, plus 95% of the women who will take advantage of being able to go topless will probably be the ones we'd prefer not to.

08-09-14  06:12am

Reply
37
N/A Reply of surferman's Poll

I said not important at all, but that isn't to say I don't mind scenes with a narrative to them.

08-06-14  12:43pm

Reply
38
N/A Reply of Wittyguy's Poll

Probably 60% hardcore, and 40% solo.

08-02-14  01:08pm

Reply
39
N/A Reply of Drooler's Poll

Videos, normally. If it's a network site, then by model videos.

07-28-14  12:58am

Reply
40
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Some are, I guess. I like athletic figures (a lot of female sports stars/athletes for example) and fitness models like Zuzka. So long as they're still feminine, though.

07-10-14  03:01pm

Reply
41
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Not really interested in its current form, but I wouldn't write it off completely, particularly if there's still an option for 2D. I voted for 'only slightly interested'

07-05-14  12:26am

Reply
42
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

1, but it's dead, so strictly speaking it's a doorstop.

06-19-14  11:43pm

Reply
43
N/A Reply of Cybertoad's Poll

Surprised there's no 'none' option, so I've voted 'other'

06-08-14  02:31pm

Reply
44
Visit Evil Angel

Evil Angel
(5)
Reply of ghosty's Comment

Good to know - regional pricing is pretty annoying, particularly with examples like this. Presumably you complained in response to their reply? If so, what was their response?

06-03-14  11:08pm

Reply
45
N/A Reply of Cybertoad's Poll

I always try and organise as I download, but sometimes, where it isn't possible to right-click download to target, it will end up in my downloads folder, then I'll move into the appropriate place within a day-or-two.

06-01-14  12:33am

Reply
46
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Depends on the type of site. Daily to several times a week for a network, while weekly (several times a month) I'd say is frequent for a solo/amateur site.

05-28-14  03:02pm

Reply
47
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

C for me, although B is a close second. Honestly, I'm not generally too fussy at all - shape is the most important aspect to me (more than size).

05-20-14  12:56pm

Reply
48
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Cropped thumbnails are pretty annoying as they're always indiscriminately cropped, often meaning you have to guess what's what's missing.

05-14-14  03:21pm

Reply
49
N/A Reply of sonofzog's Reply

I'm with you. I've read and re-read and it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

05-12-14  11:12pm

Reply
50
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Same here, so long as they're obviously adverts they're absolutely fine. Anything that helps me discover new content I might otherwise have missed is a good thing in my opinion.

05-06-14  02:43pm


Shown : 26-50 of 403 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.

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 1.37 seconds.