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 : host2626 (0)  

Feedback:   All (41)  |   Reviews (0)  |   Comments (4)  |   Replies (37)

Other:   Replies Received (24)  |   Trust Ratings (3)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 1-25 of 41 Page :    Next Page >

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
N/A Reply of Colm4's Poll

Outside is not bad because of bad lighting, but because the cheap gits shooting and encoding it are using too low a bitrate to pull it off.

12-27-14  12:27am

N/A Reply of pat362's Reply

"All the time. Thank God I have it because I would stop watching porn right now if I had to watch the bulk of what gets made these days."
^ THIS! :)

11-04-14  11:36pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

I don't like seeing fat, and I like strong legs and big labia and clits. Only female bodybuilders have all that.

I don't like that most female bodybuilders sites are about dominating males though. I am definitely not willing to be dominated nor seeing other guys be dominated. But seeing a strong female having sex and having an orgasm is what excites me the most, e.g. dominating her or seeing her be dominated instead. There isn't much of that unfortunately.

08-03-13  01:56am

N/A Reply of Colm4's Poll

I don't care much, as long as the camera work is done well. As littlejoe said, cars are a bad location, as no matter what you try to do with a camera there, the action is always "in your face" and the positions are awkward, unless you have a huge limo. It's not a place to watch it being done in.

Also I don't like it when it's shot outside, but not because of "bad lighting", but because *natural* light requires a higher bitrate than artificial lighting. No problem with studio equipment encoding stuff for DVDs and Bluerays, but quite visible when there is a need to limit bandwidth when encoding movies for a website. Just compare for instance a standard HD shoot, the first outdoors "hello poolboy" part, to when it moves indoors for the "my husband is never home" part. Many more artifacts and less sharpness in the former.

10-17-12  09:37pm

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

I voted "other", since the question is too vague. To me "online porn" means watching stuff online. Personally I wouldn't pay a cent for the latter. I download stuff that I like, and it stops being "online porn".

09-08-12  12:37pm

N/A Reply of Colm4's Poll

1. Brutal crapper sex, as mentioned about Timo. How inadequate must one feel to get off on seeing a girl getting hurt

2. Tattoos larger than "tiny" make me want to puke

03-06-12  01:05am

N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Not that fine a poll AFAIC. What is it that we are trying to find out here, what is meant by "mixing it up"?

Going from a Teens video site to a Teens pictures site? Going from a Russian teens site (with girls who do look like teens) to a western teens site (with "teens" in their late 20's or 30's)?
Or alternating between Teen/MILF/Granny sites? Or between straight/lesbian/TS/gay sites? Getting off one day on a furry and on a crushed testicle the next?

Currently all we can see is that 21% of the respondents think that they are "mixing it up", which, for all we know, may mean that they believe that moving between Brazzers' kitsch and Bangbros' more reality-like approach is "mixing it up", probably a lot. Now we need another poll to figure out what they actually meant :).

12-07-11  01:00am

N/A Reply of Colm4's Poll

You forgot one option: "I don't want to".

As if everyone was constantly daydreaming about doing these things. No.

06-17-10  08:07am

N/A Reply of Duante Amorculo's Poll

1. I don't care about this setting

2. The camera work is pretty bad in 99% of regular couples scenes already, the camera guy having trouble focusing on the girl. More often than not we are only seeing her face and his dick instead of, well, the body of a girl having sex. Add a "cuckold" to the mix, and the genius behind the camera will want to do even more art-schmart, so even more closeups on him and his face :). No thanks!

02-20-10  03:01am

Visit Anabolic.com

Reply of noche's Comment

Hehe, as of today, in their members area:

"HD Videos Coming Soon!

As you may have seen we advertise HD video downloads and streams on the tour of anabolic.com At the moment they aren't quite ready, we're working extremely hard to get this feature fully functional as soon as possible and we expect to have this feature ready for you in the next few weeks! Please understand that these files are big and handling the huge library from Anabolic.com is a mo... "

They've been advertising this for months, with a tour page showing what looked like their "what's new" page from Nov 3rd 2011 (according to the actual release date of their 'Jessica Lynn + Elena Heiress' video),
with fake "HD" logos on each movie thumbnail. I'm sure they've been "working extremely hard" the whole year.

Too bad they are dead. I am not a fan of any studio, but more of them means more occasions to see the actresses we like.

10-15-12  09:54pm

Visit Beach Hunters

Beach Hunters
Reply of polacrilex's Comment

I went to the site a few days ago, the preview area has quite a bit of videos with the HD logo. But there is no sample to download that I could find. There is a post in the "News" section saying that since mid-August they've been focusing on 720+ HD quality. Can any current member comment, did they start doing true HD quality, or, as it says in this comment, it's still up-converted SD clips?


12-25-09  02:07pm

Visit Brandi Love

Brandi Love
Reply of nygiants03's Reply

I concur, the quality of the videos is very poor.

It is December 2008, there are still about 40 videos. The WMVs are all below 1000 bitrate, some are 900, mostly 800 and 500. This may have been awesome 10 years ago but it doesn't do it nowadays. And quite a few of the old ones are encoded at 15 fps, a few show interlacing artifacts, and these issues were never acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

Brandi is very beautiful, she has done 3 hardcore shoots not so long ago at Naughty America and this is where I found her. These 3 shoots are keepers while there is nothing to keep from the official site, a pity.

12-28-08  05:46am

Visit Digital Playground

Digital Playground
Reply of rearadmiral's Review

"Streaming only"
I stopped reading there :).

02-02-15  02:02am

Visit Dream Stash

Dream Stash

Too much POV

I was attracted by the prospect of seeing these beautiful East European girls while they were younger. And in a more exciting, "intimate" setting than a 21st Sextury set with hard anal piledriving and more dick than pussy. The girls ARE there, and the quality of most sets is good, almost HD, but there is way too much POV for me. The bad kind of POV, the shaky camera that goes from a face closeup to a dick closeup (as if our eyes popped out of our navel). I need to see the whole body, but the shoots are about 90% POV, and in the ones he used a tripod the angle could be better. So from the 150 or so models, some with more than one set, I'd keep about 5 movies with a solid 10 secs in each.

The other site, dshandjobs, is also foreign to me. With all the assets a beautiful girl has, you want her to use her freaking hand? Really? ;)

And there haven't been any updates since August 2009, so it's a quick "get in, download, unsub" kind of job. Overall I'm glad I did it, otherwise I'd still be wondering what great and exciting stuff they may have. Too bad POV and handjobs aren't my thing.

05-23-10  01:01am

Replies (0)
Visit Exploited Moms

Exploited Moms
Reply of delta69's Review

"Extremely unattractive women dominate the site."

I resubscribed recently and this is still the case 2 years later.

The site is called "exploitedMOMs". OK, technically, the term "MOM" goes from the age a woman is able to start procreating (and some porn studios don't mind casting the same girls in what they are calling "MILF" movies then in their next "Teen" release), up to the life expectancy, so technically the site name is not wrong.

Then, maybe I am mistaken, but for me the term "exploitedmoms" conveys a notion of "MILF". Usually this means a woman from 30 to about 50, and the "LF" part of "MILF" entails a certain degree of attractiveness. But for every Syren De Mer and Whitney Wonders there are 20 ugly, fat/obese and wrinkled grandmas that look way over 60. Not my cup of tea, some may like it, but then the site should be clearly targeted and called "exploitedgrandmas". I definitely cannot imagine myself having a running subscription to this site, as looking their update schedule I wouldn't have wanted to download anything from there for the last 6 months or so, and probably one scene every 2-3 months in the prior period.

08-22-09  02:07am

Visit Exploited Teens

Exploited Teens
Reply of ramscrota's Review

I agree, totally rubbish site.

- I like POV as long as it's properly done, I mean POV that shows the whole girl's body legs spread, allowing us to put our eyes on the body part we want and when we want it. Just like in reality. This guy's POV is the cheap and crappy kind of POV, which constantly goes from a closeup of the face to a closeup of the dick. Dick that definitely needs a lot of zooming in btw, considering the field of work he's in. I don't care about face closeups nor dicks, I watch porn to see beautiful female bodies being fucked - I am seeing enough faces in "regular" movies and could get plenty of dicks on gay porn sites were I attracted to these things. And I hate having a narrow field of view with the camera guy telling me on which body part I should focus and when. But doing the "full-body" type of POV would require hiring someone else to man the camera.

- The guy really talks too much crap. He is all about his own prowess while in fact he is, to remain polite, nothing special, and in porn terms, total rubbish. But repeating the same stuff over and over again may help convince a few viewers if not himself I suppose.

"See how hard you're getting me?" - no son, you are small *and* limp to boot. Hire someone with proper "talent".

When cumming, at the very first spurt (and sometimes even before) he goes "when is it gonna end?" - son, males do not stop at the first drop. It's physiological, there are always more than one, and to boot you don't deliver that much in total. A Peter North you're not, and no amount of repeating the same line will make you become him.

I mean I am not trying to make fun of the guy. He is what he is, has what he has, does what he does, seeing huge rock hard dicks is not the reason I am watching porn either, but I wish the guy stopped taking us for complete fools. I don't mind the guy tooting his own horn, some tongue-in-cheek humour could help a scene or two, but when this "joke" is repeated in every scene with nothing on-screen to support it, you know the guy is dead serious and this is getting really unnerving.

All in all, this site looks like the cunning plan of a rather average guy willing to fuck some stars and having us pay for it. I wouldn't mind this either if only I got some quality porn in return: no zoomed in POV and no ridiculous horn tooting. I haven't, so bye.

08-22-09  01:39am

Visit Fake Hub

Fake Hub
Reply of standard's Review

"- A few pros, but mostly girl (and some boy) next door types."

Don't get fooled by the settings. All the girls are pro actresses. Granted, some are more attractive or more famous than others, but all are pros. "Civilians" don't happen to wander onto a set and then within minutes start sucking dick with a camera in their face.

Agree about fakehospital, horrible angles, distorting fish eye view, nothing to keep or come back to.

All in all, there is nothing on this network I'd come back to.

PublicAgent may have been good, if I were into face and dick closeups.

FakeTaxi/UK is all about the same bad angles, face, dick and guy ass closeups.

04-25-15  12:49am

Visit Legal Porno

Legal Porno
Reply of rearadmiral's Reply

Some small single-model sites like vivianadoldano.com, clubshayfox.com, janetexposed.com, etc., have a similar model. A few videos for the monthly fee, but for the good stuff please go to clips4sale or similar. What you end up paying for is a clip catalog. It can make sense on a single-model site, if you are fan enough to join then maybe you can be milked for a bit more. It doesn't sit well with me when a larger site does it.

01-16-15  02:27am

Visit Legal Porno

Legal Porno
Reply of rearadmiral's Reply

If it was made clear from the preview or the model pages what I would have to access to for the monthly fee and what would be a pay-for catalog, I may consider it. As luck would have it, the few scenes that are not too disgusting and that I would be interested in will require an extra fee :). There is way too much porn out there so I can afford to stick to some principles in this matter.

01-14-15  10:56pm

Visit Legal Porno

Legal Porno
Reply of rearadmiral's Review

Thanks for the review. I was considering joining this site. Not because I enjoy crapper sex, but mostly because I am a big fan of Zuzana Z and they have some exclusive scenes, and some other models may have a few seconds of nice angles between two swims in disgusting piss and shit and whatnot. Anyway, with this pricing model, no way. It's not like it is even preventing their stuff from appearing on the Net either.

01-14-15  01:14am

Visit New Sensations Network

New Sensations Network
Reply of insomniacxxx's Reply

I haven't bought a DVD in quite some time. But if you go to a site like videosz.com or videobox.com you can download mainstream DVDs encoded with a pretty good quality (I don't have a subscription to any of these sites at the moment so I cannot verify whether they have anything from New Sensations or not). But they also have a great search system by movie, performer, studio, etc. And being the anally retentive guy that I am, I am keeping a text file with the titles of all the movies that I have already watched, because I hate to download something then go "oh shyte I've seen this one" :).

The comment about their scenes being non-exclusive to the site itself was meant as an FYI with no great meaning attached to it, it's not a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned, but the lack of a proper search feature and file naming are a bit of a shame in 2009.

05-20-09  11:58pm

Visit New Sensations Network

New Sensations Network
Reply of insomniacxxx's Review

FYI, just in case you hadn't already noticed: Dani Cole doesn't "come along to do a schoolgirl scene". This site has zero custom content, e.g. content shot specifically for this site like RealityKings or Brazzers do. Their content are scenes ripped from New Sensations DVDs. Check the filenames, when the webmaster was not too lazy we can see the DVD name in there, like WScarla_cox_dillon_FuckingBeautiful08_clip01.wmv or WSdevon_lee_CWT3_clip01.wmv (Cheating Wives Tales 3).

05-01-09  11:42pm

Visit Perfect Gonzo

Perfect Gonzo
Reply of Crazy4Porn's Review

Are you sure they have High Definition videos? As in HD, 16:9, high bitrate? If I take the AllInternal site for instance, all their trailers are 960x540. The few latest ones are 16:9, but starting from the middle on the very first page out of 12 they are at 4:3 at 1500 kbps, just like their old videos were, and I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't show a trailer in the best possible quality for their new stuff if they had real HD quality videos to show. When someone claims to have an HD movie at 1080p with a 5 GB size, which is much bigger than what Brazzers/RK/etc. have on their sites with bitrates up to 12000 Kpbs, but then they show a trailer at 960x540 at 1500 kbps to entice me to become a paying member, I feel that someone is trying to cheat me.

And your mention of "High Definition on every scene" makes me wonder what you mean by "High Definition" since, on AllInternal again, the movies on pages 6+ out of 12 don't even have the HD logo.

11-21-13  07:20am

Visit Pink Visual Pass

Pink Visual Pass
Reply of desade's Reply

So apparently my taking screenshots for them was all for naught, everything is still the same. Anyway they replied to me with a link that I don't have anymore to a page where I could register at a reduced price of $15.00. This is more than enough for a month, unless you like to see more men than women in your porn (like 3/4 if not more of the shoots are threesomes), and like the "I'll move the camera around at random because I have ADD" kind of camera work (more face than skin, and if they do show the body they move away within 3 seconds). Lots of content at first sight, but nothing to keep or come back to as far as I'm concerned.

03-17-09  10:21am

Visit Pink Visual Pass

Pink Visual Pass
Reply of TheSquirrel's Reply

I received a reply from their customer support.

They are not seeing any billing problem on their end, so I told them about possible regional pricing, gave my current IP address, and made some screenshots. Direct access to PVP: 35.95 ($49.80). Access through the TBP rebate offer: $43.95 ($60.88) - not only it is more expensive from Europe, but it looks like the rebate is being applied backwards.

As to the content, here is what they said:

"Both Pink Visual Pass and Milf Seeker belong to our company and the
available content on both sites is nearly identical in video quality and
model shooots. By signing up for Pink Visual Pass you have access to
Hottest Milfs Ever, our 2.0 version of Milf Seeker. Hottest Milfs Ever
includes our Milf Seeker Episodes along with content exclusive to
Hottest Milfs Ever."

01-03-09  12:05am

Shown : 1-25 of 41 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 0.37 seconds.