Obviously, it's been a while since my review, so here are a few updates.
On the plus side:
The number of models has increased nicely (250+), along with it, the addition of different age and body type models. There are also a few ethnics now appearing on the site.
Picture viewing preference can now be set globally.
Custom zip files for pictures in 3 resolutions.
On the negative side:
I have to agree with a lot of the comments that have been left on here and on the site - weird camera angles, focus and lighting issues are far too common in a lot of the picture sets. Two recurring themes that bother me personally are the models pulling on their pubic hair throughout the set and similarly having to touch themselves or keep their hands near their crotch.
With the video, I've seen a considerable amount of scenes where the camera is constantly moving, almost in (for lack of a better phrase) an amateur-with-their-first-camera fashion.
I'm still an amateur fan and definitely old school - I like my women natural and I still like the site. Fortunately, Basil is one of the most attentive webmasters I've encountered and I have no doubt that anything that can be done to appeal to more people will be taken care of.
I'm back on this site for a third time and notice they've dug into their archives and are releasing old, previously unreleased scenes from their early days. The quality isn't HD because of the age, but, as I'm ever the amateur fan, I really like the "nameless faces".
The new stuff is as good as ever. Creampie fans, especially if they haven't been here before, really should check this site out.
OK - I run an older version of Firefox and I'm used to dealing with some loss of functionality like this. Every page - even when returning to a previously loaded page or opening a single picture - gives me this popup:
A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete.
So... I go to my "speed browser", Opera 10, and I see that it's still taking way too long for all the elements to load. That's annoying enough. But add to that their download speeds. Under 600kbps with a download manager?
This has got to be one of my most regrettable signups. To see any appreciable amount of this site, I'll have to dedicate way too much time to it.
After reading all the great reviews, I joined the site and I have to say that I don't agree with the comments regarding the picture quality. I'm seeing way too much field of focus blurring - especially on closeups. I can't put a percentage on the number of sets affected by it, but it really surprised me how many times I thought to myself, "Now why is THAT blurry?"
I went to join this site just now and noticed there's no encryption on the page where you enter your desired nick, password and email address OR the page where you enter your credit card information. That's on both Firefox 2 and Opera 10. I can hesistantly forgive the lack of encryption for the nick/password/email page, but not where you're entering credit card information.
I won't change my score for the site because I still think they're good at what they do, and the site is still relatively new, but video fans might be somewhat disappointed here. It's two updates a day, but an average of every fifth or sixth one (sometimes more) is a video, some of which are non-nude interviews.
Looks like this will be my next join. The navigation looks like it'll be easy to get around the site. The video quality of the flash video previews alone look good enough to make me think this'll be a winner. A review will be forthcoming, of course.
I got a "we want you back" email and an offer for $15 a month and I took the plunge. Nothing's changed since my review - it's still haphazard as hell. BUT - if you've been here before, and you liked the site, check your email - you might have the chance to go back in on the cheap.
Joined up again and I see that they now have a bandwidth counter/warning.
After you reach the limit, you see this:
"DOWNLOAD LIMIT REACHED
You have used more than 6GB of data today and reached the daily limit. Your usage will be reset in x hours x minutes and you will be able to view or download more videos."
I'm not thrilled with the limit, but it's nice to have something to monitor the usage and tell you when you can resume viewing and downloading.
The site rep says she looks at this site everyday, so this should get her attention.*
I joined this site a few years back and enjoyed what I saw - except for the fact that I had to play with video editting to join clips together. In this day and age, I think that's just too old school. So, assuming the information on TBP is up to date and they're not already online, I hope ATK is considering putting full-length video up.
*Comment editted to correct my gender gaffe. Thanks Capn for pointing that out. : - )
I was just browsing Videobox and all I saw were a bunch of gonzo flicks. The fetish niches remain virtually unchanged. I certainly wouldn't give it the 97 I gave it 3 years ago. I wonder if the drop in price is a reflection of more people tired of the same ol' crap and their losing signups.
They oughta rename it to GonzoBox.
I just signed up and was happily surprised to see that they dropped the price to something more reasonable. It's now $24.80 for a one one month subscription. A review will follow after I check things out.
Browsing around, I was looking at the reviews and comments here and noticed that Shap said their email system sends email to current and inactive members. Does that mean this is another site you can never get away from? It took me over 2 years to get Bang Bros to stop emailing me, even after clicking their unsubscribe link at least a dozen times. I don't relish the idea of signing up for another site like that - especially if they're sending email with subject lines like HEY! FORMER MEMBER! WE MISS YOU! A little discretion is a good thing.
If I get past that hurdle, can someone give me an idea of how many natural models they have on the site? From what I've seen of the site, my aversion to siliconed tits might make this a site to pass up.
Most of the reviews here seem to lean towards the picture side of things. So I'm curious...
Just how split up are the videos here? Are the clips readily joined, or do they have a fade in/fade out or, worse yet, something like a logo or 2257 splash screen between the clips? Also, any updates on the resolutions stated in the TBP review?
Am I just looking at a site that should be considered photos first and the videos a kind of sideline?
These are quotes from another forum I'm on, all from the last couple of weeks.
"the vids are boring - girls just talk and sit down and start masturbating."
"I have to agree with everything that's been said here. The girls aren't as cute as they used to be and the nudity in a lot of sets is minimal. And suggestions for improvement always fell on deaf ears. They won't be getting another membership from me."
"i was a longstanding member awhile back and wish it would return to its roots. "
"here is another example of why AW is getting so bad...they had a recent model rebekah, very cute (doesnt happen that much anymore) and no nudity until last 2 minutes and its not much... what is this sites problem????"
"They seem to have fallen into a rut and lost their creativity."
"they did it again...new vid with Cate a very cute girl (nice to see) and during her vid she just sits on her ass for the whole video...cant really see her really nice body...they really need to understand what people want in the vids (i guess they feel intellectual conversation is what guys want - they have no clue)... have the girl get up and do something interesting (its a video)"
So it's not just us, here on Pornusers, who see that this site is in a serious decline. Please, SueAnn (or whomever might respond to this), tell us what's really going on at AW!
I'm sitting on their home page and can't see some of the pictures, so my first question is if anyone knows if there are browser specifications to view this site. I can't find anything on their site about it.
The second issue is with watermark size. One thing I've never agreed with in TBP reviews is their definition of what a medium sized watermark looks like. If I ever saw a site they listed as having large watermarks on their videos or pictures, that'd be a definite "no way" here. I know this is all subjective, but can anyone give me an idea of just how big the medium size is on this site?
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.