I just stopped by to see what's hap's at good ol' 1byday. In Feb., they've added sets of Amy Reid, Cassia Riley, and Joey Hart (aka Adele Miller/Sharp/Rox, etc). But I've seen these at other sites. I guess they're in 2000px sizes, which of course would be good.
(And she thought Drooler was playing some silly war game with cheesy fake fighter planes. Ho-Ho!)
Well, have you noticed that 1byday is taking more than its usual amount of time downloading the pages -- one day after another? Recently, those gallery pages, which used to move fairly fast, are slowing down considerably! Even the home page for members is waking up like a shit-faced drunk after 3 hours of sleep.
I chalk it up to popularity, especially that 10th Anniversary deal. And I'm contributing to the problem as well, if not for very long each day. And I wait longer than those proverbial 8 seconds, too. Gotta be PATIENT!
Trying to peruse the updates, but having a tough time of it with the walk-on ad girl stepping in and saying "You'd better have some time on your hands ..." Change to a new month, and she's gone, but not for long!
"You'd better have some time on your hands ..."
I can't read about a scene with this chickie standing right in the way of the text! (Go to earlier month.)
Consider this an update to my comment of Sept. '07.
The server speed has gotten snappier, but the webmastering problems are still all over the place:
-Inconsistent thumb sizes (often too small, sometimes larger, sometimes a nice large size). At least one recent gallery mixes small thumbs with actual pics! (Check your work, dammit, baby!)
-Inconsistent zips: sometimes all-in-one, sometimes each page has its own zip file.
-Incomplete labeling: In their full lists of updates by month, you can choose solo, g/g, hardcore, or all but in the listings you don't always know if they're going to be videos or photos, without doing extra clicking to find out
-Same old "1600px" photos in portrait orientation that are only 1200x790. THAT's consistent!
I even tried a 800x600 from November 2007 and y'know what? 399x600! Anyway, who the hell wants 800x600 these days? You've gotta be kidding!
They can't even keep the names straight. Clicked on the link to a "Heidi Lee" gallery and she turned into Tecey Heart.
I even came upon some ... broken links! And these were in 2007. And for a gallery (video?) in Dec. 2006 (where I'd last left off), the link took me to the updates for April 2008! (WTF?!)
When I see such things, and so many of them, the thought is "Oh, boy. Well, I guess I can't expect too much from this site." Know what I mean?
(I'm just not gushing over it like they did at Rabbit's. Know what I mean?)
I've been a member of this site a few times, always at the trial price. The owners need not worry about my "exploiting" it as I never got much from any single visit.
My biggest gripe is the careless webmastering. They link you to zips labeled "1600px," and they're NOT. They max at 1200 sometimes, 1600 sometimes. Or 1024! It's a game of chance. They just don't seem to care that they're not giving you what they say they are. Reminds me that the TBP reviewers don't always visit a site like a real user does; they just tell you what site tells them.
Not all of it is exclusive, BTW. I've seen some of Earl Miller's stuff on it, for instance.
However, the images have a grainy texture to them, plus there's that goofy watermark that gets pasted on top of whatever happens to be in its way -- a girl's head, a butt cheek -- it don't seem to matter to them. (I'd hate for the girl to interfere in my enjoyment of the watermark, y'know.)
The most fun is the copy they write, in the tone of mixed-up teenage girls obsessing about their boob sizes, their experiments with boys and girls, and the malicious gossip at their high schools. It's a scream!
And the archives are nicely organized, once you figure it out.
There's a list of 4 pages at the bottom of the first page. Click 2 or 3 or 4 and what do you get? More views of various content inside as you got on page 1? That's what you'd expect, but instead you get the signup page each time.
I got a 3-day trial for $4.99 for this along with a $30 resubscription to Glam Deluxe.
8teenies has no zips, and a least a couple of the photosets are the same as at MyPreciousVirgins (Lizzy at 8teenies, Patty at MyPrecious; Yvette at 8teenies, Susan at MyPrecious). The photo dimensions at 8teenies are smaller (though still pretty large): Libby 1752x2628, Patty 2336x3504 to give an example. And MyPrecious, BTW, does have zips.
Photo quality really varies a lot. The shoot of Libby/Patty, for example, is high quality. There are about 20 or so shoots done in plain green, blue, or other color backgrounds that are really good. There's one of "Sally" (Lena C at TeenDreams) that was really great.
But there is a lot of straight-off-the-cheaper-digital camera stuff, especially in the "Page 2" of models listed, which is older stuff. I know because I'd joined once before in Jan. 2007.
And the webmastering is less than award-winning. There are some bad links to galleries that will send you straight to the visitor's homepage, but at least they're numerically ordered and you can get them by touching up the URL in the address bar.
And once you've logged in for the first time, it's a seamless login by clicking "members" after that, no additional typing or clicking required, just like glamdeluxe.
So for the trial price, it might be good for a patient soul who's also subscribed to glamdeluxe. I quit with no hassles from their billing company, oakbill.
The current poll is about nudity and sexuality. So here's a sideshow: Actiongirls has, for this entire month, had nothing in its stock of new photos but non-nude material. And frankly, I think they look pretty awful as well. It sure isn't what I'd signed up for (6 month subscription, stupid-stupid-stupid me!).
I haven't been able to equate any of them with sexuality, btw. ;)
Two and half months ago, posted a favorable comment about this site. I also joined soon after, and now I have a few warnings for those interested.
First, the maximum pixel resolution on new photos is their "super large," which is about 2000 pixels (sometimes exactly, sometimes a little less). But the site is still advertising "2722 PIXELS RES." to this very moment.
Did somebody just make a little mistake and just kept copying and pasting it? I mean, they're not just lying, are they?
The second problem is that although you get access to Viewpornstars, too, getting there is a hassle. You have to look around to find the entry point, turn off your popup blocker, click the Viewpornstars collage icon, then click this little button in a popup. Then the windows to the site open.
And then there's a third problem, and this one is really bad. The more recent galleries and zips prompt you for a usepass that you don't have! And not having it, you're up the River Shits.
I've emailed them twice about Viewporstars access problems. The responses: NOTHING. And that's problem #4.
It's $5 week in Droolerland, I guess. This site offers 3 days at that price. Have been a member before and although it was tough at first, having to put up with with confusing navigation and usepass boxes popping up too often, I finally tamed it.
There's some nice stuff here along with the "action" stuff that I myself don't care much for. (Women in grease paint, body oil, and dom uniforms welding weapons and baring their teeth is not my idea of sweet hunnykins.)
What's really great is that they've recently moved to a larger max photo size, 2722 px (was 1722). There's plenty of content I've not seen elsewhere of girls like Crissy Moran, Amy Reid, etc.
Found this through EBI, and then saw it has been listed at TBP. The tour sure doesn't tell us much. They give the impression that they have a lot of models, but the only updates that show are for January of this year -- very few. And do they have zips? What size(s) are the pics? Video info?
The tour, while colorful, is as brisk as the Alpine air.
This site has undergone a recent redesign. It looks better. Trouble is, the thumbnails in the galleries are still really small, and there's no way to adjust that other that to magnify the size of the browser window (or do something of that sort with the system toolie thingies) and get a nice big table full of pixelated T 'n A.
"It's gonna be a long time before it's done ..." (For the voice, think David Crosby on the first CSN album)
I joined a while (well, a long, long time) ago on their $10 per month discount special. The issue at hand, though, is the time it takes from clicking to log in to BEING logged in. The wait is quite exceptionally LONG.
Just wondering if anyone else has time to refill the coffee cup between login "click" and login "done" with this site. Does it appear to be a long, long time?
In the "Model Bios" part of their tour, ALS Angels used to tout their "hi rez" pics in newer sets of newer models. Now, no matter who the model is or when her stuff was published, it just says "Now available!" for every gallery.
Are the older pics still a maximum of 1400 pixels long end, or by chance has the whole site been updated to have "hi rez" pics (e.g., 2700-3200 or so pixel sizes)?
I have doubts, but there's always that hope! I'd go back for reduxes of girls like Carrie Starr and Breanne.
BTW, that "Now available!" thing is a throwback from the days when they used to rotate content. I'm not sure why they keep that sign up, because it could lead some people to wonder if not everything IS available, y'know?
If you're participating in the voting at ALS Scan for which older sets you'd like redone in larger sizes and better quality, I have a plea to make.
I've noticed that a couple of models at least (Ember and Morgan) already have way more votes than needed for #1 and #2 spots. Seems that Alex will choose the best of several, so why not also vote for additional babes who are not getting enough votes so far. (Monique Alexander being one, and yes, I'm promoting her ;)
The same idea goes for future votes with other babe candidates.
The larger pic sizes are a major plus, and are available singly or in zips. Too bad that a lot of earlier content apparently can't be upgraded in this way, though. I'm thinking Mia Stone, Sophie Moon, Lucy Stratilova, Nella, Jassie, Monique Alexander, Mili Jay ...
The updates lists are archived and have a thumb for each -- much better than the former text-only updates list that only ran for 1.5-2 months.
And the guy running it, "Alex DeLarge," really does take member opinions seriously. He's responded twice to emails from me in less than 24 hours. I think I might have been among the members to persuade him to do shoots of Peaches, whom he'd at first thought was too wide at the hips (?!). (They're not out yet, but we look forward to them!)
His director's blog is fun to read, too. You get a lot of inside scoop on the shoots and models' personalities.
I have but one wish, though: That in addition to all of that toy play and fisting that they post more ass shots, top of head to upper thighs, right and left cheeks equally displayed, with the model looking back amourously. Too many of them just show the back of her head, so there's no feeling of interaction. (Doing a nice job with Uma, aka Gitta Blond, though.)
I joined this site and the membership ended a couple of days ago. It hadn't updated since Feb. 4. Had a small number of galleries, mostly of the "girl gets naked then plays with toy" variety. (If "variety" is the word. ;)
In a gallery, the navigation was of the "must click to each next page" type with no flexibility to jump around to different pages. (Like at KarupsPC, if you've ever been.)
And there wasn't much there. In fact, I got nothing myself, being finickier about ass poses than Morris the Cat is about his dinner.
Also, they'd have a spot for a video, which was sometimes blank (none posted) along with a message that said "Don't worry" but didn't say with any certainty when or if it would be up.
The content seemed mostly exclusive, but obviously that didn't count for much with this user, anyway. (There's a set of Iveta B there that's also on Ebina Models, so could all of this site eventually show up elsewhere?)
Altogether, I thought it was flakier than Morris' Tuna Coronado Buffet. DATED updates, regular and often; better navigation; and some good hiney poses ... por favor!
$7.50 seemed like a sweet deal, so I gave this one another try. Here's what I got: Log in; it fails. Request a PIN sent to email account. You get a new password, too. Click the link in the email to go to the access page. Enter UN, new PW, and the PIN. All well within the required hour of receipt.
Result?: You session has expired. Please log in again. Doesn't work.
About once a week or so I've been putting myself through this nonsense. Sure I could try contacting their support, but frankly this just seems too far gone to even bother with. I mean, if they can't provide user access any better than this, there's simply no hope.
I thought I'd seen everything ridiculous possible already. Wrong again!
This site looks attractive, but I wonder what distinguishes it from the other "only" sites that this same company puts out. The tour isn't nearly as good as at OnlyTease, for instance. Sure, it looks good, but it lacks the important details about image dimensions, zips, and so on.
Don't they'd think that people would want such details?
Another complaint I have about this site recently is that they don't link the zips to the galleries on time. I had a time lag of about 2 days with a set within the last week, and today, again, in Uniforms82(3), there are missing zips!
C'mon you Galleria people. You don't post it until you make sure it's ready! (By the way, that means the WHOLE damn thing.) You don't keep frustrating paying users who now have to WAIT and make a note of it so they'll come back eventually to get it once you eventually get around to doing what you should have already done, whenever that might be.
Common practice. Common sense. It's called "check your work."
Next time I click a zip link and it takes me to that stupid visitor's page where people can lie about their name and age, or I right-click and am offered up a download of "amkingdom_com.htm" instead that zip file, I'm going straight to the replies section of this comment and document it.
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.