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 : Cryton (10)  

Feedback:   All (15)  |   Reviews (5)  |   Comments (1)  |   Replies (9)

Other:   Replies Received (19)  |   Trust Ratings (18)

Replies Given

Your replies to other users's reviews and comments.
Shown : 1-9 of 9  

Type Site Feedback / Review Date
Visit Fucked Hard 18

Fucked Hard 18
Reply of Goldfish's Reply

There are a number of resolutions considered to be HD (obviously all are higher resolution than SD) including 720p, but to differentiate, the consumer electronics industry has deemed the phrase "full HD" should only relate to 1080×1920.

So you're quite right in saying that 720p is HD, but "full HD" should only be used to describe 1080×1920.

There's more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

02-08-11  07:39pm

Visit Fucked Hard 18

Fucked Hard 18
Reply of Goldfish's Comment

FWIW, "full HD" refers to 1920×1080, but 1280×720 is a valid HD resolution.

01-20-11  11:47pm

Visit Met Art

Met Art
Reply of graymane's Review

I ceased being a member when more and more of their photographers started using aggressive blur filters to turn the skin of models into one solid block of colour, and as a result make them appear like lifeless, plastic dolls.

Is that still going on?

11-01-10  08:09pm

Visit Private School Jewel

Private School Jewel
Reply of tangub's Reply

Thanks for all the feedback.

There aren't any bonus sites included with the subscription, just the additional photos of Blue Eyed Cass and Syhla Jennings (plus a handful of tiny videos of them both that aren't really worth mentioning).

09-28-10  11:14am

Visit St. Mackenzie's

St. Mackenzie's
Reply of Tom SawyerR's Reply

>I would have loved this site if it came even close to getting "school girl naughty"...isn't that the point of the genre?<

Absolutely, which is hopefully something that came across in my review. The potential is there, but the selection of models (many of whom will only go as far as implied nudity) and the site's determination to keep everything soft really holds it back.

The appearance of the models gave a positive bias to my score.

04-30-10  10:24am

Visit St. Mackenzie's

St. Mackenzie's
Reply of Cryton's Review

A brief update on the quality of the photos. I asked about this in the user forum where "Headmistress Mackenzie" is quick to answer member questions.

She writes: "It is mainly because the photographer shoots so fast. He has had some camera problems to but they are sorted now. Can only apologise for the blurry pics already on the site."

If things improve I'll update the review, but it'll still mean that the majority of shoots suffer from these problems.

04-30-10  10:19am

Visit St. Mackenzie's

St. Mackenzie's
Reply of Tom SawyerR's Comment

I've looked at every model and none of them could even be remotely described as "huge" (no idea what "bigfords" means). One, Matron Jenny, could be described as curvy, but all the others are seriously in shape.

I tend to agree with the remainder of your comments however.

04-30-10  12:44am

Visit Simon Scans

Simon Scans
Reply of Simon of Scans's Reply

Excellent reply, thank you, I have a far better impression of the site following your input.

In our defence, contacting CCBill regarding the payment seemed like the best option because as you mentioned, my girlfriend's original message went unanswered and people tend to get a bit paranoid about their credit card details.

Regarding the preference for CCBill, this comes purely from the fact that the VSX payment process always states my girlfriend's card isn't valid, when of course it works everywhere else, including CCBill.

I'm sure she'd gladly accept your offer of a free pass and thank you for the gesture of good will. Let me know how she should get in touch and I'll pass on the details.

03-22-10  02:42pm

Visit Paul Raymond.xxx

Paul Raymond.xxx
Reply of BadMrFrosty's Reply

The site is so badly designed that I wasn't sure if that was deliberate or not, especially as they claim free accounts get lots of content.

I'm quite happy to have that part of the review amended though, although it did seem worth mentioning that none of the content appeared to require a username or password.

03-22-10  02:14pm

Shown : 1-9 of 9  

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 1.01 seconds.