Your comment hit so close to home Cybertoad, that I forgot to comment on the topic of my own poll. If you haven't guessed already, I think it is much worse to remove older content than to fail to produce new content. Webmasters, please consider this. When you remove your original content, you lose your appeal to collectors. Collectors are your best customers and biggest spenders. As a collector, I don't want to have 90% of the content from a favorite site, I aim for 100%. When I join a site that's been on my list for a while, and my anticipation turns to dismay when I see that only a part of their content is available, it detracts from the experience. Even if you are producing amazing content, I am much less likely to be a repeat customer, because I see less of a point in adding new content to a collection that is irreparably flawed by missing the original work. I don't collect anything but porn, but the closest analogy that comes to mind is comic books. Maybe DC Comics wrote some great comic books in the 1990's, but could you ever presume to have a great Superman collection without the originals from 1938? It's the same thing with porn, at least for me, and I'm sure for many others too.
I have my own issue with DDF's old content, which I may bring to attention some day. They make new content that is second to none, but their handling of old content has deeper failings than what you refer to here. I've held off on writing a review on DDF for several months, because I am honestly way too conflicted to know how to score them. I don't know how I can take a site with such strong positives as DDF, reconcile those with some of the strongest negatives, and produce a review that I would want to post. It could potentially be one of my best reviews, I could write volumes, but I like DDF too much to call them out right now. Maybe when I feel able to write a more unbiased review of DDF, I will post it one day.
You seem to be right about this. It looks like the webmaster was active here earlier this year, so hopefully he will let us know what is going on. 50% seems far too low for a site like teenmodels.com that has historically been a quality operation, but with this going on, I can see where you are coming from...
"Well this is the nature of having a site which stems back from 1999. We are looking into the possibilities of Remastering all the old content...but it is arduous, and with over 20 new releases each week....main focus is on New content, old content is more of a Bonus."
As a past member for several months, who had a chance to look over your older content, I have to say that this would be awesome. During my time as a member, I already expressed this to support, but it deserves to be said again here.
"However, I like the DDF approach far better than most other sites that simply take down the old stuff. When I get a strong interest in a specific model, I'm happy getting as much stuff as possible. But it certainly would be helpful to identify the quality level of each offering that appears on a model's "home page" (the page that displays all material for a model)."
This can't be said enough. It would be a huge loss if this older content were removed. While the videos could use the most remastering, the photo quality back then is still very enjoyable today, even if it is not up to modern standards. Some of those older scenes are just so well shot, and the models are so hot. I also like to keep track of models, and it would be really frustrating if a favorite model's shoots were removed, even if they were low quality.
Thanks Ace DDF for talking with us here about these points. While we are on the subject of older DDF content and particular models, I can't help but ask, what happened to the shoots with Justine Joli (aka Swan and Hope) that used to be on houseoftaboo.com? I downloaded some free samples of those on TGP's a long time ago, but the shoots aren't there anymore. Do you still have those archived anywhere? Justine Joli is amazing - any chance that even the original non-remastered shoots might be re-posted?
Close-ups are one of my favorite type of shots, but of course they need to be within the context of a set where you see the model's face and body too. Close-ups shot well with high resolution and a lot of detail are the best. The more detail, the more it looks like you are right there.
It's been about 2-3 hrs/day lately, but that's about to change. I'm moving up in the world professionally, which is a good thing, but soon my work is going to demand my time close to 24/7. I probably won't be able to comment here as much either, but I'll make sure to check in often.
Edit: To whoever answered 9-12 hrs/day, I envy you and the time you have on your hands. Wealth can be measured in time as well as money, and I wish I could have the same luxury as you.
I knew someone would ask for extreme to be clarified. It's deliberately subjective here, just answer based on what it means to you. This poll was inspired by Acworth saying that he may remove some of the more "extreme" lines on Kink.com to improve sales by reaching a more mainstream audience without clarifying what extreme means. It is open to your interpretation.
I answered both 1 and 2. If the reason for this is to improve sales, I don't think it will work.
I don't mind a few, especially if they are actually good discounts at sites that I am interested in. Also, if the ad revenue helps keep membership costs down, then that's a good thing. No deceptive ads though.
When HD came out years ago, some people cautioned that the extra detail may not be appealing when it shows blemishes. As we all know, the market has since voted overwhelmingly in favor of HD, with standard definition video being below almost anyone's standards today for a paysite.
There must be an error here, because I still don't see your email including in my spam folder. I'll contact support about this. In the mean time, to get around this problem, I've made a throw-away email address that I'll post here for you: email@example.com. Email me there, then I'll reply to you from my real email. This throw-away email will only be active for 20 minutes.
Here I am, replying to another old review of yours! Long story short, you are in a unique position to help out with something because you downloaded ExtremeHolly.com at the time you did. I have been in discussions with PinkVisual about this issue, who since acquired ExtremeHolly.com, and there is something in it for you if you want to get in touch with me. I can't say all the details here, it involves some special arrangements with PinkVisual. That's why I tried to PM/email you, but I figure your email address listed with PornUsers.com might be an old one you don't check often. I check my email listed here daily if you want to get in touch. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you!
The other thing that I will add is this. There was a time in the early 2000's when scams and shady billing practices were much more pervasive on paysites, and many got a bad name for it. That type of thing angered customers, and probably encouraged piracy. Nowadays, almost every site I've been to is just trying to do honest good work for their customers. On the other hand, judging by the prevalence of piracy today, many customers haven't changed their mindset. The owners really seem to occupy the moral high ground now, and maybe it's time for those who still resort to piracy to seriously reexamine your ways.
Like badandy400 said, it depends on where the line is drawn. In my first, somewhat controversial post on this forum, I mentioned that I had obtained the content of a couple of sites that had been closed for years from someone who uploaded it for free. Granted, this was after first trying to join the sites, finding out that they were closed, trying to track down the owners with the intent of buying their old content at a large premium, and failing. This is either borderline piracy or piracy according to the various replies that I received on this particular post. I had no bad intent though, made no negative impact, and actually really wanted to pay for what I got.
Thanks. I was just comparing notes with someone a few weeks ago about favorite pee clips, and he mentioned those ones from twistys.com. Since you reviewed the site 6 years ago, and that was about the time he saw those clips, I thought I might ask.
I heard that this site used to have some peeing videos, but has since removed them. I have talked with someone who was on the site recently, and they said they just have a few now on their last page of archives. Looks like you were a member in 2008, so is it true that they used to have more?
It's not exactly artcore or glamcore. Imagine the format that you're used to for g/g content on ALS, then make it b/g. No condoms, last time I checked!
By the way, I should amend my review in one way. Their latest photosets have increased in resolution to 5000x3000. They have always been the first to adopt the highest resolution formats, and they are making good on that tradition.
As a footnote to my review, please read this from ALS about their remastering process:
"The majority of our remastered sets were originally shot in digital format. We have always kept copies our raw / camera images untouched. So a typical set involves simply loading up the set in our camera program, reselecting and applying color correction to the raw images, then extracting them to a TIF format. In the early 2000s, sets were much smaller due in picture size and quantity due to the limited availability of broadband internet, so we are now able to include several, often hundreds of images from the set that were never before released, making the sets more "new" than old, and include them in the full size they were shot in by the camera. From there, we follow the same basic processing as any new set with today's quality standards. For instance, we all used to use the big tube CRT monitors when we color corrected images. Now that flatscreen and LCD monitors are more commonplace, those images tend to look a bit brighter and overexposed, so the remastered releases come out looking a bit more rich and vibrant color-wise.
There are some cases where we have even gone back to models who were shot in print. In these cases, we do have to digitally scan in the original print. We have a huge storage container filled with these albums. The main trick is using a very high DPI scanner to help blow up the images without sacrificing their quality. Once they are in a lossless TIF format, we again apply the same basic processing steps using Photoshop mostly to help balance the color, resize and sharpen the images, and try to reduce any graininess."
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.