Replies Received
|
Replies to your reviews or comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
Paul Raymond.com
(0)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from PaulRaymond:
This review is quite old and before the redesign in 2012, but I will still answer some points. Points I don't cover in my reply are no longer relevant due to the site redesign.
* We mention you can register for free, where we from time to time mail registered members that haven't subscribed content, in the form of a photoset and two hardcore vids. The mailings also allow you to be kept informed as to the Paul Raymond magazines and events.
* Membership cancellation - We have a button in the member area for members to easily cancel their membership, but unfortunately if this is done within 5 working days of the next billing period this will unfortunately still get charged. This is an issue with the billing company and out of our control.
* We try to get the content you want exclusively, but sometimes this is just not possible. Some of our photosets don't allow us eternal rights on all media, and therefore you could find the photographer or model selling his/her pics a few years later on a different format.
|
04-25-12 06:48am
|
Reply
2
|
Fucked Hard 18
(3)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Goldfish:
(Cryton's Reply)
OK, I'll buy that.
|
02-08-11 08:06pm
|
Reply
3
|
St. Mackenzie's
(1)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from kieron4546:
Utterly spot on review I think. I joined four days ago and just unsubscribed. I joined on the stregth of one models photos (Matron Jenny aka Jenny Baker) that I saw on another site, I thought 'WOW', and joined up expecting, at least, some nudity, but hoping for more. How sorely dissapointed was I?
To be fair, the site content in itself is quite sunstantial, but nothing compared to other sites, and the models are completely stunning to look at, but that's really where the compliments stop. The videos are, well, amaturish at best, badly shot without any sort of steadying apparatus. I wasn't expecting Hollywood production type videos, but again, at least a modicum of quality for the money. The photosets are boring and repetitive, look at one and you've seen them all basically. As stated not all the girls have videos, and in my opinion, the site could really do with photosets to go with the videos.
And as for their claim they cannot find models to do 'girl thingy' shots, absolute tripe, killergram and smokeymouths, to name but two, have no problem whatsoever, I think the problem lies with the type of look they are going for in the girls rather than what the sunscribers want.
I have mailed the site owners to express my personal dissapointment in their site, not expecting anything, but they should know that to survive, they're going to have to up their game or give it up. I will edit this reply if I hear anything back from them.
|
01-23-11 02:34am
|
Reply
4
|
Fucked Hard 18
(3)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Goldfish:
(Cryton's Reply)
I disagree. 720p is considered HD by the cable industry, why not here?
|
01-21-11 05:11am
|
Reply
5
|
Met Art
(8)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from graymane:
(Cryton's Reply)
I don't know about that, but despite the touted quality of their photos, I discovered more than enough that was blurred or fuzzy.
|
11-01-10 08:35pm
|
Reply
6
|
Private School Jewel
(0)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from Drooler:
Yes, I agree with the others that this is a great review, and the site needed it, too!
Too bad about that watermark! What could they possibly be thinking???
|
09-29-10 03:43pm
|
Reply
7
|
Private School Jewel
(0)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from tangub:
Exellent review thanks and yes she's a cute looking model. I assume there's no bonus sites here?...can't really see myself paying $36 for a single model site with only 3500 pics.
|
09-28-10 02:25am
|
Reply
8
|
Private School Jewel
(0)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from lk2fireone:
Agree with graymane1777, this review has great details and opinions. Very well written.
|
09-27-10 11:11pm
|
Reply
9
|
Private School Jewel
(0)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from graymane:
I don't think anybody can say you haven't provided enough information on this workup. This is the kind of review the regulars here like to see.
|
09-27-10 10:08pm
|
Reply
10
|
St. Mackenzie's
(1)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Tom SawyerR:
(Cryton's Reply)
You're right, I think I'm being a little harsh in my assessment of the site and your review was very thorough and pretty spot on.
|
04-30-10 09:32pm
|
Reply
11
|
St. Mackenzie's
(1)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review from Cryton:
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
|
Reply
12
|
St. Mackenzie's
(1)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from ace of aces:
fine review. think i won`t join that site next time.
|
04-30-10 06:09am
|
Reply
13
|
St. Mackenzie's
(1)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from Drooler:
Thanks for this excellent review. I was thinking about joining but noticed how blurry the photos were at times in the visitor's section. Now I know I'll pass on it.
|
04-30-10 04:03am
|
Reply
14
|
St. Mackenzie's
(1)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from Tom SawyerR:
Good review but I still think the grade it too high. The models are definitely hotter than I portrayed in my earlier post. My only ongoing disagreement is with the quality of the content. Pics were tolerable but C- at best (only if you understand that the site is MEGA soft-core - If you thought you were getting a site with nudity, the whole thing gets a HUGE F) Picture quality aside, Variety also get a big F and there is absolutely no reason I would have joined this site to experience the videos. I would have loved this site if it came even close to getting "school girl naughty"...isn't that the point of the genre? I might have even tolerated the girls taking turns using the camera not knowing how the "auto focus" worked and looking like they'd "never wanted to do this in the first place".
|
04-30-10 02:00am
|
Reply
15
|
Naked News
(0)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from messmer:
I like your review and agree with the points you made. As a matter of fact, as I have stated previously, I really don't know why this site is listed under Porn. It was an outrageous idea at the time to do the news nude, it does contain nudity, but it isn't Porn.
|
04-11-10 10:11am
|
Reply
16
|
Naked News
(0)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from mbaya:
Great review. I was a member a long time ago and understand exactly what you mean.
|
04-11-10 03:11am
|
Reply
17
|
Paul Raymond.com
(0)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from BadMrFrosty:
Good review although I'm not sure its a good idea to explain how people can get all their content for free!
|
03-22-10 04:25am
|
Reply
18
|
Simon Scans
(1)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Comment
from Simon of Scans:
I'm really sorry you hit problems but you also didn't give us chance to solve the password issue - The FAQs are very clear that if you have a problem with your membership you should email us direct - our system is setup for this, but you didn't do it. I'm not trying to dodge responsibility, but if anyone ever has a problem with anything, the best thing to do is to go direct to the source - in this case Simonscans - and not via any intermediary, such as CCBill.
We handle the support inhouse, so the buck does stop here. We've tried outsourcing support in the past and it pleased no one, so we now take turns in the office to do it, hence its spread around just 4 people.
Your email about how to join via CCBill was ignored - and wrongly so - it had been asigned a low priority as it didn't involve a paying member at that point. It also seemed a little odd as while we love CCBill, they are just one of our billers - there's simply nothing to choose between each. We absolutely won't get drawn into any discussions over one of them being trustworthy and the others less so - no processor is able to keep their merchant account if they aren't 100%, so they are all good.
We will however in the future add direct links to each biller for those that do have a preference.
Simonsfans isn't our site, but yet again, as we allow it to promote us, the buck stops here. We recently made some changes to Simonscans which resulted in join pages being moved - simonsfans had not completed changing their links. It should not have made a difference, but in this case it did. We've contacted the webmaster and I'm sure more of it will change. NONE of this was instigated by CCBill and certainly doesn't imply any form of crookery on anyones part.
Doing support is a pretty thankless task at the best of times. It arrives at all hours, ranges from the incomprehensible to the downright weird. Almost everyone is annoyed something isn't working and also very (and rightly) worried that they are in the process of being ripped off. We really are trying to help. :)
In this case, the least we can do is offer you a free pass for 6 months, please give us chance to impress you with our porn :)
|
03-22-10 04:15am
|
Reply
19
|
Elise Erotic
(0)
|
Reply of
Cryton's Review
from mbaya:
A very informative and interesting review. Welcome to PU.
|
09-27-09 06:36pm
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
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.
|
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.
Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.
Loaded in 1.47 seconds.
|
|
