Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : PosterDude (14)  

Feedback:   All (19)  |   Reviews (8)  |   Comments (0)  |   Replies (11)

Other:   Replies Received (16)  |   Trust Ratings (20)

Replies Received

Replies to your reviews or comments.
Shown : 1-16 of 16  

Type Site Feedback / Review Date
Reply
1
Visit Reality Kings

Reality Kings
(5)
Reply of PosterDude's Review from pinkerton:

>>Lots of HD Video
Where?
At 720 x 480, around 1000k bit rate, none of the videos fill my screen and are hardly HD video.
I generally agree with PosterDude's comments, the Reality Kings sites aren't that great and the quality isn't really there in comparison with other sites. I last joined way back in 2002 (before I had broadband) and the videos were fine then because that was the standard for porn sites, but now I'd say that the RK sites are about 3 years in the past in terms of quality compared with their peers.


03-06-08  01:20am

Reply
2
Visit FTV Girls

FTV Girls
(5)
REPLY TO #5 from Davit: (PosterDude's Reply)

PosterDude, I don't think TBP take back handers from any porn company to give good reviews. But the bottom line is: don't trust those reviews, or any other professional review site's reviews. Only pay attention to independent user reviews. At least that's my motto.

Professional reviews nearly always seem to be in the late 80s and upwards. They're just not truly reflective of the reality out there. Some sites barely merit more than 10/100. And these review sites often review many dozens of pay sites, so I'm suspicious that they have either the time or money to do this properly.

I reckon a good proportion of professional reviews out there are based solely on the free tours! So no wonder they're artificially high!
Not saying that's the case with TBP, but is just a general suspicion of mine.
Regards.


01-20-08  10:50am

Reply
3
Visit Reality Kings

Reality Kings
(5)
Reply of PosterDude's Review from Goldfish:

I had a similar experience. There is plenty of content but much of it is not what I like. I found the Mike's Apartment site the best. I only found one or two on each of the other sites that I liked enough to keep.

01-19-08  03:53pm

Reply
4
Visit ALS Scan

ALS Scan
(1)
REPLY TO #12 from Davit: (PosterDude's Reply)

Hi Posterdude
I appreciate your opinion, but I can only speak from my own. We're all different, and will all have varying opinions. That's what makes user review sites like this so good.
There's no need for personal insults if you disagree - just say why you disagree (which is fair enough), and leave it at that!
Regards
Davit


01-19-08  12:08pm

Reply
5
Visit ALS Scan

ALS Scan
(1)
Reply of PosterDude's Review from Davit:

This looks good - I'm considering joining. Can't understand why you joined a lesbian site though, if you want to see naked men? You said you want to see more boy-girl stuff. If you want to see naked men, surely there are other sites...?
Regards
Davit


01-11-08  05:37pm

Reply
6
Visit FTV Girls

FTV Girls
(5)
REPLY TO #1 from Robare: (PosterDude's Reply)

I'm not so concerned with your English. I'm sure you express yourself better in English than I would in your native language, if it's not English. I am concerned, however, with some of your statements, a few of which I found to be false. But, several of your statements are expressions of personal tastes and you have yours and I have mine and so it goes...
In your review, you indicated you thought women were being forced and were unhappy. I have found no evidence of that and I've seen almost all of the video FTVGirls has produced. I look for that because I don't like it either. But, I have not found it on FTVGirls. I have seen several instances when the videographer has accommodated models to permit them to feel more comfortable.
You also stated "Site not first time video because always same models do video for Ronharris and other sites many months before ftv." There are very few models (perhaps 10) who have appeared on both sites. So, your use of the term "always" is incorrect. Frankly, I would be very surprised if 15% of the models who appeared on FTVGirls appeared on some other site before appearing on FTVGirls. Also, RH has had 63 models on his site whereas FTVGirls has had 302 models so it's plain to see that your statement is false.
It's difficult to address the update issue as FTVGirls has a different focus than the vast majority of other sites. Some people here have commented that the lack of daily updates is a detractor. I often get the feeling that this view is based upon the commenter's porn or sexual addiction and an indication of an unrealistic world view. In real life, one doesn't get to have a different partner every day and only for the purpose of sexual gratification, nor should one. Life is, and people are, about much more that mere sexual gratification. I haven't forgotten that the women who appear on these sites are real and unique with personalities, appearances, dreams, and desires of their own and I'm grateful for them sharing part of their lives. Some people are immature jerks who only want to use someone else, or the video of someone else, to get their nut off. I'm not one of them.
As for leap-frogging, the HD presented around the net is typically 1280x720 at 4Mbs. FTVGirls HD is 1440x1080 at 8 Mbs. The viewer now can get approximately 70% more pixels at only twice the bandwidth and that's an improvement worthy of the phrase "leap-frogging".
As for the blurriness of the photos, I understand what you're saying. There's a technique of using a short depth of field to draw the viewers attention to where the focus is sharp. It's a technique that is widely used in video and photography on a wide variety of content. I can enjoy the snapshot photo, where everything is in focus, and I can enjoy the more creative approach. Each photo is a statement, even if every detail is out of focus, and I have found very, very few where that occurred.
I find your review to say more about you than FTVGirls. Thank-you for presenting it.


12-21-07  08:56am

Reply
7
Visit All Internal

All Internal
(0)
Reply of PosterDude's Review from Flimo:

Nice review. I was just about to join when I discovered this:
European costumers pay in euros, not dollars.
We pay 43.9$ in stead of 29.9$


12-20-07  06:16am

Reply
8
Visit FTV Girls

FTV Girls
(5)
REPLY TO #2 from Drooler: (PosterDude's Reply)

As far as TBP is concerned, I've been burned enough times myself by trusting their reviews that anymore, I mostly check them for new site listings or the pure data they provide and not the more subjective impressions they have.

Even the data can be wrong, too, though, as I've experienced as well (e.g., "full-trial" when it's not).

I don't think that the TBP reviewers are dishonest or taking bribes, but they don't seem to have the same kinds of in-depth experiences with sites that we at PU have. Frankly, I think they're a pretty shallow and incompetent lot. They could at least tell us how large the pics are, but they just don't. I think, "Aren't they supposed to review what's on the site??"

Thank God they don't review automobiles! (Skid ... crash!!)

And there are people at PU who say we should be members of a site for at least a month before writing a review, but you don't seee them saying that to the TBP reviewers.

Thanks again for the "straight from the hip" review of FTV Girls.


12-18-07  03:49pm

Reply
9
Visit FTV Girls

FTV Girls
(5)
Reply of PosterDude's Review from Drooler:

I rejoined recently after being away about a year. I agree more with your opinion of this site. The blurry and grainy photos are irritating and I think inexcusable.

They recently had some nice new stuff of Carli Banks and Jamie Lynn, separately and together, but the poses were only partly good.

Also, for a site these days, there should be standard access to photos at 3000+ as an option in their regular galleries. I hate the way they pick certain photos and put them, quite seldomly, into separate "mega-sized" collections and then don't even give you previews of what you'll be getting. They waste their own bandwidth by making it necessary for a user to download the large zips of those pics, only to possibly toss them out, gallery after gallery. That's what I've done. And of course it wastes the user's time, too.

And oh, even though they've recently raised their bandwidth limit again, it's still obviously contrary to have us downloading large files of what we might reject (having no preview) and THEN having a bandwidth limit, too! Ridiculous.

The site has an attractive design, but I've never been very impressed by what really counts, the content.

I've never understood why this site gets such high marks by some, but there's just no accounting for tastes, I guess.


12-18-07  09:31am

Reply
10
Visit Met Art

Met Art
(2)
REPLY TO #1 from jd1961: (PosterDude's Reply)

I know what you mean about ALS. I think my high score is more because of the hugeness of the site, there is so much stuff here that every time I visit, I discover (for me) new material. The ALS photos are definitely of higher quality, probably the best of all.

12-15-07  12:40pm

Reply
11
Visit Met Art

Met Art
(2)
Reply of PosterDude's Review from jd1961:

I think the sets should open in small size too. Because with Met-Art, you have to check the sets before you download, because some of the sets are boring. Good review!

12-10-07  07:35pm

Reply
12
Visit Met Art

Met Art
(2)
Reply of PosterDude's Review from Drooler:

I thought your review made important points about the quality of some of the photographers and images. When I see "Pasha" or "Slastynoff" or "Magoo," I think, "Oh, no. Not again!" Tim Fox and Voronin, on the other hand, are generally really good.

But frankly, I'm glad this site doesn't have "open vagina" or much spreading. There are plenty of sites that do already, and far more do than sites like this one.

And as for hardcore, well, can't we have some "softcore only" sites?


12-10-07  04:39pm

Reply
13
Visit Ron Harris

Ron Harris
(0)
Reply of PosterDude's Review from Drooler:

I've been a member a couple of times, and I also felt the site was lacking. I don't like the small updates and the repetitive way he does things. Plus you pointed out that it went a week without updates.

This site has always been inconsistent in that way, in my experience.

Also, I thought the webmastering was really, really poor with lots of new windows opening, among other problems. It can get really confusing.

What you said really reminded me of how I experienced the site, too.


12-10-07  04:30pm

Reply
14
Visit Ron Harris

Ron Harris
(0)
Reply of PosterDude's Review from PinkPanther:

This site does some great stuff, but has some real negatives for me:

1) The excess photo-shopping/painting of images - frequently takes all the erotic charge out of the pics

2) Ron himself ruins many vids. He's not a guy that tends to get women to want to get sexy. He has sexy models and if he just turned on the camera and pretended he didn't exist and focused on the camera work, the site would be hotter than it is. Nobody - including the models, it seems - wants to hear him talking.


12-05-07  05:36pm

Reply
15
Visit Simon Scans

Simon Scans
(0)
REPLY TO #1 from exotics4me: (PosterDude's Reply)

Thanks for the reply, I was expecting much more from Simon Scans than what I got. I don't think I signed in for the last two weeks of my membership, I was that bored with the site.

12-04-07  07:22am

Reply
16
Visit ALS Scan

ALS Scan
(1)
REPLY TO #1 from qualsite34: (PosterDude's Reply)

Best is an objective term. My review implies the same. If you like tons and tons of garish red cherry vaginal shots and fisting. I would recommend the site to anyone who favors this style. However, I have to mention, there are few sites that tease the subscriber by showing numerous videos which are no longer available. To make it worse, they give you a link to another website where you can view the videos - for an extra fee. It is the purpose of this website to help others decide whether or not they should subscribe to the various offerings out there.

11-27-07  02:58pm


*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

Shown : 1-16 of 16  

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 1.53 seconds.