| Date |
Updated |
From |
Trust? |
Comment |
Replies |
|
01-17-13 |
N/A |
Anonymous |
No |
It is one thing to like a particular type of site or porn, as omberman says he does in his one-pass review. But it is entirely another thing to bash a site because it does not fall into the very narrow category of genres one likes. The comments are niether useful nor objective. For this reason, I do not trust his reviews and believe others should not either. |
N/A |
|
10-26-12 |
N/A |
mbaya (354) |
Yes |
None |
N/A |
|
10-22-12 |
N/A |
Anonymous |
No |
Great lack of objectivity in Met-Art review. I have never been a member but most of the models I have looked at were beautiful. I know that tastes differ .. but 99% of all other reviewers surely can't be wrong. |
N/A |
|
10-07-12 |
N/A |
Anonymous |
No |
Anybody who gives a score of 55 to a site of MET-ART's quality is not to be trusted. The site and its many models may not be to your liking but that is no reason for rating the site as effectively junk. To rate a site so low, you need to provide evidence that the site falls very far short of what you were led to expect before you joined it. For example, if a site claimed to have 1000 models and in fact had 10. |
N/A |
|
10-06-12 |
N/A |
Anonymous |
No |
you can see all content before you join, how could you possibly be surprised at it? |
N/A |
|
03-27-11 |
10-06-12 |
Anonymous |
No |
Your review of Met Art is the most ridiculous I've ever read. It's one of the finest softcore sites on the net with hundreds of stunning models. Perhaps you should have checked out the tour more thouroughly before signing up. You give no real information to justify the low score other than describing the models as plain or ugly. |
N/A |
|
03-15-11 |
N/A |
Anonymous |
Yes |
None |
N/A |
|
03-06-11 |
N/A |
Jay G (65) |
Yes |
None |
N/A |
|
12-07-10 |
N/A |
Anonymous |
Yes |
None |
N/A |
