| Incoming Feedback |
All feedback to this webmaster's managed sites. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Review
1
|
Body Parts.biz
(2)
63.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ Lower than usual cost - $19.95/month
+ Frequent Updates
+ Streaming on newer content
+ Alphabetical model list
+ 164 Models (as of this date)
+ Longer videos have been added (compared to comments in earlier reviews)
+ Pictures available in 2 sizes - 1200 and 2400 long side
+ Video available in HD wmv, Mobile m4v and Hi-res mp4
+ Easy join/ cancel through CCBill
+ $9.95 discount offered at cancellation |
| Cons: |
- A high of ~350-400 kb/s downloads (usually lower, in the 100's) - slow page to page
- Streaming video buffers almost constantly due to slow server speed
- Poor navigation
- Only latest updates are dated
- Camerawork issues - movement & focus
- One small thumbnail preview for video
- Several instances of different clips with the same file name
- Some models' files download under different names
- Mislabeled files
- A good many washed out looking pictures
- Very repetitive picture sets
- Inconsistent image quality
- Not download manager compatible (FDM)
- Hidden bandwidth cap |
| Bottom Line: |
Layout:
Like a lot of sites, the main page presents you with tabs.
>Home - Goes to the home page (duh)
>Updates - Latest stuff (more duh)
>Photos - Broken into Softcore, Hardcore and amateur sections, each further broken into sets of 20 pictures taken from a scattering of models. Sets have zips available.
>Videos - Also broken into Softcore, Hardcore and amateur sections, also random models. Five videos each on the first page, then 35 per page. From here, they're labeled with time and length. On the model page, they aren't.
>Models - Alphabetical list with "click on letter bar"
>DVD/Books - Upsells
>Frannie Adam's Red Bush Blog - link to free blog site
>Best Friends - trade link sites
>Frannie's Reviews - Quick reviews (advertisements?) of several (mostly) well-known sites
>Support - HELP ME!!!
Updates:
Once a week: Hardcore Photos
Two times a week - Softcore Video Clips, Hardcore Video Clips, Softcore Photos and Blog/Reviews
Three times a week - Amateur Photos, Body Parts Photos and Amateur Video.
Things that make you go Hmmm:
Since nothing beyond the first page of updates includes the date, it's hard to tell when they started to go beyond the 1-2 minutes clips mentioned by mbaya. But there ARE some longer scenes up. Most of what I've seen are in the neighborhood of 5-6 minutes, with some running around 15. As I'm still the big amateur video fan, that was the first section I hit. I took me a while to figure it out, but it seems a lot of the shorter clips in that section are taken from longer scenes found when you use the model list. All I get out of that is wasted bandwidth on the clips and a site with an inflated video count.
The picture sets and videos are labeled with categories but they aren't clickable links. You have to manually type a listed category into the search box to get to them.
In the photo sections, it would be nice to be able to move from set to set without having to go back in the browser. Multiple page hops in the browser are made difficult as every page is labeled "Body Parts Members area - the closest close-ups on the web!"
You can't set picture viewing preference. To see the large size, you have to click a link on each picture. Not too fun on a slow server.
If you're browsing the update section, videos list file size and time. In the models section, some thumbnails are marked 'streaming', with a link to a page where the file sizes are listed. Where there is no streaming label, there's no way to know whether the file you're looking at is a short clip or something longer.
I noticed quite a few instances where the files used a different name than the model name - in one case, two model names between two videos of one girl.
Videos listed as hardcore have the same categories listed as those in softcore. One cumshot is hardcore and another one is softcore?
The pictures, in general, seem to be of inconsistent quality, even within one set. There are frequent pics that are the digital equivalent of film photograpy's overexposure. As I didn't see any sets worth keeping in their entirety, I downloaded one zip file to see what's what. They're the larger file size, but the files had a different model name. (I saw the different name thing with some videos, too.)
Things that make you go WTF!:
While the overall quality is somewhat better than sites with user contributed material, I expect something more when it's studio generated. The frequent shaking camerawork is annoying, as are the lighting shifts. It appears that there's only one cameraman here - and it literally looks like he's either nervous as hell or in the early stages of Parkinson's disease. When you've set up a site dedicated to closeups, I would figure you'd at least take the time to get cameras that can be steadied. Image stabilization technology isn't expensive. Worse yet, there are times when the camera is moving around, back and forth, up and down, like the cameraman lost his center and couldn't find it. On top of that, there's the lighting issue. Some clips appear to have been shot under totally different lights. One section natural looking, goes to an orange tint, then back to natural.
EDIT: Just downloaded a video with no picture! Tried twice to make sure. Nope - no picture!
The bandwidth cap is now a curiosity. It kicked in when I'd downloaded 9 gigs the first day. But, even though I'd gone over 9 gigs on a later date, it didn't pop up again.
The wrap up:
I really wanted to like this site because it looked like a new source for amateur content for me. The girls look like everyday people, not the "dolled up" models types found on InTheCrack. For that, I'd have given this site much higher marks. Unfortunately, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. But, if you like closeups, and can overlook the shortcomings I've outlined here, it might be worth the $20 cost of admission. Me? I don't know that I'll go back until I see a review that says things have changed. |
|
03-03-12 03:04pm
Replies (4)
|
Comment
2
|
Body Parts.biz
(2)
|
|
02-20-12 03:44pm
Replies (6)
|
Review
3
|
Body Parts.biz
(2)
80.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-Billing through CCBill.
-Frequent updates. "UPDATE SCHEDULE: Softcore Video Clips - Three times/week. Hardcore Video Clips - Twice/week. Softcore Photos - Three times/week. Hardcore Photos - Once/week. Amateur Photos - Three times/week. Body Parts Photos - Three times/week. Amateur Video - Three times/week."
-Really large site. I counted 774 videos, most about 2 minutes. There are 928 photosets and 140 models.
-Videos are HD at 1280x720, 3776 kbps. At this level five to seven minute videos are close to 1GB.
-Works with download managers.
-Not done in glam style. The models, aged 18 to 25, look very real, although not all are amateurs.
-Many hairy bushes although most are shaved.
-A few have tattoos, but no fake breasts.
-Some ethnic variety, but none in body shape as nearly all are very thin. |
| Cons: |
-Many of the videos are clips of a longer one, which is not offered as whole video. The video count is deceptive. My best guess is that the actual count is about 250 to 350.
-Photo sets are not zipdownloadable. Advertised as 2400x1600, they are often grainy. I used 1200x800, which is not that good. Many photos were still grainy.
-The photo sets are very repetitious. After a few sets, a closeup of a vagina looks like the last closeup of one. |
| Bottom Line: |
This site is run by Frannie Addams, who is the photographer, videographer and apparently the only one who works on the site. She has a blog where she makes entries once a month. In it she talks about upcoming additions to the site, which sounds like advertising if you ask me. There is no user interaction.
The focus here is on as she calls it "the closest close-ups on the web". The photos and videos feature breasts, butts, and especially, vaginas. Interestingly, she also realizes that the tongue and mouth in erotic poses can be highly stimulating. I have rarely seen softcore shots like this, although occasionally as part of blow job scenes.
With the videos in HD quality, sometimes the closeups are a bit too much. I don't care to see every pore or even each individual hair. However, it is not as much a gynecolgy lesson as is inthecrack.com.
The comparison here is a fair one. I believe these two sites are the only ones that use the up close focus. Inthecrack.com focuses to a large degree on butt views, whether of the ass crack or the vagina. This site has a few of these photos and videos, but its focus is on the vagina full frontal. Both are big sites, both are in HD and both can be hit and miss regarding the erotic. This site bills itself as amateurs, but I think most are pornstars or professional models. I know I recognized many and found a few more on the internet. The approach is one of natural looking models, not glam as inthecrack.com uses. Here most, if not all, models are American. Inthecrack.com has Europeans as well as Americans. Just my opinion, but I liked this site better despite its flaws.
The site is big enough and is high quality in its videos. In contrast, the photo sets are somewhat disappointing in quality. Although I can enjoy closeups of body parts, sometimes the focus is just TOO focused and misses that special intangible quality that makes a model work for me. |
|
06-17-11 09:24am
Replies (0)
|
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 0.16 seconds.
|
|
