Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Comment A note about the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Babes.tv

Babes.tv (0)

Drooler (220) 12-27-07  01:14pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (82), NO (0)

About their pics and navigation

Currently on a month's subscription after a couple years away.

Their current pics max at 1536 or 1600 px, but once you're in Aug 07 and further back, they more often max at 1024. June to Aug 07 is an uneven period in this way. Pre-June 07, they max at 1024.

Speaking of things uneven, they sometimes do the portrait orientations at 1536 or 1600, but the "landscape" ones at 1024. Why, I cannot fathom. There's an Andie Valentino set in Aug. 07 that would have been better if they hadn't done that.

Quality is also uneven from set to set. Some have fuller color and look fairly professional, while others are washed out and color-poor -- even recently.

And it's uneven WITHIN some sets, with strings of pics that suddenly have way too much red in them or are way too dark -- again, even recently.

Another thing is their navigation. If you're in the August '07 updates calendar, to get to February, you have to click 6 times to get there. Turn around? Use your own back button. They do have a basic html drop-down for model names (a long list) and another for ... upsells.

The pics are all exclusive and some of the sets were nice, but overall I'm not very impressed by this site. These days, we should expect better for $30, and with a fair number of other sites, we get it. Too often with this one the message I seem to be getting is "Don't care."

Reply To Comment

Comment Replies (3)

Replies to the user comment above.

Msg # User Message Date


PinkPanther (46) Since this is a site that continues to excite me more than many, I have to contest the "don't care" allegation.

a) Their stuff is exclusive and that's worth something

b) The production staff has a unique attitude that comes out in their stuff - an affection for a certain grittiness that cuts against the glamour and makes them different from the cookie-cutter character of Twisty's, for example

c) Yeah, they could edit the sets they post and pull out a bunch where the color went off, but these are usually a small number of pics in large updates of 100 pics or more, so for me it's hard to complain about that

d) When they hit it right on, they do astounding work and have done some of the best sets of Annetta Keys, Monika Vesela, Andi Valentino, Jade Hsu (including wonderful recent sets), and others.

e) Their navigation - it's weird and not particularly user-friendly. Sometimes the photosets are on a separate page from their vids, sometimes (as with Mari Possa, one of my faves) the photosets are connected to the vids.

The price - I wouldn't have stayed if I were stuck with their original membership price, even with everything I said above. Their "please don't leave" price when I was going to has kept me around.

Lack of recent updates - this concerns me. After being as consistent as one could hope for, they haven't updated at all since 12/24. One would think that any professional site would have auto-updating set up before they went on vacation or would post a note on their home page about their update plans.

Other sites are being weird about this too, at present, which I find frustrating and avoidable, given the auto-update and clear communication options they could have gone with.

12-29-07  08:21am

Reply To Message


Drooler (220) REPLY TO #1 - PinkPanther :

I'm still currently a member, and their not posting updates since Dec. 24, which you pointed out, is to me another example of the "don't care" attitude.

And it's a matter of degree. To me, they should care more. To others, maybe not. That's fine by me. The way I see it, you may get none or just part of what you ask for in most cases.

I've seen several sites improve because of feedback from PU, some of it from me. That's very heartening. I may seen less forgiving than some reviewers, but my primary purpose is to advocate for the users. But the effect has been that sites have also benefitted from improvements suggested. Nubiles is one great example. I'm running out of time on this edit.

12-29-07  08:54am

Reply To Message


Drooler (220) REPLY TO #1 - PinkPanther :

"c) Yeah, they could edit the sets they post and pull out a bunch where the color went off, but these are usually a small number of pics in large updates of 100 pics or more, so for me it's hard to complain about that."

I don't know why the color quality changes in some of the pics like that in some of the sets at Babes.tv, but I don't like it. Which should a paying user get, consistent quality or inconsistent?

Babes.tv would only help itself by making improvements in the consistency of the photo quality, its navigation, and the way it handles updates during the holidays. It would then deservedly rise in the ranks.

You mentioned Twistys and its "cookie-cutter" photosets. With those, you win by having more choices of which pics to keep, and you lose by having to spend time deciding which ones to toss. I really can't say for sure which way is better.

But I will say this for Twistys, they're still moving on the up. Their exclusive photosets esp from Nov and Dec this year include more pics of better quality and size (1400px and 1600px). Some of them are still overly compressed and too small, but not as many as before. For the price, with 4-5 photosets every day of at least somewhat better quality than babes.tv, I think Twistys is actually a better site. And it's a LOT easier to navigate!

Understand, there's no disrepect here. If you think I'm over the top in my statements about the quality of a site, that's OK by me. Your tone is civil and I respect that, too. But if a site could improve, why not ask it to? The worst that could happen is that it won't.

12-29-07  09:34am

Reply To Message

*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.


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 0.01 seconds.