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).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Overdeveloped Amateurs

Overdeveloped Amateurs (0)

Active
65
RagingBuddhist (65) 03-16-08  09:04am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (63), NO (0)
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: + Yes, there are a lot of very large tits on this site
Cons: - With the exception of a few very small details, site design has never changed

- Severe lack of content

- Video quality is horrible - 320x240 mpg only

- Except for special features, everything is in 40-second clips

- Updates are almost random - every third or fourth day?

- Picture gallery is all dated material - from 2001 and 2002

- Content replaced every month
Bottom Line: Each month starts out with a dozen or so sets, a "set" being ten 40-second clips or their "special features" which are roughly a 10 minutes long. Then, every few days or so, either a new set of clips or another feature is added. It's almost random, and hard to get a fix on what the update frequency actually is. The only thing I know for sure is that the "features" are rotated out weekly. In the end, after my month was up, all I wound up with was 2.55 gigs of video that looks like it was shot with a VHS camera and that I had a lot of clip joining to do.

On their Q&A page (where for some reason they decided to use Java based popups that sometimes pop up 2, 3 and 4 times), I saw this:

Question: Why did you decide to make this a monthly issue?

Answer:
"I built this site to be the way i wish all websites were. fresh material all the time without looking at the same stuff each time i come back to the site. so i decided its better to give fresh material each month, then to just keep updating leaving lots of material that you've already seen."

That's not the feeling I get. I picture someone running a niche site who wants to minimize server usage and maximize profits. I can also easily imagine that whomever's running this site figures there are enough people who just decide they want to see some huge tits every once in a while, that they don't need to update the site design. It shows. (Bottom line continued in replies)

Reply To Review

Review Replies (1)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

RagingBuddhist (65) It's got a real 1990 something feel to it, with the same background I saw when I joined several years ago. Their "Archive Photo Gallery" hasn't changed in years either. It's got the same 27 pages of pictures that were up the last time I joined. The watermarks verify that - they're all marked 2001 and 2002. They've been going at it with the same formula for so long, even the watermark in their videos is now literally fuzzy around the edges.

Even though I believe that sometimes you have to pay for what you want, this site is ridiculously expensive, even at $20 a month. The concept is great - the execution is anything but. I know I won't be back unless there are some dramatic changes on the site.

03-16-08  09:08am

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.

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 0.01 seconds.