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 Village Ladies

Village Ladies (0)

Active
63
WeeWillyWinky (88) 11-11-08  03:01am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Pollster  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (52), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: - A fair amount of nice pictures.
- Site is mature and contains nothing sleezy or trashy.
- The basic premise of the site is good.
Cons: - A large percentage of the pics have been moved into a separate archive, which requires a separate membership.
- No videos.
- No zip-files.
- Small pictures (avg. 600x800 up to 749x1123), of fair to middling quality.
- Very small thumbnails.
- Pages load slowly.
- Sliding sidebar which moves as the scroll-button is moved. Very annoying.
- Some models in dire need of a dentist.
Bottom Line: Woody Allen opens one of his films with an old joke: Two women are at a restaurant and one says, "the food here is lousy.", and the other replies, "Yeah, and such small portions."

That joke applies pretty well to Village Ladies. For instance: I could complain that a considerably large percentage of the pictures have been moved to a separate archive which I can't access; but at the same time it would be silly to complain since ninety percent of those pics would do nothing for me anyway. But complain I will, hence the reference to Woody's joke.

As soon as I entered the member's section, disappointment and tedium ensued. First, no zips. Second, the thumbs loaded slowly and were so small I could hardly make out the image. Third, I clicked on one link in the model's index and was taken to a page which invites you to join a separate site where the older pics are now stored. On return to the model's index, that link was now yellow (visited) as were all the links to sets I would not be able to access. The sudden over-abundance of links to sets I could not access was somehow insulting, as if a joke had been pulled on me.

While beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder, I found *very few* attractive models here. There's nothing wrong with being homely, but if you agree to being photographed, and to having those photos featured on a site where people are paying to obtain access to those photos, and if the intention of those photos is sexual titillation, then you should be prepared to hear some unflattering comments. Unflattering comment follows:

If you have broken teeth, missing teeth, gray teeth, or brown teeth, keep the smiling to a minimum, visit a dentist, or re-consider posing for adult pictures. This comment refers to some of the models, not all of them, of course.

***

This site has been online for a number of years and now costs more than a lot of premium sites. If you have a yen for less-than-glamorous mature amateurs, Aunt Judy's is a much safer bet than this.

Read Duke's review (TBP reviewer). He does a lot less pussy-footing than me, and his five year old review needs precious little updating.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (7)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

messmer (137) A timely review, www. I was tempted to subscribe. I had even sent an email to the webmaster to see what the present standard size of their pictures was because the free samples on their home page were very small. Got a bit of an ambiguous reply, "some are bigger, some are smaller depending on the source," with no effort on the part of the webmaster to be courteous. Your review just saved me a bundle because it confirms my suspicions about the site.
11-12-08  02:21pm

Reply To Message

2

WeeWillyWinky (88) REPLY TO #1 - messmer :

Thanks for the reply, messmer.

I know you're a fan of mature women, as I am. As I said in my review, the premise of the site is good, and it's devoid of anything trashy, both of which are a plus. But if you're going to be a pictures-only site and steer clear of video, even in 2008, why not offer the best quality pictures you can? Why not offer zip-files? And why haul off a large percentage of the content to another site and charge extra for accessing it, when the content is not of premium quality to begin with? I'll admit, some of the newer pics are decent, but a lot of the older ones are smaller than 600x800. This move seems a bit stingy to me. Especially considering the 33.00 USD I paid for my month.

For a site like this, with small thumbs and no zips, not to mention generally slow-loading pages, it requires a good deal of patience and work to download each pic individually and hope to get some kind of genuine enjoyment out of the experience. Despite my low score, there are some very nice pictures here, as I said in my pros, but for 33 smackers I would rather not have to squint and hunt and click so much.

And like I said, seeing all those links to sets I can't access is sort of insulting, even though there's still a good deal of content I *can* get to. It's a bad idea, and without that the score might have been at least a 70. The spirited ladies themselves can be appreciated on their own merits, even though most of them are quite frankly not my cup of tea, and more or less transcend the whole scoring thing. The 63 is for Albert.

11-13-08  12:16am

Reply To Message

3

messmer (137) REPLY TO #2 - WeeWillyWinky :

One thing I forgot to mention, www, that I am just as appalled that there's no way to download their big sets of pictures in zip. I, too, would not have the patience to do it one by one. I've subscribed to a couple of sites like that and will never go back until they discover zip! :-) I think Albert's indifferent attitude to customer requests (expressed in his e-mail letter to me) is not conducive to his ever running a first class site.
11-13-08  07:24am

Reply To Message

4

Capn (28) I think it is a good theme for a site but very poorly executed.
It really hasn't progressed from mid 1990 standard websites.

09-12-09  08:00am

Reply To Message

5

messmer (137) REPLY TO #4 - Capn :

You are right, Capn. As a matter of fact it's exactly this type of site I am looking for, however I am not prepared to put up with outdated, low quality stuff. Especially if it can't even be zipped.

Also, as I mentioned above, I did not like the webmaster's attitude. He had that arrogant "take us as we are or buzz off" attitude in his email to me which spoke volumes when it comes to his willingness to bring his site into the 21st century.

09-12-09  01:26pm

Reply To Message

6

Capn (28) REPLY TO #5 - messmer :

That must be really frustrating, as there isn't a lot in a similar vein. :0/

What's Aunt Judy's like these days?

09-12-09  01:38pm

Reply To Message

7

messmer (137) REPLY TO #6 - Capn :

See my response to Pink Panther under answers to your comment on "strip tease," in the forum. That's why this site would have been so good. The ladies take a long time getting undressed, most wear old fashioned lingerie .. just my cup of tea. The only thing I would like them to add is a bit more "pink" at the end of each set. Some are a bit too coy.
09-12-09  01:46pm

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.