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 Old Spunkers

Old Spunkers (0)

Active
68
messmer (137) 11-14-08  08:38am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (76), NO (1)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: Lots of material, reasonably true to its niche, if, in your eyes, everyone over thirty is old.

Steadily increasing exlusive contents.

Newer videos and pictures (zipped) are of fair quality.

Download speed was around 400 KB/s for me. If this site carried HD contents this would be barely adequate but for downloading pictures and fairly low quality (for 2008) videos it is a fair speed. Also keep in mind that speeds vary depending on your location.

Access to an additional site catering to BBW lovers. Contents of this site are just as
“barely tolerable” as that of the mother site.
Cons: The name of the site might appeal to some but, to me, it smacks of contempt for anyone over a certain age.

Most picture sets are mind numbingly boring. They might as well be screen captures because there's very little difference between one picture and the next in a given set. Most of the more exciting pictures I found were all pre 2001 and were of that quality.

Recent updates of pictures listed on the home page are still at 1023x685, adequate but not great.

Most videos before 2006 are almost unwatchable in their tiny format and when expanded to full screen are so blurred that there's no enjoyment to be had.

Newer videos can be downloaded in wmv with a 1900 bitrate but I ran into problems right away when I attempted to download a whole scene. See bottom line because there's not enough room in "cons" for the many things wrong with this site.
Bottom Line: I think that maybe the reviewers of TBP gave this site an undeservedly good (even though it's not great) rating. Maybe they felt sorry for the "old" folks present in it!

The pictures are so-so, the videos are so-so, navigation is awkward.

The thumbnails of the models are so small that one can barely make out their facial features.

A good search engine is desperately needed. There is a drop down menu near the bottom of the page that lists various niches but the most important one to me: the age of the model is missing. This would be a small oversight if only the THUMBNAILS were bigger to allow one to see at a glance if a model is thirty or sixty.

In my estimation 90 percent of the exclusive part of the site belongs in Cougar country while only a small handful of models would classify as “Old Spunkers” (Grandma country in my mind).

They CAN be found in abundance in the non- exclusive part, but both their videos and pictures are practically unwatchable (read outdated) unless you're still in possession of a 14” monitor and think that 400x300 pixels is the cat's meow.

We're not done with the problems yet. There is a section called Xtras where one can watch old, tiny segments of movies of ladies, aged 40 – approx. 60, trouble is half of the streaming bonus videos don't work with Firefox. And the ones that do work are about the size of a postage stamp. Exaggeration, I know, but not by much.

When it comes to the site's exlusive contents you will find 49 models with videos and picture sets. None of them looks to be older than fifty. A plus for some, I know, but why not put cougars or MILFS in the name of the site rather than the despised "Spunkers?"

Sadly, with this site it doesn't take long to discover its inadequacies. One of the first videos I downloaded “stuttered” and skipped badly, forcing me to contact the webmaster who, to his credit, replied promptly, suggesting that maybe I needed a new windows media player. Nope, I don't!

Now to get in a real "con" I couldn't fit in above: when I attempted to download a whole scene of one of the newer videos I ended up with a mess.

The individual segments of a scene are listed above the thumbnail of the video as :1, :2, :3 :4 etc. But when attempting to download all four the result was not good. Segment one of one of the selected videos downloaded okay, but the others ended up as empty 1 kb files in my downloads folder.

I had even less luck with the second video. My Firefox download manager told me that the download of all five segments had started but the end result was that there was not even one segment on my hard drive after Firefox pronounced "download completed." What I ended up with were a file name and the “size” of the file which was 1kb, in other words empty.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot, they also carry advertisements for “Adult Friendfinder” on every page.

Very low recommendation!

Reply To Review

Review Replies (19)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

TheRizzo (23) Great review with good details so that I can make a good informed decision about this site. And based on how you feel about All Over 30 I know we have similar tastes in older women.

I will stay away from this one.

11-14-08  11:09am

Reply To Message

2

messmer (137) REPLY TO #1 - TheRizzo :

Thanks, Rizz! I tell you how I feel about this site. I'm not going back even though I paid for a month. First time I've done that with any site.
11-14-08  12:31pm

Reply To Message

3

WeeWillyWinky (88) REPLY TO #2 - messmer :

Top-notch review, messmer.

In regard to the site's title: I would never even wind up at the welcome page of a site with a name like that. I ended up subscribing at one site, or network, more correctly, with a real dud of a name because of a rewiew here. It's called Monster Pimps. The network is very docile and tame and is mostly about softcore shots of cheerleaders, with a few mild HC sites. Monster Pimps sounds like the EXACT opposite of that. Old Spunkers makes me think of gray-haired retirees at a Pinocle table suddenly feeling an itch in the diapers.

**No dis-respect to aged persons intended.

11-14-08  12:47pm

Reply To Message

4

messmer (137) REPLY TO #3 - WeeWillyWinky :

As you can tell by the review I had the same problem with the name as you, www. I even hated to do a review with that title so prominent on the page but it was my hope to find, in a site like that, not necessarily a gray-haired retiree, even though that wouldn't be bad, depending .... :-) but someone who was an honest to goodness, real life, mature person over fifty. I am running out of options, man!

Can't promise what weird site I'll visit next just because it promises older, just like your neighbor, ladies.

11-14-08  01:07pm

Reply To Message

5

mbaya (356) Very good and complete review. I hate to add to the problems, but adultfriendfinder is notorious for leaving spyware counters on your computer. That alone makes me uncomfortable about the site.
11-14-08  01:15pm

Reply To Message

6

Monahan (40) Great review, as always, Messmer. It's efforts like this that make Porn Users so far superior to any other porn review sites.
11-14-08  01:22pm

Reply To Message

7

messmer (137) REPLY TO #5 - mbaya :

You're not just whistling Dixie, my friend. I was going to include that in my review but couldn't be sure it was them. After my little session with the site AVG informed me during its daily check that I had acquired 6 little spy bots. They're gone .. and thanks!
11-14-08  01:43pm

Reply To Message

8

messmer (137) REPLY TO #6 - Monahan :

Thanks, that means a great deal coming from you, Monahan!
11-14-08  01:44pm

Reply To Message

9

TheRizzo (23) REPLY TO #4 - messmer :

The everlasting quest for the older ladies is damn near impossible to find. If All Over 30 can't find them I doubt these other sites will. But we can hope to get more options and variety one day!

BTW you see AO30 has a few newer girls late 40's and early 50's and I see they got a new girl Sandra who is 64.

11-14-08  08:55pm

Reply To Message

10

messmer (137) REPLY TO #9 - TheRizzo :

I might just have to re-subscribe to AO30 one of these days soon! :-) It is a quality site even though I found many of their photo sets less than inspiring (see my rant in the forum), and I keep hoping they'll replace some of the photographers like Toby who can be found on entirely too many sites. I hate that bluish/pinkish tinge and the unnecessary "softness" he gives his sets .. especially since he is the photographer of one of my favorite models.
11-15-08  06:59am

Reply To Message

11

TheRizzo (23) REPLY TO #10 - messmer :

Yeah Toby can be frustrating as his sets have their own look but but not as crisp as I would like. Its like he wants to look amateurish or something. At least they made him pull back a bit and shoot more full body shots instead of all closeups like he used to do. And you are right he does get some of the best models. I'd love to see a few other photographers shoot the same girls just for comparison.
11-15-08  09:55am

Reply To Message

12

lk2fireone (194) I like the review of Old Spunkers. Clean, easy to understand, lots of details.

What I don't understand is the score. I have a hard time figuring out how to score a site. I've only done 3 site reviews. 2 of the sites I scored at 75, and I like the sites, think they are worthwhile joining, even if you only join for a month to download whatever files you want to keep (Domai and Glamdeluxe).
One site I scored 97, because its got massive content, lots of great models, lots of quality photosets, and a low annual price of $99 (Metart). That's the best value I've seen for softcore teen.

But you give a score of 68 to a junk site.

What counts is the overall impression of the site, which you make clear. But I wonder how useful these scores are, even as a general guide. People really need to read the complete review of a site, and not just look at the score as a major factor.

I wish I had a more objective way of scoring a site, because I don't think a score means very much.

On the other hand, I'm also glad we can score any way we want, because I wouldn't like to be bound by some formula that Pornusers developed for scoring.

11-20-08  04:01pm

Reply To Message

13

messmer (137) REPLY TO #12 - lk2fireone :

Hi, I usually try to go by the guide listed under the review I write but must admit that, of course, a score is subjective. To me, 68 is a clear rejection of a site. It was so for the web owner who let me know how disappointed he was with my assessment of his site. If you look at the scores given to good sites then you will agree that 68 is as low as one can go on a site that is bad but not quite "junk." He did have some exclusive material that might appeal to some but the name of the site is misleading. And I agree with you about scoring in general, to me it is much more important that reviewers go into as much detail about a site as possible because a 98 site for one might be the epitome of boredom for another.
11-21-08  07:04am

Reply To Message

14

lk2fireone (194) REPLY TO #13 - messmer :

You hit it exactly when you say, "a 98 (rated) site for one might be the epitome of boredom for another."

That's why I am quibbling about the value of a score.

I've seen pay sites rated 90+ I would not want to watch for free. Either the models don't appeal to me, or the action is a real turnoff. Personal taste (site content) is more important than ease of use (site layout).

I want a site that's easy to use. But more importantly, I want:
-great looking models.
-lots of high-quality pics or vids
-a price that I think reasonable (based on content)

Still looking for the perfect site. In the meantime, I enjoy window shopping.

11-21-08  07:48am

Reply To Message

15

lk2fireone (194) REPLY TO #13 - messmer :

Just a side note: You write reviews that clearly give the reader plenty of information to decide on the value of a site.

I think pornusers is helpful in spending my porn dollars more sensibly. As well as offering discounts on pay site subscriptions.

On a different side note: Quibble me this: Why is there a 10 minute limit on editing these replies?

Are my thoughts really cast in stone, to stand the test of time?

11-21-08  08:05am

Reply To Message

16

messmer (137) REPLY TO #14 - lk2fireone :

I, too, don't pay too much attention to a score because it's too subjective. Same holds true when it comes to movie critics, I find most of the movies they deem Oscar worthy mind-numbingly boring while the ones they pan usually turn out to become favorites of mine! :-)

I do pay attention, however, to really low ratings in their fifties and sixties because quite obviously the reviewer had a very negative experience with the site.

As to your follow-up re. time limitations on editing a reply I really have no idea. Could it be that someone will respond to a point you made and you have edited out that very point in the meantime?

11-21-08  08:54am

Reply To Message

17

lk2fireone (194) REPLY TO #16 - messmer :

I took my mother to see "Out of Africa" and "The Color Purple" when they were playing together at a movie theater in 1986.

Out of Africa won 7 Oscars.
The Color Purple was nominated for 11 Oscars.

The movies were supposed to be excellent, but I was bored out of my mind.
I kept going out to the lobby, and smoked half a pack of cigarettes because I was so bored.

Lol.

That was when it was still legal to smoke in theaters.

11-21-08  10:16am

Reply To Message

18

Khan
PU Staff
REPLY TO #15 - lk2fireone :

Ik2fireone said:
//--
On a different side note: Quibble me this: Why is there a 10 minute limit on editing these replies?

Are my thoughts really cast in stone, to stand the test of time?

//--

As messmer rightly guessed, it's to keep you from editing something that someone may have responded to. You're always welcome to add additional remarks (after the 10 minutes) to modify or add to your position.

If you're interested, you can see in an earlier poll that only a small percentage of users have a problem with the time limit on a regular basis.

Has the 10 minutes limit to edit replies ever been a problem?

11-21-08  11:12am

Reply To Message

19

lk2fireone (194) REPLY TO #18 - Khan :

Khan,

I realize the rules are set up to make the member postings informative and useful.

I kinda like the idea that "my thoughts (are) really cast in stone, to stand the test of time".

So I am comfortable with the 10-minute limit for editing.

I will stand by my words. With further modifications as needed.

Regards,

lk2fireone

11-21-08  01:57pm

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 0.02 seconds.