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 Skokoff

Skokoff (0)

Active
80
Drooler (220) 11-22-08  08:46pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (85), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Lots of attractive girls who probably sign their contracts in the Cyrillic alphabet.
+All-exclusive content.
+None of those blasted toys!
+Galleries updated every other day June-October 2008; daily in November.
+Pics in 3 sizes: small 1000px; medium 2500px, and large 3008 or 3872 or 4368px.
+All sizes of pics available à la carte or in zips.
+Nice, clean site design that is set up to be easy to use. (But see the cons ...)
+Extensive visitor’s area. You can see everything the site offers except for the gallery thumbs and full vids. And there are photo samples in all sizes.
+All videos in WMV (424x240), QT, and HD DivX (1280x720), which is the best, of course, with no choppiness.
Cons: -Unruly thumbs: Have been greeted in some galleries, even new ones, with nothing but empty image-tag X’s, not thumb pics. “X” occasionally marks the spot in some other galleries, too.
-There’s also the “swollen thumb” -- a tiny fraction of the top left of a pic where the thumb should be.
-Some clicks for enlargements expand to a full-screen “404” error page.
-Wandering watermarks: At least one gallery had the watermark not in the bottom right where it belongs, but in some pics hovering like a drone close to the model, etc.
-Oops! I’m a visitor! Some links in the members’ area expose you to the public space. (Click “members” for re-entry with no additional login.)
-Slow downloads. 30 min. for a 324MB vid. Started at 175Kbps; eased down to 139. And a 140MB vid clocked at only 105. A photoset crawled its way to me at 70.
-Only 14 videos. Sorry, but this is a photography site, even in motion. Flash-flash! The mood music helps a bit.
Bottom Line: You might have heard of Skokov. That’s how it’s spelled at MetArt. Well, my friends, I did check the artist page there for material here that might qualify as “non-exclusive.” Fortunately, I found none.

The girls here are mostly very lovely. Some of the better-knowns are Lena, July (Sandra at MetArt, Judy at FemJoy), Katerina (Rina at MetModels, Cat at FemJoy), Vika (also at FemJoy), and Natasha, the ubiquitous Helena-Larissa-Nastya-Nata-Natalie. 53 models in all so far, that ain’t bad!

The photography is tasteful and professional. The settings suggest a certain opulence, yet it is not overdone. I just wish there was more brightness in more of the sets. And I do hope for more sets of July and Lena. There’s only 1 of each so far.

As I got into the site, I was thinking, “This is very smart. The clean design, the simple and easy navigation by models or by galleries ...” But then I started seeing the flaws, as noted in the cons. Somebody needs to get their act together and make sure that the thumbs work, and that they’re there to begin with.

And what’s with the watermark right above Katerina’s head in “Beautiful Red” 047.jpg? And in 080? To the left of her face in 035? And why is 053 missing both the thumb and the pics?

Well, in spite of its flaws, I’d still recommend this site to now-forewarned photo lovers. The pros outweigh the cons, even though the cons are annoying. And I’d say now is the time to fix that stuff, before the site gets any bigger.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (15)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

Toadsith (48) How is the full resolution photo quality? I just went through the photo galleries section of their tour and while I like the models and the poses, I was a bit stunned by the lack of image quality in their high resolution examples. The photos had tons of digital noise and it looked like the auto focus might be a bit off. Despite seemingly nice lighting, sets and props, I'm guessing that they are using a rather low end DSLR camera. My Nikon D50 honestly shows less noise in its photos - and it retailed at around $600. Maybe they are using a low-end Canon. Are these examples relevant to their latest work?
11-23-08  01:44am

Reply To Message

2

Drooler (220) REPLY TO #1 - Toadsith :

It varies. I just took what I found to be acceptable.

I'm not a photographer, so when I see "digital noise" it's easier for me to attribute it to something past the point that the shutter clicks (e.g., changes to a jpeg which degrade the image).

11-23-08  02:40am

Reply To Message

3

Toadsith (48) REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :

Indeed JPEG artifacts can be a villainous sort, but do not appear to be the perpetrators in this case. Still, the models are quite fetching and the photographer has a well developed style. I will certainly keep an eye on this site. Thanks for the engaging review.
11-23-08  02:45am

Reply To Message

4

True Alex (4)
Webmaster
Hello, Drooler and others!

Thanks for the review!
One thing that I don't understand is when you find an error on the site like missing pictures and you don't even try to email me as a support, but you're writing the review here. I don't mind about mentioning my mistakes in the review, but why don't let me know? I don't browse this site too often, thanks that I subscribed to PornUsers' RSS feed.

Well... back to "cons"
-Unruly thumbs: Have been greeted in some galleries, even new ones, with nothing but empty image-tag X’s, not thumb pics. “X” occasionally marks the spot in some other galleries, too.
I'll check every gallery today

-There’s also the “swollen thumb” -- a tiny fraction of the top left of a pic where the thumb should be.
The same as above

-Some clicks for enlargements expand to a full-screen “404” error page.
The same as above

-Wandering watermarks: At least one gallery had the watermark not in the bottom right where it belongs, but in some pics hovering like a drone close to the model, etc.
I will talk to Skokoff about it, would be really appreciate if you send me the links to those galleries

-Oops! I’m a visitor! Some links in the members’ area expose you to the public space. (Click “members” for re-entry with no additional login.)
My mistake, I check again everything

-Slow downloads. 30 min. for a 324MB vid. Started at 175Kbps; eased down to 139. And a 140MB vid clocked at only 105. A photoset crawled its way to me at 70.
Well, this is up to your location and location of the servers, there are no any limitations for downloading set on the servers. We should use content distribution network in the future, like Met-Art does, but we are quite small yet ;-)

-Only 14 videos. Sorry, but this is a photography site, even in motion. Flash-flash! The mood music helps a bit.
There are much more videos prepared already. All HDV, all hot :-)

So, all the cons are technical and will be solved quite soon. Skokoff is not that good in all the computers stuff that is why sometimes you find copyrights not on their place. And I couldn't check every image :-) The site is very very new and we're working on making it better.
Thanks for the review again!

11-23-08  04:45am

Reply To Message

5

Drooler (220) REPLY TO #4 - True Alex :

Hi Alex. Thanks for getting back so quickly and in such detail. I think if you have a page or site editing program that can check for broken links, it will give you a list.

I review sites expecting them to work. Sure, it's being strict, but I regard them as I would any other products for sale. It's what I as a consumer have purchased, as would others.

Surely you have seen the latest gallery of Natasha, just today. Once again, many of the thumbs were nothing but X's. I suggest carefully checking every gallery for errors before posting it. Then you won't have any problems. And what I don't understand is why this isn't common, routine practice on some web sites.

But I'll revise the review and increase the score after the problems get fixed. I might wait a week, but in the meantime you can post here that you've already fixed them so that others interested in the site will already know.

Thanks again for getting back to me. As I said in the review, I like the site, and as you said, the problems are only technical.

11-23-08  05:02am

Reply To Message

6

True Alex (4)
Webmaster
REPLY TO #1 - Toadsith :

I talked to skokoff and there are some samples and series that he shot long time ago, when he started to work as a photographer. All the latest series shot by Canon 5D.
11-23-08  05:03am

Reply To Message

7

Toadsith (48) REPLY TO #6 - True Alex :

Good to know! The Canon 5D is a very respectable camera and usually doesn't exhibit that massive amount of noise seen in the high res samples nor the auto focus mishaps. I wish I could afford a camera of such a level. If he is Canon fan, that would no doubt explain the noise produced by the older camera.

So please do update those high res samples! I doubt I'm the only photography freak that would be worried by those. Thanks to your response however, I will be moving the site up to high priority for review as I do like Skokoff's style in choice of models, poses and sets as shown on the preview pages.

Also, it is always nice to see that webmasters do take notice to the site. Cheers!

11-23-08  05:15am

Reply To Message

8

True Alex (4)
Webmaster
REPLY TO #5 - Drooler :

Well, I don't post the galleries and movies manually. We are improving our scripts to avoid that flaws in the future. I'm sorry, that your impression was kind of ruined by all this glitches.

And yes, I'll post back, when we fix the problems.

11-23-08  05:16am

Reply To Message

9

Denner (233) It looks like the webmaster is not happy about most cons in Droolers review. That's easy to understand.
But that the same webmaster expects PUs NOT to make a review before consulting the site - and/or the webmaster - is a little far off.
PUs does reviews of what we see on the sites - the reviews is a place for consumers.
It's fine that webmasters/siteowners react to these review, but they cannot except us to hold back til after a debate about problems/cons.

11-23-08  05:39am

Reply To Message

10

True Alex (4)
Webmaster
REPLY TO #9 - Denner :

I don't ask to consult us before the review. I just don't understand - if you found a problem in the product you bought - usually you were contacting support first and then share your opinion about the product and it's support.

In this case I wouldn't even know about this review and mistakes that were found.

The way the reviewing works on pornusers.com is not the best for site owners. I would ask for any review of the new site not earlier than 3-6 months after the launch and not on the second day after or even before the official launch. But we can live with it, we have to, and you're right, this is the place for surfers/consumers to share opinions. That is why I'm here also, cause I do care about the content and members' satisfaction.

11-23-08  06:04am

Reply To Message

11

Drooler (220) REPLY TO #8 - True Alex :

Well, I certainly wouldn't say "ruined." "Tainted," perhaps?

And I wonder if it was the scripts, or was it what was fed into them? You only need one file name that doesn't fit the variables that the script was intended to handle for things to go awry. After all, if you used the same scripts for every gallery, it's probably the input that's the problem, since some of the galleries had no problems at all.

Well, good luck! You folks are getting right to the problems immediately. I'm very positively impressed by that, as I'm sure other readers are.

Oh, I just remembered something which you might consider in the future when you have more time: Is there any way that you can give unique names to the zips for the different pic sizes by, for example, putting an "-s" in the zip file name for the 1000px zips, and an "-m" for the 2500px? Right now, all of the zips for a given gallery have identical file names, and some of us might download more than one size. Some other sites do that, and it's a pro when they do.

11-23-08  06:17am

Reply To Message

12

True Alex (4)
Webmaster
REPLY TO #11 - Drooler :

Well, I didn't want to discuss technical issues here but that was the photographer, that mixed up extensions of the files in some galleries. But that is my fault - I have to control everything.

Re. zip names - easy, I put it on my to do list. Thanks for the tip.

11-23-08  06:24am

Reply To Message

13

Drooler (220) REPLY TO #12 - True Alex :

Aha! Well, there ya go! And believe me, I know what it's like. I have to work with data myself coming from a variety of sources, too, and there's always a chance that someone will not have been watching what they were doing. And guess who gets called on it? So I've learned from the School of Hard Knocks to check things before they get seen by the higher-ups. And to have a little talk with the error-prone upon whom I must depend, like it or not.
11-23-08  06:39am

Reply To Message

14

Drooler (220) REPLY TO #9 - Denner :

I do think I know a thing or two about human nature by this stage in my life, which is why I see the dynamics being different whether the user first reports problems to the webmaster or describes them in a review here.

I think that generally you'll get a prompter and more serious response when you're a reviewer vs. when you're just another user contacting the site privately. Whether Alex would have been any less serious about it had I contacted the site instead is something I just couldn't have known for sure.

In fact, it hadn't even dawned on me that Alex might have been the webmaster since I'd also forgotten that Skokoff is of the same company as is AvErotica and Eronata. Anyway, I think he must be quite an asset for them as their front man since his English is so good, for one thing. My guess is that he's bilingual in English and Russian.

What I foresee happening here is another ultimate win-win for all concerned. Even with the problems, Skokoff has more visibility thanks to the review. That alone might generate more revenue. And with the improvements to come and the higher score and clearing out of the con's, it will do even better. And, of course, it will be better for the users who subscribe.

It's always a judgment call, but I think I've done my part and did it in the right way. And you did yours. It simply isn't our job to tell the sites to correct problems that sites obviously shouldn't have in the first place. That's like having to tell someone to turn on their windshield wipers in a car in pouring rain. So if we do tell them, at our option, that's gravy.

I did decide to try helping Alex to troubleshoot things because he was so earnest about it. He certainly has won me over compared to some of the other webmasters I've dealt with or seen others deal with here.

11-23-08  07:54am

Reply To Message

15

Denner (233) REPLY TO #14 - Drooler :

I'm absolutely with you here - and I'm also sure this whole debate your review started very well could be a win-win situation for all - now I think I'll join AvErotica again, btw - AND I look forward to the development for the sites in the True Beauty Cash company.....
11-25-08  12:05am

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.