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 Polls Daily polls where users can vote and give their opinion!

Are you ever surprised at the ratings of models at porn sites?

Type: General

Submitted by Drooler (220)
Yes, some I'd rate higher 2% 1 Votes
Yes, some I'd rate lower 18% 9 Votes
Yes, too high and too low 55% 27 Votes
Not often 16% 8 Votes
Never 2% 1 Votes
(Other) 6% 3 Votes

Reply to Poll
Register to Vote!

49 Votes Total

Feb 11, 2009

Poll Replies (15)

Replies to the user poll above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

TrashMan (Disabled) Usually not surprised. The highest rated models are the busty blondes, those who are cute are in the middle, while the butt-ugly girls are down at the bottom (butt-ugly in porn = flat chested, or no meat, or boney ass, or short hair).
02-11-09  12:02am

Reply To Message

2

badandy400 (103) In all reality I do not pay much attention to the rating on sites. Ratings here mean a lot more than the rating on the actual site. Once i am in the site I can decide for myself if I like the model or not, so that that point te opinions of other no longer matter. Besides, how much can you trust those rating anyway?

Usually when a site has comment boxes and such it is just people ranting about how they want to marry the woman, or that someone sucks. Reality Kings had a good bit of this.

02-11-09  01:13am

Reply To Message

3

lk2fireone (194) My own opinion is what counts. Model ratings/rankings have little use for me.
02-11-09  05:10am

Reply To Message

4

sluthunter (0) I have to comment on the date of reviews. It seems that some of the reviews are years old, which doesn't do that site any justice. We all know that in order for these sites to make money, they each have to update a minimum of once a week, which potentially adds hundreds of videos and photo sets to the site each year. One more thing I have noticed is that the reviews miss a lot of the extras these sites offer, sometimes that includes cam shows, story sections, bonus sites, additional feeds, forums, diaries, etc, ect, etc. I know that the reviewers must be extremely busy with all the new sites evolving each month, but please perform frequent updates to the reviews you have already posted, in order to help us surfers determine which sites are worthy of subscribing to. I for one would like to see better informed reviews than to have to take a chance that the reviewer missed something, or was bias in their review.
02-11-09  05:36am

Reply To Message

5

exotics4me (463) REPLY TO #4 - sluthunter :

sluthunter, you would probably be better served to post a thread in the forum on here to get a discussion going about your complaint.
02-11-09  07:37am

Reply To Message

6

exotics4me (463) Good poll Drooler, this came up awhile back in an email discussion with Nick of Babelicious. The reason being, at that time, there wasn't anyway to view the models except by ranking. I had missed several models that for some reason were rated very low. They did add the alphabetical search feature, but the model ratings do seem to be a bit odd to me in variance from site to site. A few months ago, I was on Xisty and Babelicious and was comparing the rankings. Since both sites have very similar model selection. Eve Angel was #1 on xisty but only #35 at Babelicious. Sandra Shine was #6 at Babelicious but only #44 at Xisty.

What I think happens, first of all I find it disturbing that I'm making theories about porn, but anyway, I think there are some members that go from say babelicious to xisty, where there is licensed content on both and they get mad that they already have the non-exclusive sets and give those low scores.

I also think videos of models that don't go beyond the tease step bring their rating down too.

I always think the comments are funny. I rarely get beyond 2 without seeing, "Wish she would do anal!" and you know that member is hitting the lower score everytime a non-anal scene is posted.

02-11-09  07:49am

Reply To Message

7

Denner (233) Man, this is a hard one, Drooler...
I never pay much attention to ratings at a specific site - especially ratings of models.
Mainly because I almost disagree or in too many sites there are no model-rating at all. If I'm not mistaken, a lot goes for scene-ratings.
It's difficult to rate a certain model, in general - we all got different taste
- even if there are some "top-models" we all can agree upon.
Another item is: why do some sites skip those ratings?
Maybe because we all got our favorites - and after that there are some new models - take Nubiles, for instance.
That site keeps comming up with entirely new models (not all, of course) - but how do you rate, how do you compare: By their looks, by their acting, by the editing of a photoshoot or video - well, I'm still uncertain about this very interesting poll - and it deserves even more discussions at some new threads...

02-11-09  10:55am

Reply To Message

8

Wittyguy (95) I am never suprised at the ratings models get on sites becuase no one has as good of taste in women as I do and, as such, cannot possibly know what the heck they are doing when it comes to rating babes ;)

I really don't care or even look at the ratings that members give models on sites. The only thing that is annoying is when your search is limited to the internal ratings system which, thankfully, I have only come across once.

I like the fact that sites let users give ratings and comments as part of the experience but it doesn't do anything for me. Unlike PU you pretty much get a bunch of Neanderthal comments ... so easy a caveman can do it ....

02-11-09  11:09am

Reply To Message

9

turboshaft (24) Yes, too high and too low, despite how predictable ratings become (big chests, blondes always getting high marks), I am still surprised how often looks alone will get the ratings. I have seen quite a few models who I thought had incredible looks, and then when I watch their videos I wish I had never see them in the first place. Sometimes a model won't even do that well in a photoshoot either, so I never even watch her videos.

Attitude counts too, so just being "super hot" doesn't cut it for me. When I do really like a girl's looks it usually one or two things that that never fair too well in polls (like non-blonde hair color, or normal size breasts).

Ratings are not really a big deal until they affect content release; that is, if a model is not rated too well and less of her content is uploaded to a site. ALS Scan does this, and I think it hurts them because you never get to see a lot of girls' work after they been judged "not popular enough."

02-11-09  11:27am

Reply To Message

10

obsessedoverit (8) I have never actually paid attention to them. I have my own rating system to go off of. Although occasionally I view videos chosen as favorites by the editors. I figure they know best when they produce a hot video.
02-11-09  12:41pm

Reply To Message

11

Drooler (220) Funny how I have a lot of things that I could say about this. Funny because I generally don't think that the ratings of models can be taken all that seriously. Why?

1. Sometimes they're pre-set at mid- or high.
2. Neanderthals go "Grunt! Snort! No butthole fuck? Hhhrrddhh!" (Kind of mix of what Wittyguy and Exotics4me were talking about.)
3. The frontal-cortex-defying effects of big tits. Big mams are something that only the reptilian brain can truly appreciate, but as we all know from the record of this decade, it can vote.
4. There are some chicks I've seen on certain sites, such as ATK, that are no-brainers. No reptilian-brainers. Like, NO NO Noooooo! But they hang around, and out. They're going to be on for a least a few times, like it or not. It's like voting for crushed gravel as a breakfast cereal. (NB: Some reptiles actually USE rocks as part of the digestive process.)

Yet still, I like MY VOTES. I KNOW they're good. I'm sure that Dear Reader can relate to this sentiment, in a personal kind of way.

So when I see a girl at MetArt that I know I want to see more of, even if she's not "perfect," I'll give her a 10 there anyway, just to stack the deck in her favor. (Hey, gotta deal with Conan the Barbarian somehow!)

And so when I see another set of Rebecca C, I think, "You know. I'm glad I voted!" Bad example, though, 'cause that girl's REALLY got it. Sexy as all getout.

02-11-09  04:40pm

Reply To Message

12

pat362 (371) This is a strange question for me because I don't think I've ever payed attention to a model's rating. I have voted for some but it was more in passing than with an interest. Now I am going to have to start paying attention.
02-11-09  06:31pm

Reply To Message

13

williamj (9) What they may think is hot I may not like. I make my own judgement.
02-11-09  07:30pm

Reply To Message

14

elonlybuster (39) I'm never really surprised. I'll say about 10% of the time they're right, 70% of the time they're glorified and the other 20% they're ranked lower than they should. But that's just my opinion.
02-12-09  05:07am

Reply To Message

15

C Spanker (2) Sometimes I am surprised to see some girls rated so high and then some of my favorites rated so low. It just goes to shows that everyone has their own opinion as to who is hot or not, as it should be.
02-28-09  08:17am

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.