Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Erotic Beauty

Erotic Beauty (0)

nutcrackr (10) 06-06-09  03:25am
Rookie Badge TRUST USER?   YES (20), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
Pros: -Extension of Met-Art
-Good quality photography
-Attractive models
-Download manager support, fast speeds
-Large sets zipped 100-150 photos per set (low, med, high)
-Popular models and artists
-Timely updates
Cons: -Database poor condition
-Mistakes in new updates
-Model name changes etc
-Very few videos (pro for some)
Bottom Line: Met-Models is possibly best thought of as an extension of Met-Art. Although it only offers one update per day it fits nicely in with Met-Art featuring a similar level of quality in both models and photographers. As a big fan of Met-Art I was often quite impressed by many of the sets from Met-Models, some of the better models also made their appearance on Met-Models first. The other good thing is that many of the models on MA will have photosets on MM, so as a collector youíll want to check MM out.

Unfortunately the database holding all this beauty is substandard. Returning models may have different names, some name changes are minor others completely different. Many different models may be listed under the exact same name making voting useless (e.g. ALENA). I have seen some new sets with typos or mistakes on the cover sheet, naming a different photographer than the set indicates. If you want to search the archives youíll be in for hell because of this poor database. They need some people to go through and sort it all out into correct model names and remove the duplicates. Not having model information also doesnít help and is a bit disappointing. Another annoyance is the reluctance to use the Modelís name from MM or MA on either site if the model has been seen their first, this is possibly due to the backlog of updates. Iíd like to see consistency across the sister sites so you donít need to know what the modelís aliases are. Iíve tried contacting the website support with a list of duplicated models but they have not done anything or replied.

But the set quality is very good; navigation on the site is near identical to MA even though their non-member page looks very different. Main difference is models donít have brief model bio. Works with download managers (Flashget), fast speeds, sets are zipped up and range from a few hundred MB to 900+ MB for high res sets depending on artist. Available in low/med/high res where low - 800x1200, med - 1365x2048, high Ė 8 megapixels+. Sets are quite large, typically 100-150 photos, similar size in comparison to Met-Art again. Videos are few and far between (35 total Ė and only 5 since start of 2007), good thing possibly for some. Leocont, Ingret, Nudero, Rylsky, Morenko, Rigin are recent popular artists who regularly post content on the site.

Itís really the ideal choice for fans of MA wanting more of either the models or the quality of photography with the biggest issue being the state of the database and lack of model info. If they fixed this up and added another update per day Iíd be very impressed because at times I think the average quality of sets is probably better than MA in recent times.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (4)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date


zzzins (12) Nicely informative. I'm a big fan of Met-Art and always wondered what extra Met Models had to offer.
06-06-09  10:46am

Reply To Message


lk2fireone (196) Review has lots of nice details. If money is no object, then belonging to both met-art and metmodels would be nice. Because then you would get to see all the sets at both sites. But since money is limited for most of us, met-art is the better value. The quality and style (teen glamour) of both sites is basically the same. The main difference is that met-art has a huge amount of content compared to metmodels.
06-06-09  11:44am

Reply To Message


Drooler (220) I've noticed those inconsistencies, too, in the database and just generally in the naming of the models. Whenever I see someone first on MetArt or on MetModels and then she shows up on the other site, I always look for the name in my own "database" file system. Sometimes it's easy, and sometimes it's a pain if I'm sure I've gotten pics of the model before but not with the name shown at the time.

The editing mistakes might be due to using pages and code from one set to another, where they don't double check everything that needs to be changed before they post a new set. I've seen worse, but it's still a problem, of course.

06-06-09  02:06pm

Reply To Message


Monahan (42) REPLY TO #3 - Drooler :

With the popularity of the main site and the marketing efforts they continue to employ, All these guys need to do is to clean up their navigation and naming conventions.

I'm ready to volunteer to do the naming project.

08-22-09  01:00pm

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.


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.