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 What Boys Want

What Boys Want (0)

careylowell (18) 03-02-09  12:02pm
Rookie Badge  Pollster TRUST USER?   YES (23), NO (1)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Updated: 07-11-09  08:18pm  (Update History)
Reason: An update to my intital review of 4 mths ago, see 'bottom line redux'.
Pros: -The elephant graveyard of amateur porn.
-Majority of clips have sound.
-Low price.
-Good international mix: just 33% of members are US citizens.
-42,000 movies & 938,000 pics as of 1 March 09.
-Peer review is fair and critical: out of 11K fuck pics, 190 are rated four or more stars on a scale of one to five. Just 38 of 7046 BJ clips are considered worthy of four or more stars. Other site contents are too often rated stellar, the porn version of grade inflation.
-No zip files.
-Low res: the number for an average picture sounds like a good golf score. 173 party clips occupies just 1.22 GB. The 597 for beach requires all of 3.92GB. So clarity is rough, almost never good enough to judge eye colour or fordyce spots.
-Search is horrific. More on that in BL.
-Watermarks are of a set size, so it appears large on too many clips.
-"To ensure pics and or movies are not randomly tagged and abuse, we ask you to have at least 250 postings before you can tag." Hence the lion share of images lack tags.
-Many vids are 10 to 20 seconds duration. The camera pans left to reveal a taunt, lithe, naked homewrecker fisting herself... "Now we'll see something.." I think, not without satifaction, and the clip ends. Ugh.
Bottom Line: This daedal maze would be time consuming even if the search was flawless. Its not. The huge number of images are slotted into a few sections: stripping, dance, facials, etc. These can be search verge to verge by tags or duration. In theory ya can hunt down the top rated 200 of any section, but the best of cute/sexy reveals the same 11 vids. The highest rated 200 fuck pics generates just 66 finds. Two emails to support generated a stock boilerplate response that their tech section is working on the problem.

So...what do boys want? Here its lots of bjs performed by bottle blond females on men who keep their shirts on. No safe sex. Big on threesomes so long as the 3rd person is female. Open to any Race so long as they are White.

This is the site if non-pro smut is your thing & if ya have the hours to devote to its thousands of pages. Dividing the wheat from chaff will probably give me carpet tunnel.
Some great examples of non-pious proclivities reside here but I'm guessing a multi-month m'ship will be require to run them to earth.

The bottom line redux: I'm adding this short ct four months later: this remains the best girl-next-door site, even with the flawed search feature.
Perhaps one pic in every 400-500 is that of a pro model. A good number of Ashley Juggs fotos have slipped in under the radar, but otherwise the site does a class A job of rooting out the non-amateur stuff. I've yet to stumble across any flick that I suspected was from a pro site.
The Euro has gained a bit in value and last month's tab was $14.03. My 1st mth of m'ship was appox twelve bucks.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (5)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date


badandy400 (103) This may or may not pertain to this review, but I need to ask you something.

I was just looking around and for no reason clicked on your name. I noticed you had a single "NO" trust and I was curious as to what it was for. The person believed you did not join some of the sites you had reviewed. You replied saying "I joined seven of the nine sites mentioned for at least one month. No review based on a trial m'ship."

Is this statement implying that you had not joined them two of them, or simply that you joined and left before a second month. The distinction is very important. If you had not joined them how could you review them? Also, which of the nine sites DID you join? At this point I think it is just poor choice of wording, but it is unclear.

I am a little reluctant to throw out a "NO" trust on you because your more recent reviews seem much more in depth and honest. I would like some clarification on this just in case there is a misunderstanding. It was not that long ago a reviewer had all his review points removed and was semi-suspended for implying that he did not join sites he had reviewed. I do not want this to happen to you, but I (all of PU) need to know that you have actually joined all the sites you have reviewed.

07-11-09  12:45am

Reply To Message


careylowell (18) REPLY TO #1 - badandy400 :

I received the 'No trust' after reviewing nine sites. I had been a member of each for at least a month. Can't recall what led me to type "..I joined seven of the nine sites mentioned..." It should of read that of the nine, I belonged to seven for just a month.
I have since rejoined two but haven't updated my reviews due to sheer laziness.

So my rating is tagged with 'No' trust. That dude could of gilded the bitter pill by either not being anonymous or writing more than two sentences to explain his decision.
I appreciate your concern, Badandy400.

07-11-09  06:53am

Reply To Message


badandy400 (103) REPLY TO #2 - careylowell :

Okay, I just really wanted to be sure about this. Thanks for the reply. Do you have any idea who the "NO' trust came from. One of the things a few of us have been trying to do lately is getting people who voted no a while back to reconsider in the even the user has improved reviews since the NO trust and is still around. Anyway, you may want to add an extra reply to that trust just to make it clear.
07-11-09  07:14pm

Reply To Message


careylowell (18) REPLY TO #3 - badandy400 :

I've no idea from whom that 'No' hailed from. Maybe one of you computer jedis can unscramble his anonymous ID. My gut feeling is his dark designs haunt some other site, that he's an ex-member.
07-11-09  08:00pm

Reply To Message


badandy400 (103) REPLY TO #4 - careylowell :

Usually you can figure it would from looking at replies to your reviews. The person that seems hostile towards your comments is usually the person it ends up being.

Without doing some creative digging, and a lot of it, I do not think even the staff can tell you who it was. If I recall correctly I believe they said some time ago that the anonymous ID is saved in a one way encryption to protect the privacy. I believe it was the trusts they were talking about.

In any event, it does not hurt to guess who it was and send a reply to them. Even if they have not been around for a while they could still get the notice email for receiving a reply. This might bring them back, you never know and it certainly does not hurt. Besides, who wants that one bad trust thing floating around.

07-11-09  11:12pm

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.