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 Comment A note about the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Super Glam

Super Glam (0)

Drooler (218) 04-28-07  05:45am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (85), NO (0)

An update on SuperGlam

About 10 days ago, got an email from SuperGlam for a $19.90 membership, so I rejoined.

It's being revamped, apparently by the same people who do Babelicious. But unlike at Babelicious -- a great site -- the pic sizes are all 1536 at the long end, just like in the old SuperGlam, even though they've set up the links for a variety of pic sizes (1000, 2000, and 4000 px). And they say they'll be doing 3000px, but when they don't say.

Confusing? Yes. It seems like one of those situations in which different people have different ideas as they all work on the same project.

VERY LITTLE new content has been added since my last join ended mid-October last year -- that's six months ago! And future updates are nil.

So what's up with that, SuperGlam? And thanks for the cheaper membership offer. What a deal!

Anyone else care to pony up redevelopment capital for a site redux that's not ready yet?

Reply To Comment

Comment Replies (3)

Replies to the user comment above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

King (27) The will disappear like dinosaurs if they will stop providing content. Nothing to worry about, same girls can be found at pixandvideo and many other sites. Thanks for the info. I was close to join once but glad i didn't.
04-28-07  12:29pm

Reply To Message

2

DivBZero (13) Actually I agree with this. Superglam has some great content, beautifully posed and well worth collecting.

But it is madness to add 10 pics per day to existing sets *THEN* zip them up. The member has no idea where they are, and as a work of art it just doesn't work. Picture sets are about progression and culminations, not a daily edging forward.

Either do it properly in the first place or accept that memberships will not be renewed.

04-29-07  02:05pm

Reply To Message

3

Drooler (218) REPLY TO #2 - DivBZero :

Definitely agree. Piecemealing out a gallery over weeks is absurd. MetArt actually used to do it over MONTHS, but they finally must've realized how foolish that was. It was like, geology in action.

SuperGlam seems way out of touch. I just visited again, and what they have as stated size links are 1000 (actually 750), 2000 (actually 1000), and 4000 (actually 1536). They should be in politics, not porn.

Currently they have 47 models with roughly 4 sets per, about 188 galleries. If their masters are at least 6 megapixels, they could post the 3000px shots right away. (They'd need 12mpx masters to do 4000s). They might want to add their top logo, but that could be done in a batch mode over no more than a week, certainly, with just a couple of techies doing the work at a leisurely pace.

Thanks, DivBZero, for your reply. I know others might read, so I've put in the above for a little more info and perspective.

04-29-07  04:57pm

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 0.01 seconds.