LSG Models Review by Drooler

Welcome GUEST! CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

Learn how you can participate in our weekly raffle for cash prizes!

User Review

A review of the site and any replies from other users.

LSG Models (0)

Active

Drooler (218)

05-13-07 06:44am

TRUST USER? YES (84), NO (0)

Status:

Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).

Pros:

+exclusive content of familiar hot Euro babes (Demi, Marina/Euphrat, Suzie Carina, Hana Slavikova, etc.)
+everyday updates: a gallery one day, a vid the next
+pic sizes at 1000, 1500, and 2000px, singly or in zips
+HQ vid sizes 1280x720 or 854x480 (each in both WMV and Quicktime; some go to 1920x1080!); plus mpeg (512x288) and ipod (320x180)
+monthly membership price of $19.99
+nice public preview area

Cons:

-just 5 ½ months of content buildup; 44 models
-only vids or pics of some models
-pics per gallery varies (some are brief)
-slow downloads (>120mbps for vids, broadband connection)
-confusing login: click “members enter here” and it looks like the public area -- but everything is accessible.
-for each model, galleries named by shoot location, and it’s erratic. Example: Normandy 2, Prague 2, Normandy 1, Prague 3, etc.
-large watermarks in two corners of pics

Bottom Line:

This is a purely softcore site with some lez stuff and some applications coming out of the phallic toolkit.

The photos are very good quality, but I thought some lacked enough richness in color. I’d also like to see more personality coming out of the models more often. Both factors together sent me into boredom too many times.

But at least LSG seems conscious of its watermarks; I never saw any overlaid on a model’s image in pics. They could make them smaller, though. (If Hana spread her buns more, could she make them shrink?)

The poor organization of individual model galleries is distracting; it means that the user has to keep mental track of things. Sure, I’m being petty, but frankly there’s no good excuse for it, either. It would be very simple for LSG Models to fix this problem and organize their content better so that the user can concentrate on more important things, like Bente’s soft and yielding behind.

I’ve seen three vids in large dimensions, and the image quality is excellent – better than the pics.

As TBP’s common refrain goes, the site needs time to grow. Because it grows equally in pics and vids, whether you lean more towards one or the other, it’s a slow but fair and even process. It’s pretty easy to predict that six months from now, it will be twice as good, and I’d probably rate the site in the 80s.

Final suggestion: with the vid sizes so high, why not crank those pics up to 3-4000px?

Reply To Review

Review Replies (4)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg #	User	Message	Date
1	Jay G (65)	I enjoyed your review and really like to hear your information. No it's not "being petty," For those of us who join 1 or 2 new sites every month, the petty things are really annoyinbg when they distract from the enjoyment of the web-site. Thanks for the info. I look forward to your reviews.	05-13-07 12:55pm Reply To Message
2	DivBZero (13)	Thankyou for your review. The content here is pretty good and very much as described. However this site uses one of my pet hates. They start their picture sets 001.jpg, 002,jpg etc. Which means if you download any of the images, management becomes a nightmare, because the third time you download 046.jpg, can you remember to call it 046a or 046b 046c etc, and when you come back to a site after a week, how can you remember how far back you got. There's no clue in 046d.jpg ! Anyway, there you are apart from image compression this site is rather good. Drooler thankyou for your review	05-13-07 03:19pm Reply To Message
3	Drooler (218)	REPLY TO #2 - DivBZero : Actually, that's a big peeve of mine, too: file names that are not unique for each image. But if they're too long, that's also a problem because they get trailing "..." in window views, so you can't see the file sequence number anyway. It's also troublesome when there are 2 or more gallery sets from a single shoot, but each set uses the same numbering, starting from, for example, 001.jpg, as you were saying. I keep them in separate, uniquely named folders, but the problem is when I put them together. So I delete all of the images I don't want, then add a unique start to the files that need it. It means a lot of "click file name, paste, click next file name, paste ..." Then it's time for physical therapy! BTW, another pain is file naming on a site that goes "1.jpg" to 9, then it's "10.jpg" to 99, then "100.jpg" and so on. They don't sort correctly, so you have to do what should be the site's job of simply naming files in a sensible, sequential way. Webmasters, are you reading this? Please give your files unique names, but not names that are so long that they cross county lines. Thanks!	05-14-07 02:41am Reply To Message
4	jd1961 (95)	REPLY TO #2 - DivBZero : A total pet peeve of mine as well!	08-02-07 07:15pm 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.