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

Visit In The Crack

In The Crack (1)

Active
88
RagingBuddhist (65) 10-04-09  01:51am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (61), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: + small sample videos - good for those with bandwidth usage issues
+ All newer content (see con about dates) is available in 3 resolutions 640x360 @ 1500+ kb/s, 1280x720 @ 3900+ kb/s and 1920x1080 @ 7800+kb/s
+ Searches by 32 fetish preferences (Breasts, Panties, Treadmills, Ass Jiggling, Clitoris Views, etc.) and by release date, model name or keyword (See con)
+ No in-your-face upsells
+ You'd knock over your best friend to get a chance to date most of the models
Cons: - No alphabetical model search - you can put them in ABC order, but the pages are numbered, not lettered
- You can order episodes by release date, but the files aren't dated
- File names don't have the model's name - they're numbered along with the scene title
- A few videos have no audio (I really don't get that at all on this site)
- No date information on files
- Average to poor server speeds
- $35 a month is high
- No multi-month discount
- Won't remember login - have to type it in everytime you access the site
- Use of download manager is tricky (See bottom line)
- I'm pretty much strictly video now but, just for the review, I'll mention that the pictures, while available in 2 sizes and in zip files, they only average about 80 per model and come in oddly cropped shapes, as in not uniform sizes.
Bottom Line: I can't believe I haven't done a review for this site before now. This is my third trip in and I have to say the content is as hot as ever. The girls are among the best looking anywhere on the 'Net and the photography is awesome. While some have said that the angles and serious zooming they use in their shoots is annoying, I think it's one of the things that makes ITC stand out in a class by itself. Up close and *very* personal. The video quality is the other thing that makes them a leader in the porn biz. I stay with the 1280 resolution because it looks as good on my TV as DVDs from my standalone player. The 1920 file sizes are just more than I need - no sense in tying up gigabytes when the 1280s are already crystal clear.

But - there *are* a few things on the down side. One thing I don't remember is the server speed and how it dishes out files on my download manager. I have FreeDownloadManager set to grab 8 sections at a time. By default, I get 1 section from here and it's sometimes slow to connect even on the first chunk. When I try to manually add another section, sometimes it goes, sometimes it doesn't. On the larger files, after 10 or more tries to add sections, I managed to get up to 4, for a top speed of a respectable 1 MB/s, but on most, I could only get 2, for a top speed of around 600 KB/s. I'm thinking this is what they've substituted for a download limit, which is okay by me. I can line up a bunch of files, walk away and check 'em out later. I just wish the files had the model's name instead of a number, and it would be nice to see the episode release dates. I also don't remember the site not being able to remember your login - it has to be manually typed in every time. This site has enough content now that it needs a revamp of it's search function and probably the site navigation in general. A keyword or fetish search is nice, but finding a model isn't all that easy.

Two of my pet peeves exist here. There are more than a few model with silicone tits, but they all appear to have been done by damn good surgeons. I didn't see any obvious scars and none of 'em were "overdone". There are also some models who overplay the sex with that open-mouthed look that I think looks cheap. But, because the focus is rarely on a model's face, it didn't seem as distracting as it usually does to me.

(Continued in replies)

Reply To Review

Review Replies (11)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

RagingBuddhist (65) Here's the layout of the site:
When you first enter the site, you're on the first of six headings - Models, What's New, Searches, FAQ, Contact Us, and Links.
The models page starts with the last 8 shoots, with a page index for the rest - currently 43 pages of 8 shoots each
The What's new page gives you 6 large thumbnails of "Coming Soon" and a list of the last dozen and a half shoots.
Searches, as mentioned above, lets you search by fetish, date, model name or keyword
The FAQ is kind of weak, although it does start with a cancellation link. It then goes onto briefly talk about video issues, model requests, Mac users and membership options (there are no options)
Contact us - has (Surprise!) an email link and a CCbill link
Links has five links to other sites (all nice and out of sight unless you want to see them)

To wrap it up, this site's a keeper. Expensive - and not without some issues, but still one to check out.

10-04-09  01:52am

Reply To Message

2

Drooler (220) I've had Firefox remember my login for it, so that it's already typed in when I go to the login page.

My big, really big, gripe with the site is that even though it's an "ass" site, there are almost never any shots of the models cropped from the mid-upper thigh to the top of the head when they're showing off their booties, evenly cheeked. It's either "ass fills the shot" or head to toe.

And I've pointed this out in a polite tone to the site when they were soliciting suggestions. Yet they remain locked in to their habits.

I find it very strange that "ass" sites are usually the worst when it comes to the subject, but that's been my experience.

InTheCrack should have 4000 pixel photos for the high price they charge.

10-04-09  03:13am

Reply To Message

3

mbaya (356) I totally agree with your assessment of the photographic style on the site. The closeups come well after a lot of whole body showcasing. This I felt was the perfect combination of whole body and closeups. In the site the closeups were really CLOSE.
10-04-09  08:51am

Reply To Message

4

ControllingMind (Disabled) RagingBuddist, are you sure you didn't miss anything out in that review?

I like it, lots of detail.

I'm not too happy about that download speed, but this site is still next on the hit list.

10-04-09  08:57am

Reply To Message

5

Monahan (42) REPLY TO #4 - ControllingMind :

I agree. RagingBuddhist writes terrific reviews in a very easy to read manner. I've been hanging on this site (on my futures list) because of price and will now hang patiently a little longer. Hopefully someone (Webmaster?) who can do something about the search and D/L issues in the near future.
10-04-09  09:08am

Reply To Message

6

RagingBuddhist (65) REPLY TO #4 - ControllingMind :

Actually, I did miss something. Updates come every 3 days. Thanks for making me take a look :laughs:
10-04-09  09:33am

Reply To Message

7

RagingBuddhist (65) REPLY TO #5 - Monahan :

Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad you appreciate the reviews.

Naturally, I can't speak for the site, but I wouldn't expect the site to change anytime soon - it's laid out pretty much like it's always been, even in the days when they had the token system in place. Because of the way it's laid out, it would've taken a long time to figure out exactly how much content is online, but I can tell you there's definitely enough to keep you busy for at least a month. Yes, there's a server speed/download manager issue but, if you don't wanrt to sit and manually add chunks to get acceleration, you can always line up a half dozen flicks and go make dinner. If you're a fan of the site's style, I just think the hi-def makes it worth the jump.

10-04-09  09:54am

Reply To Message

8

RagingBuddhist (65) REPLY TO #4 - ControllingMind :

I caught my mistake too late to edit my last reply to you - they add a new model every three days. They add a new video every day.
10-04-09  11:02am

Reply To Message

9

turboshaft (24) Great review RB!

Pretty close to my score and I have to agree with a lot of your points. The "search" feature is definitely weak, especially considering it only applies to the videos and the photo sets don't necessarily have the same content. The alphabetical order is annoying too, but I like to organize by release date since that is how they are numbered.

I never had any login issues with Firefox, so maybe your browser is the problem? I also love the 1920x1080 videos since that's my monitor's max resolution, so combined with the wide angle lens it can make for some interesting videos.

Lastly, I think the number of girls with implants can be counted on one hand, and breasts really are not the focus of the site, unless they change the "C" from crack to cleavage. My favorite models are generally not these anyway. I like the ones who look like the girl-next-door with a nasty imagination and they usually are quite slim with reasonable proportions.

10-04-09  03:51pm

Reply To Message

10

turboshaft (24) REPLY TO #6 - RagingBuddhist :

I would say their update schedule is really only an issue for longtime and regular members because everything else is archived.
10-04-09  03:53pm

Reply To Message

11

inthecrack (7)
Webmaster
Addressing some of your cons....

The collections page is now customizable in that you can sort it by release date, model name (alphabetical), model age, nationality, and shoot location.

There's only 2 out of 383 current videos on the site without audio. It was not a conscious decision to shoot them without audio but in fact an audio screw up. We just released them anyway.

Download speeds: See this thread http://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=44350 There may be something relevant to your issues here.

Your login not remembering your password appears to be a browser issue. We have not been able to duplicate that.

Oddly cropped pictures: We don't see how that is a con. The pictures are cropped according to how they work the best. If a shot is originally 2400x1800 (horizontal) and shows a model standing then there's going to be a lot of useless background on the left and right sides. If we can crop it 2200x2200 then the model is going to be larger in the picture with less pixels waisted on useless background. That's a good thing for everyone is it not? Just curious, if a picture is 2200x2200 that would be a bad thing WHY???

02-11-10  12:38pm

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.