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 Polls Daily polls where users can vote and give their opinion!

What is your greatest apprehension about network sites in general?

Type: General

Submitted by Drooler (220)
Poor customer service 11% 5 Votes
Poor site management 11% 5 Votes
Poor content quality 42% 19 Votes
Low bandwidth (slow) 9% 4 Votes
Non-exclusive content 24% 11 Votes
None or other 2% 1 Votes

Reply to Poll
Register to Vote!

45 Votes Total

Nov 18, 2009

Poll Replies (12)

Replies to the user poll above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

TheRizzo (23) For me its most networks are sites with non exclusive content. There are exceptions of course, but that is my main concern.
11-18-09  12:05am

Reply To Message

2

RagingBuddhist (65) Most networks that I've looked at have lower resolution videos, not much content and non-exclusive content. I avoid them.
11-18-09  12:22am

Reply To Message

3

james4096 (126) Non exclusives.
One site that really gets to me is porn.com or megadownload or any of the 500 names it goes by.
Exact same content different name and design. I joined multiple times thinking it was a different site. I guess you really have to be careful before you subscribe.

I hate those motherfuckers.

11-18-09  03:21am

Reply To Message

4

Denner (233) If they got great content - to my expectation - all the others comes second...
Still I hate it when you do not get respons from webmaster within a reasonoble (right word?) time.

But ok, after being member of SEVERAL sites over the years: Non-exclusive content, too. But that's more easy to stay clear off thanks to all PUs and TBP...

11-18-09  06:59am

Reply To Message

5

lk2fireone (194) Content quality is the main consideration. But if the sites have poor navigation, that can make it difficult to find the good content.
11-18-09  08:49am

Reply To Message

6

Capn (28) Content. Quality, quantity, & how well they cater to the niche concerned.
11-18-09  09:01am

Reply To Message

7

GCode (101) It appears so far the argument is for being apprehensive about non-exclusive content and poor quality. For me, while I am not a network person and have actually only joined two I think that I am more for being apprehensive about poor quality. Since I rarely join networks, I usually join single sites that exclusiveness can be more expected. But, I do always get worried about the quality. Many sites these days state that 1600 res on pics is 'high res' and 720 X 480, 1000 kbps (just two examples) are HD video. So, many sites state High res photos and HD video on their tours. Sometimes this can be cleared up with an email but sometimes customer service are robots (real robots or a real human acting like one) and just re-tell you everything that's on the tour in the same words. Therefore, in the midst of the argument, I almost switched to poor customer service because if they can't clear up this than I can be apprehensive to join the site to begin with. However, I do admit that my desire for certain content can sway me to join even if the robot-like customer service is managing the site; so I have to say it's still poor quality.

One thing I can see for picture lovers that can create apprehension is if the site may not contain zip files for download. I have joined two 'picture' sites where this has happened by taking a plunge (no reviews really anymore but content looked good) and have been extremely pissed off. While I do have some programs to get the images, sometimes they don't work and I end up just never returning to the site with a feeling of wasting money. I can see having no zip option as a apprehension for picture lovers.

11-18-09  11:05am

Reply To Message

8

Drooler (220) I don't know how many times I've visited a site, saw all of those thumbs of the "Look What ELSE You Get!" sites (or are they just "sites"?) and reached for the "x" at the top right of the window (Windows user). I've been to enough network sites that had low-quality stuff as well as other "apprehensionable" pitfalls to just stay away, usually.

But basically, I just don't trust networks anyway. To me, they're more often than not a gimmick.

Fortunately, there are or used to be a few good ones, though.

11-18-09  12:17pm

Reply To Message

9

messmer (137) I chose other because it's all of the above.
11-18-09  01:56pm

Reply To Message

10

pat362 (369) Either Im lucky or I've stayed away from lemons but I've yet to encounter one network that did not have mostly all exclusive content. No for me the biggest reticence I've had is all about the speed.
If a single site is slow then you still have a pretty good chance of downloading a large part of their library but networks hve som much more content. There is not enough time to actually spend waiting to access all their content let alone download it. My last experience with the Evil Angel network has just added fuel to the fire.

11-18-09  05:48pm

Reply To Message

11

Monahan (42) REPLY TO #9 - messmer :

I chose bad management because that is the cause of all the others.
11-19-09  08:41am

Reply To Message

12

messmer (137) REPLY TO #11 - Monahan :

Good point, Monahan, I think I'll switch my vote to that!
11-19-09  08:48am

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.