Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Comment A note about the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Hegre Art

Hegre Art (0)

lk2fireone (196) 03-27-10  03:46am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (72), NO (1)

A matter of individual taste.

More than most softcore teen glamor sites, Hegre seems to make people respond in different ways, from loving the site to finding the site a bore. The PU score for the site is 77, while the TBP score is 92. That is quite a range.

VideosZ has a PU score of 75 and a TBP score of 92. VideosZ is a hardcore video site, instead of a softcore glamor photo site.

But I think it's interesting how some sites seem to polarize the members at PU.

Reply To Comment

Comment Replies (13)

Replies to the user comment above.

Msg # User Message Date


Capn (28) I think some of that may be the Video Clan v. the Photoset Clan.

TBP seems largely video dominated in its reviewing.
They count few videos as a minus.
PU have at least an element of Photoset Clan in evidence, myself included in that.

Cap'n. :0/

03-27-10  05:25am

Reply To Message


TheSquirrel (53) Conspiracy theorist squirrel to the rescue - TBP marks higher because they earn money every time someone signs up through them. So it makes sense not to mark them too low.
03-27-10  06:36am

Reply To Message


lk2fireone (196) REPLY TO #1 - Capn :

The softcore teen glamor sites emphasize photosets over videos, although they are now producing more videos than in the early years (2003 and earlier). Today's videos are also better quality than in years past, in terms of resolution and other technical factors. Maybe one day the videos at softcore teen sites will even be interesting and worth watching.
03-27-10  06:38am

Reply To Message


lk2fireone (196) REPLY TO #2 - TheSquirrel :

TBP earns money when members (and others) join thru their links. I have more faith in TBP reviews (which give a large number of factual details in their reviews) than in the reviews at most porn review sites. But the best source of information is the PU reviews, which are written by people who are, like us, actually paying for the porn they see.

PU reviews often have less factual details than TBP reviews, but the opinions of the site value are easier for me to understand and evaluate than the scores at TBP. I certainly don't agree 100% with all PU reviews, but the reviews can be useful in judging whether a site might be worth my money to join.

03-27-10  06:48am

Reply To Message


Capn (28) REPLY TO #3 - lk2fireone :

A lot of sites, even 'softcore' push their videos in the tours.

I still think, over time, we will get greater polarisation of sites to either specialise in video or photosets.

There are already many exclusively video sites.

Cap'n. :0)

03-27-10  07:09am

Reply To Message


PU Staff
REPLY TO #2 - TheSquirrel :

I'm aware that we're never going to convince you that everything we do isn't based solely on monetary gain, but ...

I think you'll find that the reasons scores vary is that TBP Reviews are based on a more standard set of criteria whereas PU users score based on what they feel is important ... which varies from user to user.

You can learn more about the official reviews (and the scores) by checking the section labeled "The Reviews" of the TBP FAQ.

If your theory were true, we'd never give any sites low scores ... sortta like a lot of other review sites. ;-)

Hope that helps some.

03-27-10  07:15am

Reply To Message


RagingBuddhist (65) REPLY TO #1 - Capn :

If you do as I did, and look through a bunch of the reviews for photography sites, you'll see that very few people actually list a lack of videos as a con. Most of the lower scoring reviewers have taken off points for camerawork, repetitious content and other issues. That suggests to me that it's not a video fan versus photo fan issue and that people are fairly rating sites based on their niche.
03-27-10  09:17am

Reply To Message


Capn (28) REPLY TO #7 - RagingBuddhist :

Yes, 'Few videos' seems to be more of a recurring 'con' listed by TBP reviewers rather than anyone else.
I have never seen them list 'Few Photosets' as a 'con'.

Cap'n. :0)

03-27-10  09:54am

Reply To Message


PU Staff
REPLY TO #8 - Capn :

This is interesting and valuable information. I'm definitely taking notes. We can always improve and won't give up on that.
03-27-10  10:56am

Reply To Message


fredv (Suspended) well for me TBP gave a kind of 'absolute score' and that's true that Hegre in its category (nude erotica, clean, with young and pretty girls) is really a must see... At the condition to have an interest in that kind of category !! Of course if you expect to see hardcore gangbang or hairy girls next door, you'll be disapointed ;-)
And as often, people who score a website are either very upset or very happy about it, I think there is a bunch of folks who are actually members of Hegre and whose voice is not heard anywhere... because they are just normally happy with the content.
That's why it's fair and smart to have the two scores side by side, that helps a lot in choosing a website, and those two scores are very valuable each one for its category.

05-08-11  11:04pm

Reply To Message


lk2fireone (196) REPLY TO #10 - fredv :

I find Met-art much more of a "must-see" than Hegre. Or maybe I just mean that I appreciate Met-art more. Obviously it depends on personal taste, because some people will find little to like at either site, but I think that Met-art is much the better value because of the huge quantity of photosets, the different photographers that are on display, the endless number of lovely models, etc. And what is also important, is that Met-art is priced as low or lower than Hegre.

I read your Met-art review. I think you were overwhelmed by the sheer amount of material to look through, and that turned you off. Also, you stated that you didn't find any of the material erotic.

Perhaps you find the material at Hegre more to your taste. I did like some of the material at Hegre, but I found much more at Met-art that I really enjoyed.

I think you might have stopped looking at the Met-art contents before you would have found material that you enjoyed. Because I think that Met-art has material that is similar to what is found at Hegre, and a lot more besides.

But that's just my opinion. If you saw too much that you didn't enjoy at Met-art, then that seems to have spoiled the experience for you, just like eating something tasteless or unappetizing could spoil a fine meal (I'm trying to express a psychological idea about enjoyment or pleasure, and doing a lousy job).

Obviously, you are not a cat lover, because reading that Petra has 3 cats should have made you fall instantly in love with Petra and her photosets. I will agree that the Met-art videos can be extremely boring, I much prefer the photosets.

05-09-11  04:07am

Reply To Message


fredv (Suspended) REPLY TO #11 - lk2fireone :

Well, at least for me, it's not very much about quantity, but more about content. I don't really agree when you said "Because I think that Met-art has material that is similar to what is found at Hegre, and a lot more besides.", well it has indeed, but that kind of material they share, is precisely the kind of material I'm not interest into.
To be honest, here is my point, I'm interested in 3 kind of stuff :

- basic, hardcore, rough pictures, even if not beautiful, that's my 'instant_turn_on_pics'. For this kind of material i want something "in_your_face" material, I have a quite good collection of Suze randall Pics, old pictures from Hutsler Taboo, some stuff from Kink.com, 21th Sextury...

- I like also something much more 'arty', with beautiful lights, nice lingerie..., but I mean really creative in its framing or scenery, something that I can print out and frame proudly in my living room. I love Petites Parisiennes for that, there is plenty of very very beautiful pictures worth having them onto your wall, (and I have 6 large prints from this site in my home !), and just for that I don't mind paying a membership because if I had to buy art prints it will cost a LOOOOT more. But it's also sexy, fresh, french (of course, that point appeals me ! -i'm french-) and I love the whole concept, and the site is very fun to use, with good persons on the forum (Hello Otoh ;)

- And I'd love to have a good in-between : I mean really hot stuff shot with real talent, I thought X-art would fit because the photographer behind it, Brigham Fields, did something remarkable before but softcore, but after a few sets, it's always the same, and even if really well done it lacks creativeness (but it's my #1 in this particular category).
met-art, it's not enough titilliating for me, and not enough arty neither (well as you said, I didn't see all I may have gave up too fast on this, too much in_the_forrest or near_the_shore shots) and Hegre, he's somewhere in between met-art and x-art but with some very explicit stuff and some so-so with similar content...

I think you may understand better my point now... I'm still searching for my Porn-Art where there is REAL porn and REAL art.... quite hard to find...:(

05-09-11  07:01am

Reply To Message


PU Staff
REPLY TO #12 - fredv :

For the record, it should be noted that we've found User fredv to be associated with site Petites Parisiennes
12-19-11  08:31am

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.