Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit They Didn\'t Know

They Didn't Know (0)

lk2fireone (196) 03-31-11  03:32pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (72), NO (1)
Status: Current Member for over 2 months (at the time of review).
Pros: -Multiple choices for downloading a video: High, medium, or low quality.
But the quality of the "high quality" video is not very good.
-Content is dated.
-No DRM.
-No download limits.
-Easy login.
-Very easy switching between network sites (Do not need to re-enter your login information, just click on a hot link).
-Long time before site timeout.
Cons: -Archive site. Last update was 2009-02-07.
-Small site.
-Models are not named in the videos.
-No model bios.
-Default filename for downloading videos is "high", "medium", or "low",
for high, medium or low quality selection. So have to manually rename videos for sorting or saving.
-But that's not a big problem, because due to low quality of even the "high" quality videos, who wants to save these videos anyway? The models
in the videos are not named, the videos are poor quality (in terms of erotic quality and video technique). I'm watching one video with a guy and
a girl, and it's not until 4 minutes after the video starts that you can easily see the face of the girl. Until then, the heads of both the guy and the girl are mainly cut out of the frame, and it's not until the 4 minute mark, when the girl drops to her knees to give the guy a blow job, that you can clearly see the girl's face.

-The site design has a hot link for each video, named: "Watch Picture Gallery", which is what the site calls the photoset. But every video link that I clicked on to see the "Watch Picture Gallery" led to a Picture Gallery with no pictures. So I do not think this site has any photosets. Which is OK, because I was expecting the photosets to be low quality anyway, based on the rest of the network offerings for photosets.
-Videos are supposed to be viewable in flash stream. But some links to watch the video in flash stream don't work. I kept waiting for minutes for some videos to load and play, but all they did was keep loading, without playing.
Again, this is not a big problem, because I was just testing the site to be able to write this review, and I already decided the site was basically worthless. If I had really wanted to watch these videos, I might have been frustrated.
-Slow download speeds. This is the first site in the network where I did not get my maximum download speed. Instead, I was often getting about one-half of my maximum download speed of 620-630 KB/s.

The site theme is voyeur porn. The girls and couples are supposedly unaware they are being captured on film. So if that idea/niche turns you
on, maybe you will get extra satisfaction from the videos. I would prefer videos that are erotic, or well shot.
Because these are supposed to be voyeur videos, many of them show the girl apparently in the distance. She is only a small part of the frame. So you often don't see her close-up, in good detail. I guess this is supposed to add to the voyeur-sexiness of the filming, but I would prefer to see the standard closeup of the girl, where I can clearly see her face and body, instead of seeing some person in the fucking distance.
These are really cheaply made videos. Most of the videos are shot with the model by herself or with a guy, in a car, at a lake or meadow. The choice of shooting the model in a car makes for lousy camera angles, terrible framing of the girl (head or other body parts often cut out of the picture). Or the car seat or roof blocks your view of the girl. The lake and meadow locations are very windy, so there's a lot of microphone noise. Controlling lighting for an outdoor scene is more difficult than for an indoor scene. The girl's face and body goes in and out of shadow constantly, so you don't get a really clear view of the girl.
Video specs:
High quality:
Frame width x height: 1280x720
Total bitrate: 4320 kbps
The bitrate is very high, and would support high definition video. But I would classify these videos as "crap" videos. Pardon the French. Lousy
video technique. Not naming the models in the videos. Minimal erotic appeal.
Number of videos at site: 44
Videos run from 5 minutes to about 17 minutes.
-Bottom line: the site can be considered a bonus site as part of your Teen
Mega World network. But the site itself has little value. It would be better if they just eliminated the site.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (0)

Replies to the user review above.

  Be the first to reply to lk2fireone!

  Reply To Review

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.