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 Home Teen Vids

Home Teen Vids (0)

Active
55
lk2fireone (194) 05-16-11  07:32pm
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: -No download limits.
-Long time before site timeout.
-Easy login.
-Streaming option for each video.
-Content is dated.
-No DRM. (This is a guess, based on rest of the network. I was unable to download any videos, but the rest of the network videos have no DRM, so I
assume, if you could download these site videos, as you are supposed to be able to, they would have no DRM.)
Cons: -You are supposed to be able to download a low-quality video file for each video at the site. I tried to download 10 different videos, and each time I got the error message, "404 Not Found".
-There is no medium-quality or high-quality download option for a video.
And since none of the links for the low-quality download option work, you can't save these videos (Unless you use a special program to capture
screen images. But any video you might get using a special screen-capture program would be low quality because the streaming image itself is not high quality).
-Models not identified. No name is given for the models. So if you wanted to save videos or photosets, it would be difficult to sort them by model.
-No model bios (obviously, since the models are not named).
-No search.
-No updates for over one year.
Bottom Line: This site is part of the Teen Mega World network.
This is an archive site: the last update was 2010-03-29, a little over a year ago.

Number of videos: 60.
Number of photosets: 60.

Video runtime: 15-35 minutes.
Video quality: low (based on file size of the video, and the visual quality of the video).

Photoset: 110-260 photos per photoset.
There is a single-size zip file available for each photoset. Each photoset is a photo record of a video shoot.
The photos are low quality in terms of photographic quality. The technical statistics for a single photo indicates the photos could be high quality if a competent photographer had taken the time to shoot them, but that wasn't the case: the photos are often blurry and out of focus, and are more like screen caps than well-shot photos. An individual photo is 300-400 KB, 1280x720 pixels. Which is just a waste of file size for blurry, poorly shot photos.

There are a number of attractive models at this site. And the videos are competently shot: good sound control, no annoying background music, OK to good lighting, OK to good colors (skin tone, background, foreground). The definition of the videos is low quality. If the definition was high
quality, a number of these videos would be worth saving. But you can't save these videos, because you get an error message when you try to save
them. Also, the video quality is low (in terms of definition).

The sex action is straight fucking. No story or plot, no buildup to the sex. It's one boy, one girl.

The site has little value. It's a small archive site, not updating. The videos and photos are poor in terms of image quality. You can't download any videos from the site (because of technical problems). The photosets are not worth downloading.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (2)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

Denner (233) Well, lk2 - got to agree with your score and your cons/bottom line.
This somewhat small site at the Teen Mega World network should really not attract much attention - though part of the deal.
It's downright lousy, especially in quality - a site when member of that TMW I skipped going back to.
It's almost like: The more sites in the network, the better in appetizers - even if the quality is quite questionable - like some others here.
And BTW: Still think it's good point in making a review of separate sites within a network..(we've been discussing this earlier)

05-17-11  08:04am

Reply To Message

2

lk2fireone (194) REPLY TO #1 - Denner :

The theory the network is using seems to be: the more sites the better the network is. People will join faster because the network has lots of sites.
But I think that the network would be better off deleting the archive sites and putting any good material from those sites into a general site. And getting rid of the really poor quality contents (videos and photosets). That would make using the network sites easier and more rewarding.
In your terms, eating a few appetizers that taste terrible ruins the meal, even though there are tasty dishes on the table you haven't gotten to yet. Maybe it helps to get drunk first, so you don't notice the taste of what you're eating. Lol.

05-17-11  09:31am

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.

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.