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!

Should new sites with only few scenes be given top scores?

Type: Our Site

Submitted by RustyJ (145)
Yes if you like them 33% 13 Votes
No, review them later 31% 12 Votes
No, adjust your score later 36% 14 Votes

Reply to Poll
Register to Vote!

39 Votes Total

Feb 12, 2012

Poll Replies (19)

Replies to the user poll above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

Drooler (218) "No," with no further conditions. It would probably be helpful to define "new," "few," and "top," though I'd venture that they mean 3 or fewer months old, 10 scenes or fewer, and 90 or above. That's my interpretation, anyway.

I'm not picking on Rusty J, mind you. The character limitation on the poll question would keep one from getting too specific.

02-12-12  04:11am

Reply To Message

2

rearadmiral (320) I've given small, new sites a good score based on the scenes posted and reasonable expectations that the site will continue to grow. I've done that with some Kink sites when they were new and didn't feel bad about giving a high score because I know and trust Kink, and i made it clear in my review that the site was still small.
02-12-12  05:59am

Reply To Message

3

pat362 (367) I picked yes because I've joined plenty of sites with a lot of content but which I only downloaded a small portion of that content and I've joined others that are newer and have significantly less content but where i downloaded it all. In the end. The only important thing is that the review has to justify the score.
02-12-12  08:18am

Reply To Message

4

mbaya (356) I have given kink sites that are new some high scores as well. Knowing their reputation, I expect that with more updates the quality will remain high. As a rule, you cannot predict that with other new sites. Some update rarely and may never keep up the intial quality, so I checked NO.
02-12-12  08:58am

Reply To Message

5

tangub (151) What about old sites with only a few scenes? If i join any site for a month, old or new, and i can download and see everything in a couple of hours for me it would never be worth a top score no matter how much i like it or how good the quality is. Value for money is important these days so if i pay for a month's subscription i like enough content to keep me entertained for the month. If the site is still updating i would say adjust your score at a later date as the content grows.
02-12-12  09:03am

Reply To Message

6

Denner (233) Today, I definitely choose to wait - to make a review - at a new/till now an unknown site with low/small content normally needs more focus....
And some of those so called top scores - you got to handle with care when it comes to entirely new sites.

Remember you have an obligation towards your fellow PUs...

So: No, review them later .....OR be patience for at least a couple of weeks to get to know the site before a review.

02-12-12  09:17am

Reply To Message

7

messmer (137) I've never joined a site with only a few scenes so my vote is pure conjecture. I think that if the content they had so far was pleasing, that the site was updating regularly (more than once a week), that it was laid out in a consumer friendly way, that there was a certain quality behind it then I wouldn't hesitate to give it a high score.
02-12-12  09:50am

Reply To Message

8

otoh (54) I've gone for the third option - If I really liked the content of a very small site, I'd give it a score in the 80s, but would wait until there was more content to go to 90 or more.
02-12-12  11:02am

Reply To Message

9

gaypornolover (38) I took the third option too - I tend to write a comment or prelimary review which makes it clear it's only a first impression and that the review will be updated and the score revised the site develops - just to let people know if the site seems to have potential and is worth watching, or is currently disappointing and seems to be on the wrong track.
02-12-12  12:48pm

Reply To Message

10

exotics4me (463) Really depends for me. I've tried to differentiate in my reviews. In reviews of sites that I personally enjoy the content of, I will review more from the perspective I have towards the content. If it's content that I wasn't into as much personally, I try to review it from potential members perspectives who would enjoy the style/genre. Based on that, if it's a site that I don't personally enjoy, I do take into account how much content there is, but if it's a site I do enjoy the content of, the quantity becomes less important to the score.

I used the comparison before. If a site has 2,000 scenes but I only keep 20 scenes is it really better than a site that has only 40 scenes, but I keep all 40 scenes?

With that said, that's why the sites with the lesser appealing content to me personally get a different scoring system since I figure others more interested in the genre would keep more than 20 out of 2,000 scenes.

02-12-12  02:11pm

Reply To Message

11

slutty (111) If you like it, you like it. Quantity is nice, but if it is a good site, why not score it well? May motivate them to continue adding more.
02-12-12  06:04pm

Reply To Message

12

anyonebutme (14) Does no one else recognize the inherent problem with the question? Scores are subjective opinions, and unique to the individual. No one should dictate what another person values in a site.

I don't view sites as a "did I get a month full of entertainment" as one here says, I view it as "did I get $xx.xx worth of entertainment" and new, small sites absolutely can deliver.

Some people value quantity more than others. If you do, then pay attention to reviews that value quantity. If not, then pay attention to reviews that value quality.

02-12-12  09:44pm

Reply To Message

13

anyonebutme (14) And as a follow-up, in particular to the third option - once you review a site, unless that site removes content, why would you ever change your score, change your review?

All reviews are based on the content that is available at the time of subscribing.

As the site grows, or doesn't grow, in the future, the content that was the entire basis of the review still exists in full for every successive subscriber.




"Live" sites, sites that focus on cam shows, model interactions, chats, etc., where the value of the content is dependent on interaction on the other end, then yes these sites would have their value changed over time. But the traditional sites which post static photoset and video updates?

02-12-12  09:54pm

Reply To Message

14

anyonebutme (14) No, seriously, if someone scores a site a 90, while stating in the review that at the time of the review there were, say for example, 40 scenes available - why would ANYONE have a problem with that review? Someone please give me a reason for why you would have a problem with such a review.

If you have reason to believe the review was a false or fake review, then by all means go after it. But you cannot challenge a review because the other person values different things than you do.

And if one of you sees someone score a new site higher than you believe it should be scored, then you subscribe to the website yourself and write your own competing review.


Every single website began as a new site, and all the top sites grew because there were people willing to give them a chance early on.



And full disclosure, the one thing that does irk me, are those who believe a website subscription entitles them to uninterrupted 24/7 full speed data streaming. Though I haven't ranted on that in a long while. If this were the widespread attitude of porn subscribers, simply put there would be little to no porn produced anymore. Ask any porn website operator how he really feels about users who use their bandwidth to the maximum.

02-12-12  10:47pm

Reply To Message

15

slategrey (13) No, I say review them later. I seen many new sites turn out 3 updates a day their first couple of months and then on month three nothing.

side note:Lol never new you can bold until this post

02-12-12  10:55pm

Reply To Message

16

RustyJ (145) I'm quite sure this poll has been released once already. I wondered why it looked so familiar ;)
02-13-12  01:13am

Reply To Message

17

Jay G (65) Quality and quantity are both factors.

If the quality is excellent, a good score is OK even without quantity. Sometimes a site has scenes that you can't find elsewhere and that might raise it above sites with more quantity. I trust the individual reviewers.

02-13-12  08:21am

Reply To Message

18

Watson (12) I say yes, in a qualified manner. If it is a small site, (like: single model/unusual niche sites often are) It is reasonable not to expect a huge amount of material for ones money and if that material is of high quality and exclusive certainly (ideally, being added to). It is also about what one is being sold. If one is being sold more than what you were to recieve, even if that material is of high quality, then no.
02-13-12  10:42pm

Reply To Message

19

steffj (0) Yes, but only if the material is very high quality, it is a unique site or has one of a kind features, and I have seen a good amount of growth on the site in a very short period of time. Also, the navigation has to be very easy.
04-30-12  12:13pm

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 0.06 seconds.