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!

Removing an old shoot is worse than failing to add a new shoot (T/F)?

Type: Content

Submitted by LPee23 (16)
True 57% 8 Votes
False 21% 3 Votes
Other (please explain) 21% 3 Votes

Reply to Poll
Register to Vote!

14 Votes Total

Jul 21, 2014

Poll Replies (12)

Replies to the user poll above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

Cybertoad (Disabled) What is worse is websites leave old material that is like watching VHS, and add it to buyers as inventory.

I recently joined DFFnetwork, and they did this, you can not tell until you join that the mass amount the claim to have in videos is over 75% old outdated material. Thats fine and sure HD was not around until 2010 . But sites that will claim 5000 Videos and you find out the 500 are newer. So Old shoots should be replaced with old, or numbers should be accurate of old and new shoots before purchases.

07-21-14  08:04am

Reply To Message

2

LPee23 (16) REPLY TO #1 - Cybertoad :

I have my own issue with DDF's old content, which I may bring to attention some day. They make new content that is second to none, but their handling of old content has deeper failings than what you refer to here. I've held off on writing a review on DDF for several months, because I am honestly way too conflicted to know how to score them. I don't know how I can take a site with such strong positives as DDF, reconcile those with some of the strongest negatives, and produce a review that I would want to post. It could potentially be one of my best reviews, I could write volumes, but I like DDF too much to call them out right now. Maybe when I feel able to write a more unbiased review of DDF, I will post it one day.
07-21-14  04:06pm

Reply To Message

3

LPee23 (16) Your comment hit so close to home Cybertoad, that I forgot to comment on the topic of my own poll. If you haven't guessed already, I think it is much worse to remove older content than to fail to produce new content. Webmasters, please consider this. When you remove your original content, you lose your appeal to collectors. Collectors are your best customers and biggest spenders. As a collector, I don't want to have 90% of the content from a favorite site, I aim for 100%. When I join a site that's been on my list for a while, and my anticipation turns to dismay when I see that only a part of their content is available, it detracts from the experience. Even if you are producing amazing content, I am much less likely to be a repeat customer, because I see less of a point in adding new content to a collection that is irreparably flawed by missing the original work. I don't collect anything but porn, but the closest analogy that comes to mind is comic books. Maybe DC Comics wrote some great comic books in the 1990's, but could you ever presume to have a great Superman collection without the originals from 1938? It's the same thing with porn, at least for me, and I'm sure for many others too.
07-21-14  04:26pm

Reply To Message

4

pat362 (371) It depends on what was removed and why it was. If the shoot was many years old and quality was so bad when compared to other stuff than that's fine but I have a problem when a site removes an older shoot only to bring it back pretending it's s new one.
07-21-14  06:52pm

Reply To Message

5

LPee23 (16) REPLY TO #4 - pat362 :

It's dishonest when that happens, but I think it's great when sites remaster their older stuff, bring it up to modern quality, and clearly label it as remastered.
07-21-14  08:16pm

Reply To Message

6

turboshaft (24) True, in the sense that you kept an "old shoot" because it had some value to it, beyond what a new shoot may only have in pixels. I've kept (and backed up) plenty of old material that's not HD and frequently delete newer stuff.
07-21-14  11:43pm

Reply To Message

7

jberryl69 (Disabled) False - But could be True for those who believe there is a tit for tat relationship between culling & adding (which I don't). This is apparently the case (at this point) with 60% of the responding members (based on 10 votes).
07-22-14  06:22am

Reply To Message

8

jberryl69 (Disabled) REPLY TO #2 - LPee23 :

With regard to the subject of 'older material', DFF would not be the only studio that has older material. But I would think it has to do with one's desire for specific older material that one desires. If you follow a retired performers work and want to collect it, you're going to have to suffer crappy video quality. (Think one of the more famous porn movies - Deep Throat.)

I once asked Jonni Darkko if he would redo any of his older work - He seriously doubted it due to lack of time & the cost constraints.

There is nothing amiss when a producer's catalog includes poor quality video, & while I'd love it remastered, better to have it available than not. Besides, it is content that already exists and has no continuing expense except the device on which it's stored. But then, isn't that one of the issues facing the end user own concerns with space in dealing with a collection?

I look at it like going to a library and finding an out of print book and then complaining that it's on the library's shelves because of the condition of the book.

07-22-14  06:36am

Reply To Message

9

Cybertoad (Disabled) REPLY TO #2 - LPee23 :

My review of their site recently was very hard due to what I viewed as mismanaged older content.
07-22-14  09:12am

Reply To Message

10

pat362 (371) REPLY TO #5 - LPee23 :

I think it's great when sites remaster their older stuff because it gives newer members the chance to see those videos but a site should only use 30% remastered content as new updates and that's only if they update multiple times per week. Otherwise remastered content should bea bonus above truly new stuff.

The other important thing should be that older content should never be sold as HD if the site had to crop the older video to a small size so that they can actually make it HD.

07-22-14  02:03pm

Reply To Message

11

LPee23 (16) REPLY TO #9 - Cybertoad :

My issue with DDF and their old content is slightly different than yours. At this point, since I've already come out talking about this issue in vague terms, I think it's time to get it all out and write my review. I hate to expose shortcomings of a great site, but if no one speaks up, then where is the motivation to change? I'm going to try not to slam DDF, I'd rather have them look at my review as fair and perhaps realize that there is truth in it. Look forward to it soon.
07-24-14  09:07am

Reply To Message

12

Cybertoad (Disabled) REPLY TO #11 - LPee23 :

Id love to read it cool
07-24-14  10:56am

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.