Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
07-02-1403:11pm (Update History) Reason: Thought score maybe a bit too low, weighing the quantity of the material that the site has to offer.
Content Quantity. As of July, 2014 Beach Hunters indicates to non-members of amassing well over 3,600 "full-size” video clips. Now that may sound a lot, but take in account these videos are in 3 different formats (avi, mpg, mp4, wmv) counted as separate videos.
Content Categories. Videos and photos are set in categories so that members can easily find material to their preference. Categories are as follows: sex on the beach, foreplay, nudism topless, change room, not straight.
Content Variety. Every body form imaginable, age (within legal limits of course) and sexual orientation is captured on site. Beachhunters' videographers seem to have no scruples on what they capture on the beach; skinny, curvy, wrinkly, morbidly obese, it's all here.
Photos. Photos are very poor quality screen shots.
Editing. Many clips contain 3 plus minute of no activity, where the subjects are on their backs barely moving an inch. A great deal of editing could be used in the majority of their videos for the lack of activity as well as shaky hands syndrome, however Beachhunters seem to opt in using their editing talents into chunking up their videos in order to extend their library quantity, with no consideration given to their quality. Sadly this seems to be a common practice among these type of voyeur sites.
Sound. Videographers don't seem to be aware of the concept of self-noise, meaning when they move their equipment, it gets fairly loud. Do they know where the volume switch is on their equipment?
Recycling. Currently outside from membership access, I have visited their site to see if they in they had any fresh material worth to join up again and have noticed from their latest screen shots, they are reposting material from years ago!
If you're into photos and not much into videos, don't bother with this site. However despite the site's extremely poor edited content, they do have plenty of material for at least one month's membership, however due to its recycling of content, I wouldn't go further than that or ever consider going back again.
*Newbie reviews and ratings don't count toward a site's overall score/rank until the user reaches the Rookie status level (5 points). This rule is needed to help prevent fake (or heavily biased) profiles and reviews.
User Comments (2)
Ask a question, give quick feedback, warnings, etc.
I recently wrote in the forums of this site and my critique was removed in less than 24 hours. Please note that #6 was wrong and I did add a reply to note this. Basically, the video I thought was reposts was video that appeared on another site (jackass-nudebeach.com) so it was not reposted for this site. Here is what I wrote:
Subject: We are not that stupid
While I appreciate the site there are several problems that could be addressed to make the site much better. However, I am guessing that those who own/manage it are soooo rich that they do not care to make more money, or they smoke pot all day and are unmotivated to improve it. In either case here is what needs to be fixed, because for those of use who subscribe and browse the collection from time to time...to put it bluntly...we are not that stupid to notice that...
1. Making 20 videos out of a single 5 minuet clip and then spreading them over a 5 month period doesn't mean that the site has more content. It just means the user has to spend more time downloading a bunch of short clips instead of one. I assume the owners feel this increases the appearance of their content and/or dissuades users from using more bandwidth. In either case it sucks and makes the experience second rate to quality adult sites.
2. Video shot from above that shows shoulders and bald-headed men plain suck and should appear very rarely. If I wanted to look at the tops of naked bald headed men I would find a spot in the ceiling of the men's locker room at the local YMCA.
3. High Definition video is NOT up-converted standard definition video OR compressed HD video made to be smaller in file size so that users use less bandwidth. Just because a video appears in HD aspect ratios doesn't make it HD, and yes we can tell. Come on most of us HAVE HD or are members of sites that offer REAL HD (e.g. ilovethebeach.com). Real HD doesn't take up 9MB for 17 sec clips but about 50+MB.
4. Did I mention how STUPID clips that are less than 1 minuet are...
5. Taking captures of the REAL HD video (which is not made available to subscribers) and then posting it as "pictures" is weak. It is quite obvious that this is what you are doing...
6. You may have 190+ pages of video content (mostly due to the STUPID 17 second clips), but that doesn't mean you need to repost so many videos. Sure most people will get tired of wading through the STUPID 17 second clips, but those of us with memories longer than goldfish are quite aware of how many reposts appear in the course of a year.
To summarize this site could be SUPER cool. It could have the quality that ilovethebeach.com has with its content. But it appears that those who manage this site are cheap and prefer to cut corners and maintain their profit margin instead of increase it. It could be such a great site too which is what makes it a shame...I do wish they read this and consider some of what I have said (even if it was caustic and sarcastic).
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.