PU - The SCORE Group - All Activity

RE: "Loyalty Program" Makes Site a Must Have

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:43:44 PDT

Scoreland (0)

08-16-08 06:43pm

COMMENT REPLY by NMC2008 (4)

To malikstarks (8):

I am sorry but they can still kiss my ass.

View Thread (1)

Scoreland Comment

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:48:13 PDT

Scoreland (0)

08-16-08 05:48pm

COMMENT by malikstarks (8)

"Loyalty Program" Makes Site a Must Have

I have to hand it to Score, after getting there asses kicked relatively speaking by many of their online rivals they have finally caved in and provided a way to get all of their sites for one monthly fee.

Under their new loyalty program, if you sign up for Scoreland and keep it for a full month you are given a choice of sites you can subscribe to free of charge (you can pick one). Now not all of the sites are available to choose from after the first month, (you are given a choice of about five) but eventually if you keep the site long enough you can obtain them all. With PU discount that means all of their websites for 19.99.

I think this is a smart and sensible approach, to be honest most of thier top tier sites (Scoreland, Leg Sex, 18eighteen, etc.) are worth the price for at least one month. Now with this new discount program, I think it makes Scoreland virtually a must have and keep.

Visit Scoreland - View Replies - Add Reply

Bootylicious Mag Comment

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:23:54 PDT

Bootylicious Mag (1)

08-16-08 05:23pm

COMMENT by malikstarks (8)

'Hidden Videos' Take Two

This phenomon was prevalent on the Leg Sex website for a while until it was finally corrected, now it appears to be rearing it's head on the Bootylicious Mag site.

The problem basically is that clicking the "Videos" section of the site does not display all of it's available videos. In this case the problem is quite egregious, as I would estimate that not even half of the videos are displayed openly. I can only surmise that this is intentional as only videos made after March 2007 are openly displayed. It's the 'old piss on my head and tell me it's raining' ploy, these videos are probably set to magically "reappear" at some later date

The videos ARE still around however. You just have to do a little digging.

The only way I have seen to access all of the videos is to hit the archive button, and view the archive month by month to find videoes before March 2007. This is quite a bitch to do, as the we are talking about roughly two years of content, but they all still seem to be there and are still downloadable.

Visit Bootylicious Mag - View Replies - Add Reply

Scoreland Comment

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:46:27 PDT

Scoreland (0)

07-30-08 08:46am

COMMENT by messmer (14)

Site Logo too obvious and intrusive!

Scoreland suffers from the same malaise as 40plusmagazine.com, XL Girls and some others. Their watermark is usually placed on top and too big making IT the first thing that attracts your eye rather than the model herself. It's very distracting and I am surprised that subscribers haven't screamed long and hard about it. A smaller discrete watermark at the right or left bottom of a picture would still let everyone know where the set came from. No need to deface pictures like that.

Visit Scoreland - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Company Logo Way Too Big!

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:24:09 PDT

XL Girls (2)

07-15-08 10:24am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (14)

To pornpundit (2):

Nothing wrong with logos if they are discretely tucked away near the bottom and away from the model's face and other interesting features!

All I can add to your remarks is: to each his own. To me large logos are a mutilation of a picture or video and I'm always ready to voice my opinion on that because I really believe a site, by reducing super large logos could increase its business.

To you they're helpful in sorting! Why a big watermark/logo should be important when it comes to that I'll never understand. Wouldn't a smaller one identify who produced the set/video just as well or is it a case of impaired vision? But here we go again: Not everyone's taste and methods of collecting are the same.

Thankfully there are enough sites of all kinds to keep both of us happy. As they say in Germany: "One man's owl is another man's nightingale!"

View Thread (5)

RE: Something is wrong here

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:58:24 PDT

XL Girls (2)

07-15-08 08:58am

COMMENT REPLY by Khan (Staff)

To pornpundit (2):

We've looked at this several times now and don't see a problem. Each time we check, when we enter the id/pw/email and click the "join by credit card" link, it brings up the page where we'd enter CC info.

We can only suggest that you contact the site directly.

Sorry we can't be of more help but again, the site seems to be working fine for us.

View Thread (2)

RE: Company Logo Way Too Big!

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:46:13 PDT

XL Girls (2)

07-15-08 08:46am

COMMENT REPLY by pornpundit (2)

To messmer (14):

Please Sir Get real. If all you have to complain about is the logo...In Any case I appreciate logo's as they help to identify flicks in my collection. Now If only I could join the site at $19.95

View Thread (5)

RE: Company Logo Way Too Big!

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:13:47 PDT

XL Girls (2)

07-12-08 07:13pm

COMMENT REPLY by TheRizzo (13)

To messmer (14):

Well there are at least 2 of us that hate it. Its a huge reason for me to cancel for sure. Distracting and ruins the sexual nature of the photos to me. Like I said for free area promo, fine, I understand that. But paying customers shouldn't have to deal with it. A small watermark is perfect. I don't even mind a logo if its transparent and small enough, but I love the sites that just do the year and url in a nice crisp font.

View Thread (5)

RE: Company Logo Way Too Big!

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:47:06 PDT

XL Girls (2)

07-12-08 06:47pm

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (14)

To TheRizzo (13):

It's a constant beef of mine, Rizzo. As far as I know all their sites suffer from over-sized logos. It's a puzzle to me that they keep any subscribers at all. Unless I'm too nit-picking about it and other users just aren't bothered by those abominations. I really wish a webmaster would look in on this one and give a reasonable explanation.

View Thread (5)

RE: Company Logo Way Too Big!

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:36:51 PDT

XL Girls (2)

07-12-08 02:36pm

COMMENT REPLY by TheRizzo (13)

To messmer (14):

I don't mind it if they do it big on their free promo material but to have that size of watermark on their members content is just ridiculous.

View Thread (5)

XL Girls Comment

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:01:13 PDT

XL Girls (2)

07-12-08 01:01pm

COMMENT by messmer (14)

Company Logo Way Too Big!

This is another site where the watermarks are way too big and intrusive, at least in the picture sets. Who wants to stare at a company advertising itself in the most conspicuous places when you've paid to see an unmutilated, unobstructed picture. It's as bad as 40something.mag. The moment they'll reduce their self-promotion I'll be happy to subscribe. The models seem to be fine!

Visit XL Girls - View Replies - Add Reply

XL Girls Comment

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:56:43 PDT

XL Girls (2)

07-10-08 02:56pm

COMMENT by mbaya (40)

not hot

The videos were not clear. In 2008 I expect sharper crisper images. I know this is a big breast site, but the videos focus excessively on touching breasts. If a girl is sexy because of her breasts, the GIRL is sexy. Her breasts make her sexy and should not be the focus. More whole girl emphasis please.

Visit XL Girls - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Something is wrong here

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:39:00 PDT

XL Girls (2)

06-22-08 02:39pm

COMMENT REPLY by mr smut (13)

To pornpundit (2):

I would have been able to enter my credit card details ... strange isn't it? Have you tried to contact them via mail?

Cheers,
Smut

View Thread (2)

XL Girls Comment

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:29:56 PDT

XL Girls (2)

06-22-08 11:29am

COMMENT by pornpundit (2)

Something is wrong here

UPDATE FOR JULY24 HEY BEST PORN GANG This is oneof my favorite BBW sites and the sign up page still claims that " this ,embership is not available" This is still the only site I've come accross that won't take my money1 HELP! At the present time there seems to be no way to join. Entering the usual info and clicking on any payment method brings up " this membership method is not available" Anyone know what's g
oing on. Help this is the first site that doesn't seem to want to take money! Pornpundit

Visit XL Girls - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Thu, 08 May 2008 10:11:38 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-08-08 10:11am

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (67)

To messmer (14):

I am sure sure there are some that must be paid for. But if you google them yo can find them. Most of the time there is not any decent sites on these listing anyway, most of the higher grade sites have ways of preventing numerous IPs from signing in under the same user name

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Thu, 08 May 2008 09:21:12 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-08-08 09:21am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (14)

To badandy400 (67):

Just curious: do people actually subscribe to sites like that or are their urls sort of passed around by word of mouth by hackers?

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Thu, 08 May 2008 09:11:41 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-08-08 09:11am

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (67)

To messmer (14):

Well yes certainly. That works a lot like the Thumbnail Galleries. But I have also seen a good bit of exclusive content their as well.

Yup, password sites exist! This is why there is many sites that have download limits and make you sigh in ever hour or so.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Thu, 08 May 2008 07:47:39 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-08-08 07:47am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (14)

To badandy400 (67):

Call me naive but I didn't realize that websites like that existed. I don't move in those circles. :-) As to your remarks re. the usenet, yes, I can see how that might be hurtful to the web owners but only in cases where people massively flood the material. In my case, and I'm sure in the case of many others, the odd set published on the usenet gave me a better idea on what a site's material was all about than their "tours" and helped me to make up my mind to subscribe ... or not in the case of 40something.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Wed, 07 May 2008 21:38:28 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-07-08 09:38pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (67)

To messmer (14):

Well. That could be a little of both. many people put stuff on there just to share with others and other people put stuff on their that they download. There is a good amount of content that is okay to be there, but there is also a lot of content that was bought by someone then posted for others to download for free, thus screwing the site owners and the rest of us who are paying the premium price. Usenet offers a way to steal content from websites with out ever touching the site.

I was mostly referring to websites that post hacked user names and password for everyone to use. Unlike usenet, this method still required the owners to pay for the bandwidth with out being able to collect any membership fees.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Tue, 06 May 2008 08:22:32 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-06-08 08:22am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (14)

To badandy400 (67):

I feel naive because I never tied the binaries that are offered on the usenet to cracking passwords. It's so obvious yet I really believed it was subscribers wanting to share their favorite models with others. How dumb can you get!

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Mon, 05 May 2008 16:07:39 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-05-08 04:07pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (67)

To messmer (14):

Yes how true, many men do not. On the other hand, does a map company "own" directions? Of course not because you could also go to Burger King and ask someone that is eating and get the same directions. It really comes down to would you have bought the map if the clerk could not answer you, or would you have simply ask someone else. However, the store clerk could have simply said to buy a map, but he chose not to. Cup half full or empty I guess.

If you look at a picture that you NEVER had the intention to buy than the photographer really has lost nothing if you look at it at your friends house because you were not going to buy it regardless. It does not cost the photographer money for each time a friend looks at another friends collection. Of course, a person should not copy their friend's collection, unless of course they want to pay a membership fee at least.

On that, it can be seen that password cracking sites are counterproductive to the porn community because even though a person may never had intended to pay for the pictures he is looking at, the owner still had to pay the bandwidth usage it took to download them. This means that the owner would never had mad any money off of you but he still had to pay for you to be able to look at them.

Gee, now I feel bad myself for using that password crack site while back. Kicking my own ass!

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Mon, 05 May 2008 13:09:27 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-05-08 01:09pm

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (14)

To badandy400 (67):

Thanks, you made me feel better about the times I did look at a "friend's" pictures on the usenet. :-) And it is absolutely true that quite frequently the looking leads to a subscription. It has in my case, with three separate pay sites. I saw some sets and thought: I want 'em all! As to asking directions of a store owner who sells maps. That's despicable. The man loses a sale, the company who prints the maps loses. In the future I will never ask for directions again but buy a map instead. :-) It's only fair. But, come to think of it, the whole thing is theoretical: real men don't ask for directions!!!

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Mon, 05 May 2008 12:14:22 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-05-08 12:14pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (67)

To messmer (14):

I wouldn't accuse you either way, but we will not get into my views on the laws of piracy. Most of us have used something to see pictures without paying for them. No different than going to a friend's house and looking through their collection. Can be a good way to see who you want to subscribe to. No different than flipping through a magazine at the store before deciding to buy it.

Here is one for you. If a person goes into a store that sells road maps and get directions from the clerk, did the person steal from the store?

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Mon, 05 May 2008 09:05:42 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-05-08 09:05am

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (14)

To badandy400 (67):

I'm forewarned because I've seen whole sets of theirs posted on the Usenet on occasion but no one will ever be able to accuse me of piracy or theft because I wouldn't download their pictures if my life depended on it (small exaggeration). If they are samples seeded by them in order to draw attention to their site they are not going to attract anyone who is a fan of pictures. If they made their markings smaller I would subscribe. The models are fine.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Sun, 04 May 2008 16:59:46 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-04-08 04:59pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (67)

To messmer (14):

InFocus Girls, Nubiles, Zexy Teens, Xisty, Twistys, and others seem to have pretty small markings too.

I just checked out 40 somethings homepage, they dont even let you see a sample photo anywhere! From the outside of the site a person would never know that the watermarks are an issue.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Sun, 04 May 2008 15:19:32 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-04-08 03:19pm

COMMENT REPLY by messmer (14)

To badandy400 (67):

You quoted: "Too many time have we seen the best part covered by these markings!" Exactly!

If they just reduced the logo a bit, got rid of the yellow in the forty, and put it consistently near the bottom right ... or something ... I could live with that. But to put a huge watermark in a model's hair that's mutilation of the photographer's work. Sites like atk or Aunt Judy do it just about right.

View Thread (13)

RE: Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

Sun, 04 May 2008 14:56:43 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-04-08 02:56pm

COMMENT REPLY by badandy400 (67)

To messmer (14):

I must agree with this. I have seen this in too many other places too. A small make can actually be nice so you can tell where the pictures, or videos even go. I like to keep things sorted by site and some have no markings and a year after downloading the video I usually do not have the slightest clue where it goes. But, they should be small.

Many of the nicer sites have a very small marking that must be looked for at times. I really do not like the large ones either, they really should blend into the picture. Every one will know who's it was since it is still there, but should not take away from the picture. Too many times have we seen the best part covered by these marking!

View Thread (13)

40 Something Mag Comment

Sun, 04 May 2008 12:29:27 PDT

40 Something Mag (0)

05-04-08 12:29pm

COMMENT by messmer (14)

Watermark (Logo) too intrusive!

I wonder how many lovers of mature women do not subscribe to this site because the water mark is too big, too brash and too destructive to the pictures (placed in the wrong spot). This glaring self-promotion might be tolerable on the first picture of a set but on every single pic? Webmaster, if you are looking .. I would be a subscriber if you ever decided to reduce the logo to a more modest, more unobtrusive size.

Visit 40 Something Mag - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: BAD NEWS NOW ACESS TRIAL IS LIMITED

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:54:38 PDT

Scoreland (0)

04-20-08 03:54am

COMMENT REPLY by mistake62 (0)

To malikstarks (8):

ok thanks malikstars i confirm, now all their content( videos,pics, old and update material) is disperse in different websites( personnal acessible with the membership and even scorevideo then extra cost) then the navigation is still more difficult.

View Thread (4)

RE: BAD NEWS NOW ACESS TRIAL IS LIMITED

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:04:37 PDT

Scoreland (0)

04-19-08 11:04pm

COMMENT REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To mistake62 (0):

I just tried the link through this site, and it is indeed $19.99 per month. Make sure to clear your cache (delete temporary internet files). It should work for you. You can also try the link on Rabbitreviews.com the discount is the same.

I now notice they have added memberships to many of their individual model sites. I think this adds little to no value, as much (if not most) of the content on those sites can be found on Scoreland itself.

View Thread (4)

RE: BAD NEWS NOW ACESS TRIAL IS LIMITED

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:23:55 PDT

Scoreland (0)

04-19-08 04:23pm

COMMENT REPLY by mistake62 (0)

To malikstarks (8):

ok malikstarks thank for your answer. I subscribe yesterday and indeed this content is become very very limited but you talk of discount and a PU link? however it seem that always cost 29,95£ per month?

View Thread (4)

RE: BAD NEWS NOW ACESS TRIAL IS LIMITED

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:41:55 PDT

Scoreland (0)

04-19-08 12:41pm

COMMENT REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To mistake62 (0):

Bad news indeed, but I'm not surprised and can't much blame them. Before you could go in download all the movies you want in a day or so and be done with it. As I discussed with Drooler in another comment thread though, they still need to step up their game. At least their sites are discounted at 19.99 a month now (through the PU link). That is fair enough in my opinion

View Thread (4)

Scoreland Comment

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:21:12 PDT

Scoreland (0)

04-19-08 08:21am

COMMENT by mistake62 (0)

BAD NEWS NOW ACESS TRIAL IS LIMITED

they have change politics, now the 3 days trial cost 2,95� but is LIMITED AND THEY COMPLETELY CHANGE NAVIGATION OF THE SITE

Visit Scoreland - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Get It Together, Baby!

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:09:57 PDT

18 Eighteen (4)

04-18-08 11:09am

COMMENT REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To Drooler (146):

Bottom line, all of their online properties are currently being seriously outflanked by sites that are simply better.

Scoreland- Brazzers: more pics (although lower quality). Tons more hardcore.

Legsex- HotLegsandFeet

XLGirls- Tough call here but I think BBWpornpass is slightly better

18Eighteen- Take your pic: Abbywinters, Karups, clubseventeen. Hell you might simply do better to just get Brazzers for the TeensLikeitBig site or RealityKings for Pure18; although these sites don't have any soft core content.

40somethingmag- Allover30, Karupsolderwomen

NaughtyMag- Again, take your pic, from basically the same list as 18eighteen but slightly larger.

Ridiculous considering the Score Group has way more resources than any of these companies. I totally simpithize with why you rejoined 18eighteen though. All of their sites have VERY intriguing content. But you get the feeling that they spread themselves too thin to be able to fully capitalize on it.

That's All I will say on this topic, for now. Perhaps I should have started a thread in forum.

View Thread (6)

RE: Get It Together, Baby!

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:08:38 PDT

18 Eighteen (4)

04-18-08 02:08am

COMMENT REPLY by Drooler (146)

To malikstarks (8):

I definitely agree: they have potential, but they're not doing anything with it. Magazines, and for porn especially, print media in general, have become an anachronism.

Maybe their revenue streams don't reflect this because their sites fall so sort on quality (and evidence of web competency) that they don't generate enough to make a impression on management? Just wondering aloud.

View Thread (6)

RE: Get It Together, Baby!

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:29:53 PDT

18 Eighteen (4)

04-17-08 09:29pm

COMMENT REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To Drooler (146):

It appears to me that the Score Group is a Company that has failed to make the transition to the online format. As a result they are dangerously close to going the way of Playboy and Penthouse. Both aforementioned companies live off their past glory, and the latter I hear is tens of millions of dollars in debt.

In my opinion they (Score) ought to just scrap all their mags and focus solely on their internet sites. Right now they have a bunch sites that have always had potential, but that are simply mediocre at best (with the possible exception of Scoreland) .

View Thread (6)

RE: Get It Together, Baby!

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:40:12 PDT

18 Eighteen (4)

04-17-08 12:40pm

COMMENT REPLY by williamj (7)

To Drooler (146):

Scores Group always seemed like they have to potential to be a great adult web site company. I joined their busty site and was disappointed. I think they must be running the business on a shoe string budget, taking as much money out of the business as they can and not re-investing. They seem a bit outdated.

View Thread (6)

RE: Get It Together, Baby!

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:48:47 PDT

18 Eighteen (4)

04-17-08 01:48am

COMMENT REPLY by Drooler (146)

To malikstarks (8):

I did join at the TBP rate (part of my self-rationalizing for rejoining site, though it's been about 17 months since I last did).

I've read, I think at TBP, that it's a magazine-based site, and that's why their photos tend to be grainy in texture. Well, it's an online site, so it should be treated as such. As you say, they need to get their game up. I kind of doubt that they will.

View Thread (6)

RE: Get It Together, Baby!

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:17:47 PDT

18 Eighteen (4)

04-16-08 09:17pm

COMMENT REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To Drooler (146):

The fact is that the Score Group is really a Big Boob/Pornstar company. This site has always had potential, but in my opinion has been a bit of an after thought for them. Their hearts just aren't that much into it, yet they know the teen market is extremely lucrative (if not saturated).

Also for a company whose claim to fame is their magazines, they really need to get their online pic game up to snuff. At least on the Scoreland (their flagship) site they have made some improvements here, but it is still not good enough when many online companies have sets 300-400 pics large. This is a magazine company by the way.

On the positive side, I don't know if you have noticed this before, but if you join this site through the PU link the price is only 19.99 (listed at 29.99) as are all of the Score Group sites.

View Thread (6)

18 Eighteen Comment

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:04:01 PDT

18 Eighteen (4)

04-15-08 07:04pm

COMMENT by Drooler (146)

Get It Together, Baby!

Consider this an update to my comment of Sept. '07.

The server speed has gotten snappier, but the webmastering problems are still all over the place:

-Inconsistent thumb sizes (often too small, sometimes larger, sometimes a nice large size). At least one recent gallery mixes small thumbs with actual pics! (Check your work, dammit, baby!)
-Inconsistent zips: sometimes all-in-one, sometimes each page has its own zip file.
-Incomplete labeling: In their full lists of updates by month, you can choose solo, g/g, hardcore, or all but in the listings you don't always know if they're going to be videos or photos, without doing extra clicking to find out
-Same old "1600px" photos in portrait orientation that are only 1200x790. THAT's consistent!

I even tried a 800x600 from November 2007 and y'know what? 399x600! Anyway, who the hell wants 800x600 these days? You've gotta be kidding!

They can't even keep the names straight. Clicked on the link to a "Heidi Lee" gallery and she turned into Tecey Heart.

I even came upon some ... broken links! And these were in 2007. And for a gallery (video?) in Dec. 2006 (where I'd last left off), the link took me to the updates for April 2008! (WTF?!)

When I see such things, and so many of them, the thought is "Oh, boy. Well, I guess I can't expect too much from this site." Know what I mean?

(I'm just not gushing over it like they did at Rabbit's. Know what I mean?)

Visit 18 Eighteen - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: New Lower Price!!!

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:48:13 PDT

Leg Sex (1)

03-13-08 10:48am

COMMENT REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To malikstarks (8):

This price decrease seems to only work if you click on the TBP/Pu link, yet for some reason it is not listed as an offical discount here, not sure why.

Maybe they saw my favorable review and decided to cut us a break (lol).

View Thread (2)

RE: recommended

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:50:02 PST

Busty Kerry Marie (0)

03-09-08 01:50am

COMMENT REPLY by boredsurfer (0)

To sullivan (32):

ESPECIALLY since her "own" site, officiallykerrymarie.com, has DMRs AND no hardcore of any kind AND promises more videos than they actually have posted AND misleads you into thinking that the videos are freely downloadable UNTIL AFTER you get into the site.
And while I do like her, on her private site she has got really fat.
(Good for the boobs, not so good for the belly).

View Thread (1)

RE: New Lower Price!!!

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:11:57 PST

Leg Sex (1)

03-05-08 06:11am

COMMENT REPLY by Marianna (40)

To malikstarks (8):

yep!

View Thread (2)

Leg Sex Comment

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 06:47:41 PST

Leg Sex (1)

03-04-08 06:47am

COMMENT by malikstarks (8)

New Lower Price!!!

The price on this site has recently been lowered to 19.95. At that price I think it is definitely a good deal worth checking out!!

Visit Leg Sex - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: malikstarks's Review

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:45:50 PST

Leg Sex (1)

02-21-08 08:45am

REVIEW REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To Marianna (40):

I look forward to seeing your review(if you joined).

View Thread (2)

RE: malikstarks's Review

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:01:29 PST

Leg Sex (1)

02-20-08 03:01pm

REVIEW REPLY by Marianna (40)

To malikstarks (8):

nice site!

View Thread (2)

RE: Just did a trial

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:11:47 PST

Naughty Mag (2)

02-16-08 09:11pm

COMMENT REPLY by aesop7 (10)

To malikstarks (8):

Thanks, malik! I'll take your advice and move on elsewhere. I must say, though, the content on 18Eighteen has me intrigued... I may break down and shell out the $ for a full month... I've gotten to watch some more of the NaughtyMag content, and it is a mixed bag. A couple of the videos look great, and the girls are beautiful. A lot of the others are so-so. I just got a peek at the pics before my trial ran out, and there is a lot there.

View Thread (2)

Scoreland Comment

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:08:58 PST

Scoreland (0)

02-14-08 05:08pm

COMMENT by apoctom (142)

Trial Review

I joined the trial and was mildly disappointed. The site features a lot of photos, but if you joined for the movies, like I did, you will find that the videos are not well organized and that there is a very limited collection. Think Web circa 1999.

Also, there was a lot of advertising for other Scoreland sites which I understand, but still wish there was less of.

I guess that $7 is not much for the content, but I wish that such a big company would have a little higher production values for its website.

Visit Scoreland - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Just did a trial

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:00:53 PST

Naughty Mag (2)

02-13-08 08:00pm

COMMENT REPLY by malikstarks (8)

To aesop7 (10):

The Eighteen Trial is not worth it anyway as it extremely restrictive; even at 2.95 it is a waste of money. As far as Naughty Neighbors I have been there and for they do have they do a good job. It is definitely worth the $5 trial. As far as a whole month, it depends on what you are into. I'll say this, as far as just straight girl next door amateurs there aren't many sites that do a better job particularly when considering the sheer volume of pics available. Maybe Abby Winters(never been a member there) but they really only have one type of girl there in terms of ethnicity(pale skinned white girls) if you are looking for a wider variety of girls then Naughty Neighbors is actually not a bad pick up, even for a month.

View Thread (2)

Naughty Mag Comment

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:48:05 PST

Naughty Mag (2)

02-13-08 07:48pm

COMMENT by aesop7 (10)

Just did a trial

Got some very nice, good quality videos here. It's a mixed bag in terms of the girls, some very pretty, some ... not so much, as you would expect from a primarily amateur site. There's not a ton of video here, at least not b/g. There's some solo, toy and a bit of g/g as well. Navigation is good, and my download manager worked. Certainly worth the $5 for the trial, but not enough for a full month. If you like the pics, however, there's lots and lots, avail 1600x1200. That's not the best, but they look good... BTW - when I signed for the trial, there's a check box to get a $2.95 trial for 18Eighteen as well. I checked the box, but my password didn't work there. I emailed them, we'll see [according to their welcome email I was NOT charged the extra $2.95]...

Visit Naughty Mag - View Replies - Add Reply