PU - Teenrotica - All Activity

RE: Great picture site!!!

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:14:13 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

06-04-08 12:14pm

COMMENT REPLY by ksauz (0)

To webmasterTR (Webmaster):

Ooops!!
Relly sorry for this mistake in numbers!

I confirm, and my initial text shows how I have been a satisfied customer!
Great site A+++++++!

View Thread (5)

RE: Great picture site!!!

Fri, 30 May 2008 11:54:49 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

05-30-08 11:54am

COMMENT REPLY by webmasterTR (Webmaster)

To ksauz (0):

Hi,

just a note ... the pic size is 1338x2000.

Just check our freetour pages
FREETOUR >

Cheers,
Paul

View Thread (5)

RE: Abortive, rooting RAM hog ...

Thu, 15 May 2008 07:21:49 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

05-15-08 07:21am

COMMENT REPLY by webmasterTR (Webmaster)

To Drooler (156):

Hi there Drooler,

thx for detailed informations. But your problem isn´t a result
of our scripts or pages. The mentioned image viewer is just a very small piece of javascript, running on houndreds of other websites 2 and tested by us.

We can´t see this phenomenon, even if we use an older system with less memory.

I hope, you´ll find a solution.

Have a sunny day.

Cheers,
Paul
webmaster@teenrotica.com

View Thread (3)

RE: Abortive, rooting RAM hog ...

Fri, 09 May 2008 02:11:23 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

05-09-08 02:11am

COMMENT REPLY by Drooler (156)

To Denner (146):

One feature they've added since you were last there a year ago is a kind of "shrink/enlarge" image program. You click on, say, the "XXL" under an image and the image pops up close to the screen size. Then if you click this "shrink/enlarge" button in the lower right corner of the image, the image expands to the XXL size (2000px).

As my RAM depleted, mousing over the XXL under the image brought this little rectangle that said "Loading ..." with a little spiraling graphic (meaning "please wait"). By the time I'd gotten through about a month of galleries, this "Loading .." rectangle just sat there and the image never came. I had to quit and reboot, and that was slow.

This morning I again went through a number of sites, with no problem, so it's clear to me that it's got something to do with Teenrotica. I doubt that it's anything underhanded. But it's not web programming at its finest.

But really, I don't know much about it. I do know that a webmaster can choose whether an image file draws progressively on the screen or pre-loads into RAM, which case you may wait longer, then suddenly the whole thing appears at once. So I think they can program from a website to use, in greater or lesser amounts, the resources on a visitor's computer.

And a webmaster can use scripts to detect a user's OS, screen resolution, browser and version, etc. Not a bad thing, really, since it makes it possible to display a page properly on screens that are 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x(I forgot), etc.

View Thread (3)

RE: Abortive, rooting RAM hog ...

Fri, 09 May 2008 01:30:16 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

05-09-08 01:30am

COMMENT REPLY by Denner (146)

To Drooler (156):

Weird!
Does that mean, that this site acts as some kind of software checking out your computers memory, RAM ect...?

Never had that with any paysite - was a member of Teenrotica a year ago or so - but nothing like this happened.

I seen some pop-ups at dangerous free sites where this pop-up tells me that my computer need optimizing and their program offers to do a check-up. I run away as fast as I can.....

Here we need a comment from the webmaster at Teenrotica

View Thread (3)

Teenrotica Comment

Thu, 08 May 2008 17:09:24 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

05-08-08 05:09pm

COMMENT by Drooler (156)

Abortive, rooting RAM hog ...

Thought I'd give this one another try. It's still pretty much the same (care to see my review?), but there were some choice finds after all of the time away. I mean ASS done right. And the photos and the babes are really good. (Smiley)

However, after about 1.5 months of galleries worth of catching up, my computer was running really, really slowly. Then it told me that it was under the minimum requirement for virtual memory. I didn't know that such a system message even existed! And I'd just rebooted! Never had that with a site before. I'll go to scads of sites and get all kinds of stuff with nary a RAM crunch.

Yeah, I can try emptying the cache, increasing the virtual memory, adding more physical RAM, blah blah blah ... but that won't change the fact that this site somehow roots into it until one finally just has to abort! (My apologies to the Bard.)

Anyone else have this happen at Teenrotica? Or should I just go f--- oh, I'm not allowed to say that here.

Visit Teenrotica - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Great picture site!!!

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:19:57 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

04-23-08 04:19pm

COMMENT REPLY by ksauz (0)

To WeeWillyWinky (68):

Hi again...
Pic size is 1280 x 834

View Thread (5)

RE: Drooler's Review

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:07:45 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

04-23-08 12:07pm

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (156)

To jd1961 (78):

It seems that my "invention" has been propagating its way downstream through the market. Could I have trademarked it? Nah, 'cause I'm not a content provider anyway, and a "real" content provider has snatched it up. Definitely downstream.

Well, it's there for the linking and the reading. Caveat emptor and all that.

View Thread (7)

RE: Drooler's Review

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:41:10 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

04-23-08 02:41am

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To Drooler (156):

Did you know that your phrase "eurobabes" has turned into a link!

View Thread (7)

RE: Great picture site!!!

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:00:31 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

04-22-08 07:00pm

COMMENT REPLY by WeeWillyWinky (68)

To ksauz (0):

Sorry, I should have read the reviews first. Info is given there.

View Thread (5)

RE: Great picture site!!!

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:59:24 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

04-22-08 06:59pm

COMMENT REPLY by WeeWillyWinky (68)

To ksauz (0):

Thanks for the comment, ksauz. What size are the pics, on average?

View Thread (5)

Teenrotica Comment

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:19:43 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

04-22-08 04:19pm

COMMENT by ksauz (0)

Great picture site!!!

This site is excellent! I got a 1 year subscription: very nice pictures indeed, with lots of nice wide open spreads (my stuff!!).
Pics are very sharp, videos are not as good, compared to the picture quality... But I think I am more a picture guy...

Visit Teenrotica - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Drooler's Review

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:56:53 PST

Teenrotica (2)

01-06-08 08:56pm

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To WeeWillyWinky (68):

It was a lot worse in the old days.

View Thread (7)

RE: Drooler's Review

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:20:12 PST

Teenrotica (2)

01-06-08 07:20pm

REVIEW REPLY by WeeWillyWinky (68)

To jd1961 (78):

I had to laugh at this, jd. It's 2008 now, and some of these sites will just have to come clean about how old their models are. At some major sites you can see models' ages at anywhere between 19 and 23 who've had pics all over the net since the late nineties.

Tawny Stone should be in the World Record's book for staying 18 longer than any other human in history. A biological miracle!

View Thread (7)

RE: Teens?

Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:00:19 PST

Teenrotica (2)

11-24-07 10:00pm

COMMENT REPLY by DSbadger (0)

To jd1961 (78):

I was about to say the same thing. In fact many girls look 21 to 26, to me.

View Thread (1)

RE: Drooler's Review

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 04:45:29 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

10-08-07 04:45am

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To Drooler (156):

Sharka Blue's 20? I didn't know she started in porn at 15?? Maybe she should change her name to Sharka Lords!!! Tell the truth, you got those ages off the website didn't you? :)

View Thread (7)

RE: Drooler's Review

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:48:19 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

10-07-07 04:48pm

REVIEW REPLY by Drooler (156)

To jd1961 (78):

I'm answering this while going back and forth to the site. You can find all of the "18-year-olds" ... So that's Ennie, Torrie, Agnes, Demi, Marcy (she looks older than 18, but she's hot!), Demi ...

19: Rebekka, Katka, Gabrielle, Michelle (probably faked her ID awhile back), Liliane Tiger, Marina/Euphrat (hey, that's what MCN nudes says about her, too) ...

20: Ahh! There's Sharka Blue! You're right. She's NOT a teen. ;)

View Thread (7)

RE: Drooler's Review

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:24:07 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

10-07-07 04:24pm

REVIEW REPLY by jd1961 (78)

To Drooler (156):

Looking at the preview page, I'm not seeing any teens there. If Sharka Blue is a teen, I'm 25 again!

View Thread (7)

RE: mudman's Review

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:02:29 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

09-30-07 01:02am

REVIEW REPLY by williamj (7)

To mudman (36):

I agree Teenrotica is a good site but it needs more work. I thought the videos where totally poor in quality and content. The pictures where great if your a shaved teen fan, but they tend to repeat in likeness from pic to pic. The models moving an inch or the photographer just slighty moving the camera becomes a bit boring. The girl is right there looking all spunky and ready to go but the camera person is stuck in slow speed just clicking at the same angle. So much lost potential. The poor quality of the videos really turned me off from this site. The big wait as quoted can make or break this site.

View Thread (6)

RE: mudman's Review

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:52:33 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

06-19-07 02:52pm

REVIEW REPLY by DivBZero (13)

To mudman (36):

Hello Mudman

--- I'm confused by this. I used to be a member and it was one photoset per day. I just checked on the free tour and:

"EVERY DAY A NEW PHOTOSET OF BEAUTIFUL TEENS !

Neverending in search for addictive content? We deliver you the most fascinating, fresh & unique imaginary visions you've ever experienced on a daily basis. +++ ADDITIONAL FRIDAY SPECIALS +++"

Which I guess means two sets on a Friday.

Anyway, I'm thinking of becoming a member again. I remember the cookie cutter sets that needed a little editing, but one can really forgive them because of the 1 in 10 cracking sets that pop out.

Regards

DivBZero

View Thread (6)

Teenrotica Comment

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:57:33 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

06-11-07 08:57pm

COMMENT by jd1961 (78)

Teens?

Very few of these girls are teens.

Visit Teenrotica - View Replies - Add Reply

Teenrotica Comment

Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:05:24 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

04-08-07 10:05am

COMMENT by Drooler (156)

Formula is right!

Mudman has it right with the word "formula." In nearly every gallery, there is a long stretch of photos in which the girls take it off. Then they put their hands on their rears, stretch and puddle up their kitties, and then perform with a plastic Johnny. The ending is often of them sitting on Mr. John, in several frames. It's too bad because the girls are killer gorgeous and put out loads of sex appeal (more so than at many sites) and the pics are large and high quality with lots of attention to color and styling.

But how about some variety in the activity? They need better presentations of the girls looking back as they show off their luscious butts (WITHOUT their hands on 'em, and not always head to toe, for a change). It's as if there's some supervisor around, holding up the master storyboard, saying, "You can only do it THIS WAY!"

This site could be leader if they'd just be less obsessive about toys and masterbation to the CONSTANT exclusion of other matters of interest. What they have managed to do is make beautiful girls ... kinda boring. That's quite a feat!

Visit Teenrotica - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: mudman's Review

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:45:29 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

03-14-07 07:45am

REVIEW REPLY by mudman (36)

To SnowDude (214):

One correction here. I said it's up to 12 photosets per day. Actually, it's up to 16 photosets per day.

View Thread (6)

RE: mudman's Review

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:33:10 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

03-12-07 03:33pm

REVIEW REPLY by SnowDude (214)

To mudman (36):

Thanks for the extra info here too! One question: Do any of these softcore sites have girls with shorter hair? I love anything above the shoulders but the shorter the better! I have been on the prowl for hardcore sites, but Khan (of the admins) thought I'd have better luck at some of the softcore sites like this one. It's not a huge deal and I wouldn't give it more than 5 seconds of thought, but I'm just curious of anything stands out to you...if so, I'd like to know! Thanks again.

View Thread (6)

RE: mudman's Review

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:55:30 PDT

Teenrotica (2)

03-12-07 04:55am

REVIEW REPLY by mudman (36)

To SnowDude (214):

Dear Snowdude:

Yeah, it's just okay, much like dozen of other sites. I actually was thinking about the site the day before you wrote. There are 3 sites, Teendream, Teenrotica and Infocus. Actually, I confused my reviews. I'd said of Infocus, that the close-up rarely were infocus, but I was thinking of Teenrotica. Infocus actually fairs pretty well in using the camera.

The problem, especially with these 3 sites, is how indistinquishable they are from each other. The poses are so cookie cutter, that the photographer certainly must use index cards telling him what shot at what angle is next. The quality is generally quite skilled, but gets boring because there's so little imagination or effort in the shot.

All three sites do have volume, do have pretty girls, are shot in color, but simply seem to provide the expected same old same old. They don't need to go radical on every shoot, just do something creative once and a while, so there's a reason to get up in the morning and take a look.

So, for volume, pretty girls and a boring sameness, an 84. They fix the boring and a higher score. They lose their volume or girls and a lower score. They're good, not exciting, but not bad. A 5 page shoot, 3 pages of clothes almost off, 4th page naked 5th page money shot and see ya. ATK Galleria is a better chose for this, as you get unmatched volume, up to 12 sets a day.

Of the three, I'd say Infocus was the most interesting.

That's it.

View Thread (6)

RE: mudman's Review

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:01:37 PST

Teenrotica (2)

03-09-07 09:01am

REVIEW REPLY by SnowDude (214)

To mudman (36):

I'd really like to hear more on this site than what you provided unless you areally found it that boring. If so I'd stay clear, but to me a site with a rating of 84 means it's still pretty good.

View Thread (6)