> doesn't it make more sense to give us your experiences with five or ten > sites you've actually joined?
My understanding this is a completely different thing. The question as I read it was about sites out there, not about sites one cares to join (which means pre-selection process, especially for PU users). I think poll results confirm my interpretation too (I don't think that somebody was mistreated by 75% of the sites he joined).
> if there is disclosure of elements in the site that you may not like > in the free area or the terms and conditions, isn't that ethical
> business practice? I think it is.
Yes, and you should note that there were several sites I've considered "probably ethical but definitely not worth to join", so it's not about liking or disliking free area, but an estimate of chances of them lying in free area (if garbage site doesn't promise anything, it's ok, but if it says they have daily updates, it's suspicious). About terms and conditions, I didn't say these guys are necessarily unethical, but outrageous terms and conditions make me quite suspicious, so I wrote "unethical: unclear" for them. Sure this whole exercise is all about personal interpretation, but I hope mine isn't too far out :-).
I think there is a BIG difference between "sites I would never join" and dishonest sites. Let me explain. If dead site does NOT say it has any updates, why it is dishonest? It can be completely not worth your money, but as long as they didn't say they have any updates, I don't see why it's unethical. If somebody markets complete crap as complete crap, IMHO it's ok (and it's his problem, not mine, when he goes out of business).
> In business in general it is common practice to reserve as many rights as you can think of...
You're right, but on the other hand everything has it's limits. I'm reading documents I'm signing VERY carefully, and I'm sure that if my bank would write "we reserve the right to charge you for excessive inquiries at our sole discretion", I wouldn't be a client of that bank :-).
Ok, here goes result of "10 RANDOM sites" mini-research: after researching 10 RANDOM sites it was found that about 50% (52 with a margin of error of 15) of the sites are likely to use unethical practices. The most likely unethical practices, as expected, were suspicion of misleading previews (about 40%) and PRE-CHECKED "special offers" (30%). Some sites exhibited both unethical practices).
After some deliberations with myself, I've decided that prize for the "most unethical site out of these 10 RANDOM sites" goes to "Bare Legs".
Summary of last 5 reviews follows (with details available in Comments, under "Random Site comment" title, for first 5 sites see above):
Mia Baby - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: VERY likely. Chances of being unethical are estimated at 80%.
Mature Toilet Sluts - here goes the price of reviewing RANDOM sites :-(. IMHO unethical: unclear (Terms and Conditions are outrageous, but it's unclear if they were ever used against members). Chances of being unethical are estimated at 50%.
Bare Legs - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (suspicious promise of DAILY updates, and "Join for FREE" combined with Epoch's PRE-CHECKED offer auto-renewing at 39.95). Chances of being unethical: 100%.
Sweet Asian Teens - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (somewhat suspicious promise of 500hrs of HD, and another PRE-CHECKED offer auto-renewing at 29.95). Chances of being unethical: 100%.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Review of non-member area: looks not bad, decent preview and I while I struggle to believe that they have 500hrs of HD video (!) within theme, it's still possible if they have non-exclusive content. But their sign-up page with $1 trial has another PRE-CHECKED "special" (this time not from Epoch, but from 365billing) conveniently rebilled at $29.95/month. Arrrrrrgh!
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Review of non-member pages: not much to say, no even tour page, promising DAILY updates (I don't believe it, do you?), and as a final touch, they're proposing "Join for free" combined with one of infamous PRE-CHECKED offers by Epoch (auto-renewing at $39.95 or so). That's what I call unethical.
From http://www.nolimitweb.nl/terms.htm :
"The occurrence of complaints from Customers, inquiries, Credit Backs or Charge Backs with respect to the Client's program or service may be cause for termination of this Agreement if such events occur with unacceptable frequency as determined in the sole discretion of the Company. In addition, The Company reserves the right to charge the Client reasonable fees and recover its expenses on account of Credit Backs, Charge Backs, or excessive customer inquiries." - have anybody seen anything like this? These guys seem to reserve the right to charge members as much as they wish, at their sole discretion.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Ok, here goes the price of reviewing RANDOM sites :-(. But to maintain experiment as clean as possible I shouldn't avoid even as filthy stuff as this is (sorry guys who love it, it's not my cup of... oh, forget it).
Review of non-member area of the site is easy: there is only one page, so there isn't that much to see, but there is a movie on this page, so it isn't that uninformative after all. There are very few promises on this page, so there aren't much things to break (except for content being filthy enough, which is somewhat confirmed by sample WMV), but there is one interesting thing there in their "Terms and Conditions" (http://www.nolimitweb.nl/terms.htm , see my other comment to this site for a quote). I have no idea if some provisions was EVER used by them, or if similar conditions are present for any of the other sites, but this is IMHO nothing short of outrageous (they seem to reserve the right to charge members at the site discretion).
Bottom line: not only content is filthy, Terms and Conditions are not less filthy and I would stay away from sites with such Terms and Conditions at any cost.
> This has got to be based on a feeling...
Sure, but it's even more interesting to compare results of my little exercise to overall feeling of the members, isn't it?
> There are maybe over 100.000 "porn sites" on the net and about 14.000
> registered at TBP.
Come on, I don't pretend my little research to be scientific or something, it's obviously only about TGP-registered sites (though personally I have difficult time finding sites outside TBP). But it still somewhat answers a question "if you're trying RANDOM site out of TBP list, what are the chances of being scammed in some way?"
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Results of reviewing non-member area: according to TBP it is a clone of a well-established site, and looks pretty much like expected for such a site. It has everything needed for this kind of site: ability to search clips, purchases of time from $3.95 to $84.95, streaming/rental/download/XXX-to-Burn and so on.
Bottom line: while I'm not being fan of streaming and DRM, if you're ok with it, can be not too bad (especially considering "XXX to Burn" feature). Chances of being unethical are estimated as "very low".
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Results of review of non-member area: looks somewhat more "fishy" than, for example, previously reviewed Nina Wonder. This girl claims she's from St. Louis, Missouri (and I have some doubts about it), says about live-cam girls (which might be true), says there are hundreds of "friends" sites within (and while it implies that they're included into membership, I'm not so sure about it being true; not even clear if membership includes access to 16 sites of Roller Girl 2000 mentioned by TGP).
Bottom line: IMHO quite high risk of it being pretty much a scam, with only a few hundred of pics and nothing else for this price.
Ok, here go first RANDOM sites to check chances of running into unethical site (see also comments titled "Random Site review"); I plan add another 5 sites a bit later.
Crazy Drunk Girls - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: unlikely (don't promise much); chances of being unethical are estimated at 25%.
Porno Dinero Network / LolliHotties - no PU reviews, TBP review: 77.4. IMHO unethical: quite likely (promise updates but unlikely keeps it). Chances of are being unethical are estimated at 66%.
Squirting Pie - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (PRE-CHECKED cross-sale by Epoch). Chances of are being unethical: 100%
Dildo Machine Sex - PU review: 1, rating 75, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: NO. Chances of are being unethical are estimated at: very low.
Nina Wonder - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: NO. Chances of are being unethical are estimated at: very low.
Summarizing numbers above, my findings show that on this sample, chances of running into the unethical site are 35-40%; this number may be corrected as I add more sites to the sample, and obviously your mileage may vary :-).
P.S. obviously it's an exercise in guesswork, and estimates are wildly personal and subjective.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Results of review of non-member area: looks as more or less typical individual model site, with not that much content, but providing access to a few dozens of other similar sites.
Bottom line: if you're REALLY into amateur girls, could even be interesting (though more research of affiliated sites will be needed). About being unethical - this site doesn't promise much, and most likely keeps its promises.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Results of review of non-member area: looks decent (assuming you like this kind of stuff). Action as advertised, with photo and video samples. Dated updates would help, but still impression is not too bad.
Bottom line: if I would be a fan of this stuff, I could consider joining myself. About being unethical: they don't promise much (except for machine content which is shown right there), and seem to deliver at least not less then they explicitly promise. Moreover, even though they're using Epoch (infampous for it's PRE-CHECKED cross-sellings), this site does NOT use them, kudos to site webmaster and/or owners.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Results of review of non-member area. Good: action as advertised. Bad: pop-up on home page, link "preview video-clip" leads to "join", quality of pics isn't too good.
BEWARE: pre-checked cross-selling "special offer" for another site by Epoch.
Bottom line: risky and probably not updated, but BIG fans may still want to try. About being unethical - site doesn't promise much, so there isn't much to break, but PRE-CHECKED cross-sale is IMHO an unethical practice.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Results of review of non-member area: girls are ugly, but suck lollipops as advertised. Comment is advertised as exclusive, and looks so (confirmed by TGP review). Updates are advertised as one per week, and it was confirmed by TGP back then, but without dated updates it doesn't look that they're still updating the site.
Bottom line: if you're REALLY into this fetish, you might want to risk it despite girls being outright ugly and probable lack of updates. Chances of site being "unethical": IMHO, quite high because of updates.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Results of reviewing non-member area: Link to "tour" leads to the same page. Link to http://www.crazydrunkgirls.com/ doesn't work at all. Not much promises (except for "full length videos" and access to 50 more sites). Their page states that "PaycomEU.net/Epoch.com/EPOCHEU.COM"; is their "authorized sales agent", but billing is done by "AdInHelp.com".
Bottom line: you should be crazy drunk to join this site, but IMHO because of not much promises they make it doesn't look likely they're essentially unethical.
Inspired by this poll, I've decided to take 10 RANDOM sites and take a quick look at them; obviously it's an exercise in guesswork, but results can still be interesting. Stay tuned for comments titled "RANDOM Site Comment" and summary here in this poll :-).
I'm not a member anymore (may re-join in the future), so my comments are about 3-4 months out of date.
> but was turned off by the poor main page which gives very little
> imformation (no update info, no quantity of product info, no models
> info), just random photographs.
You're right, but inside it is MUCH better than outside :-).
> Also, there was no reply to my e-mail questions about the site (usually > a very bad sign).
Probably because they're Russians (that's for sure) and could have problems writing in English. Usually it's better to stay away from Russian sites, but this one is an exception.
> Is there lots of content?
Yes; most updates are photos (decent quality), but even my video collection (not full) is more than 100 of their clips (5-10 minutes length each).
> How often do they update?
I think twice per week (or maybe once, don't remember exactly), but updates are either photosets, or quite small parts (older about 5 min, newer 10min or so) of larger videos (some videos span up to 10 such updates, and there is usually a VERY good script behind the video).
> I thought there used to be a lack of videos. Is that improved now?
See above.
> What is the quality of the videos?
The most recent ones were VERY decent 640x480 WMVs at 800-900kBit/s.
Bottom line: if you're into this theme (on milder side, with more of psychology than physics and even less brutality), you should try it (obviously that's assuming that they didn't turn to worse during these few months I'm not a member).
PS If you decide to join, please tell me how it goes - I might re-join too :-).
Good luck in your fight with them. See also my comment here: https://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=18002
- if you complain about fraudulent charge to your bank, it will be a good thing not only for you, but for community as a whole (scammers don't like to be fined or their license revoked).
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.
