| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
401
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
> when i look for other things like mastrubating women or stocking
What about 'Solo Models' (what else they will do then masturbate? :-)) and 'Legs & Nylons'? So they ARE there :-), just worded differently, and I cannot blame you for not finding them, as carefully reading list of 94 items is frustrating at the very least. So the reason why you didn't find them is exactly because there are way too MANY of the niches (if there would be less B/S like Balloons, it would be easier to look through niche list and find things) :-). Subcategories (which I'm voting for) would also help it BTW.
|
11-19-07 05:01am
|
Reply
402
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
> there can`t be enough "filtering" :)
What about "Balloons"? If all the niches will be 8 sites in size, like Balloons or a few others, there will be several thousands of niches, and I'd say it will be way too much of filtering; don't you agree?
|
11-19-07 04:25am
|
Reply
403
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
Distant Lover's Reply
I see; it probably means tons of newbie review praising NewbieNudes here. Sigh.
|
11-19-07 02:37am
|
Reply
404
|
N/A
|
Reply of
asmith12's Poll
Let me explain a bit. I've submitted this poll because I feel that current TBP/PU category/niche system is inadequate; there are 94 categories but they're VERY unbalanced: 'Hardcore' has 4000+ sites, 'Balloons' (what Balloons have to do with porn?) have only 8 sites, that's 500x difference.
So I feel that categories would be more useful if minor niches like 'Bukkake' (33 sites) or 'Cream Pies' (61 site) are merged (as subcategories) with bigger ones like 'Cumshots' (471 site). As for other examples - 'ATM' (13 sites) can be combined with 'Anal' (303 sites), 'Cheerleaders' (17) can go into 'Uniforms' (89), and 'Trampling' (18), 'Spanking' (99) and 'Smother' (16) will fit into 'BDSM' (317).
In this case 2-level category system would look as:
- CumShots
--- Bukkake
--- Cream Pies
- Anal
--- ATM
- BDSM
--- Trampling
--- Spanking
--- Smothering
|
11-19-07 01:14am
|
Reply
405
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
Apple's Reply
> which occurs to me is an inherent feature of a "review"
Nope :-). There is a subtle difference between "subjective" and "biased". It is like making an experiment in science - measurement errors are inevitable (like subjectiveness in reviews/ratings), bias (both in science and reviews) can and should be avoided.
The other points you're raising can be valid, and I should mention that if original IDoctor's review would be written in these words rather than in original infomercial style, it would probably face less opposition.
|
11-19-07 12:56am
|
Reply
406
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
Distant Lover's Review
May I ask how are you related to IDoctor99? 2 newbie reviews in single day cannot be a coincidence.
|
11-19-07 12:39am
|
Reply
407
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
IDoctor99's Reply
> obviously you can't seem to get your mind around the idea.
No, the idea of the site is obvious (there is nothing really new about it BTW), it is you who can't seem to get your mind around the idea of THIS site, and the idea of THIS site is about unbiased reviews. And your so-called review cannot possibly be unbiased because there is your content on the site (moreover, originally you've put your ID in your "review"). You've wrote in one of your replies: "of course I want to promote it to others." - THIS site is NOT about PROMOTING anything; it is about sharing information.
> It is my firm and honest belief that there are few, if any, porn sites offering a better experience on the web for anyone interested in such material.
Even if it is firm and honest, it is biased.
|
11-18-07 02:21pm
|
Reply
408
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
IDoctor99's Reply
> Whats the problem with finding a good thing and wanting to spread the word?
The problem is with creating your own content and trying to "review" it and put "rating" on it. Comment would be more appropriate for this kind of things (not exactly sure if even it would be ok with the spirit of the site, but in any case it would be better than fake review/rating).
> Can you guys be any more rude to somebody wanting to help out fellow porn watchers?
Sure we can, just ask about it politely enough.
|
11-18-07 01:18pm
|
Reply
409
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
IDoctor99's Reply
Even if you do not receive any money from the site, you admitted yourself that you want to get more people there; that means that your "review" is biased from the very beginning, and rating you put in you review is completely useless. It MIGHT be suitable as a comment (not sure).
|
11-18-07 12:45pm
|
Reply
410
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
IDoctor99's Reply
As I understand policy of this site, people affiliated with the site are not allowed to make reviews of the site they're affiliated with, because it cannot be anything but shilling.
|
11-18-07 09:26am
|
Reply
411
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
Movies on BitTorrent and other P2P networks? No thanks. I've got a feeling that most of movies there are pirated ones, and I've got another feeling that people making movies are entitled to get money for it.
About QT vs DivX/XVid - my experience with them was that QT is a stable product, which I cannot say about both XVid and DivX. QT original .MOV format is inferior to both WMV and MPEG-4, but as QT started to support MPEG-4 (including AVC) it became about the same quality/bandwidth-wise as WMV.
|
11-18-07 09:23am
|
Reply
412
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
IDoctor99's Review
> Leave me a comment and let me know you saw this review!
You're obviously shilling for the site, and this is not welcome here.
|
11-18-07 02:05am
|
Comment
413
|
Blacks on Blondes
(0)
|
|
11-18-07 02:00am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
414
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Reply
> Shame there isn't someone with a website doing that over here, it would be great watching naked girls walk the street.
"Here" - you mean in US? I suspect that with this kind of stuff there can be some legal issues; anyway if any of US/UK webmasters is reading this conversation, please register my vote for it too :-).
|
11-18-07 01:56am
|
Reply
415
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
> A LOT of videos now-a-days are encoded using it and it is a really good file format.
Let's look at TBP: 6200+ sites provide WMV and only 566 DivX (plus 84 XVid whatever it means); and of those which provide DivX most provide WMV too (I took a random sample and 7 out of 10 sites with DivX also provided WMV), which leaves us with about 3% of sites with DivX and without WMV. Not that much IMHO.
As for format: DivX/XVid = MPEG-4, right? Then QuickTime7 (which I have anyway) is supposed to play it; I'm wondering if it really can do it; do you know link of any free clip in DivX/XVid so I can try it (or maybe if you have QuickTime you can try it yourself and tell)?
|
11-18-07 01:53am
|
Reply
416
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
> is there really someone who havent got all codecs? :)
Me for instance. I hate installing all the garbage that comes with codecs, having to deal with adware/spyware, Windows slowing down to a crawl and/or starting to crash on regular basis. On my main laptop, I have ONLY WMP, QT and Flash plug-in, that's it; not even DivX/XVid. if the site has something different - usually it's tough luck for them, unless they have something REALLY special.
Interesting that this "REALLY special site with non-standard codecs only" didn't happen to me at least during last 2-3 years; I've noticed that usually sites that like things like XVid/DivX are Russian (or other 3rd-world) ones and there is usually nothing to see anyway :-).
|
11-17-07 03:30am
|
Reply
417
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
Wow! Probably I should try to get such a 30" Apple beast; I used to think such things are in $5k+ range, but at $1800 (well, it will be more here) it is not prohibitively expensive.
And just curious - do you know how much that 3840x2400 thing cost?
|
11-17-07 03:22am
|
Comment
418
|
Eyes On The Straight Guy
(0)
|
|
11-17-07 12:06am
Replies (1)
|
Comment
419
|
Blacks on Blondes
(0)
|
|
11-16-07 10:50am
Replies (1)
|
Reply
420
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
I know, but content (and names) of these 2 sites are THAT similar that I've thought it might be just an overlook (or recent domain name acquisition, or whatever else).
Thanks for the advice anyway :-).
|
11-16-07 08:02am
|
Reply
421
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Reply
Thanks. I was wondering because NudeInPublic and NudeInPublic.tv have VERY similar concept; even wondering if one just stole content from another one.
|
11-16-07 07:16am
|
Reply
422
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
Wow (honestly, I didn't even know such a beast exists)! But still 3500 pixel picture width should be beyond even your capabilities :-) (and when downscaling with browser, quality suffers, I'm sure you won't object :-) ). So I'm continuing to be curious - do you like anything above your 2560x1600 pixels?
|
11-15-07 03:27pm
|
Reply
423
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Getreal's Poll
Everything except for boring niche :-).
|
11-15-07 03:22pm
|
Reply
424
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
I see, thanks :-).
|
11-15-07 02:22am
|
Comment
425
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
|
11-14-07 12:44pm
Replies (6)
|
