| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Comment
451
|
Brandi Love
(0)
|
|
04-23-09 03:07pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
452
|
Cougars In Heat
(0)
|
Reply of
Cooter37's Review
First off, welcome to PU. Unfortunately that't the good news. The bad news is that if you want your reviews to be helpful to other PU users you need to include a lot more information in them. Some site specifics (amount of content, vids / pics, search engine, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. As it is, no one is going to take your review of "99" seriously with the information you have provided so far.
|
04-22-09 12:56pm
|
Reply
453
|
Humiliatrix
(0)
|
Reply of
billyinc1's Review
Dude, just wanted to say welcome to PU but that you need to put a little more effort into your review(s). By your account, this site has no flaws so why didn't you score it at "100"? You don't have any site facts in your review. In fact, your review reads more like a comment in that your review really has nothing in it other than the fact you like the site.
|
04-22-09 12:52pm
|
Reply
454
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I guess I look at as a two way street. If you're not weeding your own garden why should expect the ladies to do the same?
|
04-22-09 11:53am
|
Reply
455
|
Blue Fantasies
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Good to know. I tried to join about 10 days ago and ran into the same problem as Denner. I also ran into the same problem on Bustyones so Shap might consider looking at all the network sites to make sure the problem isn't a universal thing.
|
04-20-09 02:22pm
|
Reply
456
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
Whichever fetish doesn't interest me is "odd" by definition ;)
|
04-20-09 10:38am
|
Reply
457
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
Man hands? Adams Apple? What the heck was I missing??? I think if you're pretty much hetero you'd probably be a tad disturubed realizing that you're starring in your own personal take on "The Crying Game".
|
04-20-09 10:35am
|
Reply
458
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Balibalo's Comment
Unfortunately, it sounds like even the top sites are now succumbing to the usual consumer pitfalls: price creep, package creep (same price but smaller package), recycling content, etc. Too bad but I can live with one update per day. In the long run it will probably hurt their revenues more as people are less likely to pay for multi-month memberships with fewer updates.
|
04-16-09 11:24am
|
Reply
459
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
I had it happen once when I got a nasty virus / spyware thing. Learned my lesson about keeping up with my MS updates which I was ignoring at the time. Today, I do back up regularly with an external but keep my main stash on my hard-drive ... which is getting old and will probably die at some inauspicious moment.
|
04-16-09 11:20am
|
Reply
460
|
Secret Virgin
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Mmmm, after taking another look it appears that you might be right. I haven't joined this site before so I can't say for sure but I'll take your word on it. Too bad they can't seem to come up with more original content.
|
04-16-09 11:17am
|
Comment
461
|
Secret Virgin
(0)
|
|
04-14-09 01:40pm
Replies (3)
|
Reply
462
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
This one is sort of tough for me. I almost never use a DL manager, I'd rather just pick and choose the stuff I want (aka - the best stuff). After that I'll edit down that material. So, it's just the good stuff that stays for me and that may get the boot after I get bored with it.
|
04-14-09 01:24pm
|
Reply
463
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
Frankly, the less the actors talk the better on most vids. Thus, I don't care as there is too much other stuff I find important in vid scenes over an accent.
|
04-10-09 11:19am
|
Reply
464
|
Hardcore Max
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
Oh yeah, no way in hell Max is operating out of the US any more. I'm betting that Cyprus doesn't have a legal convention with the US either, good luck getting money to pay off his fines from his newest internet venture. Either that or he sold / licensed his material to another company (I see German Goo Girls is one of the sites affiliated with the parent company) and is going to let them take any heat from it.
|
04-08-09 10:02pm
|
Comment
465
|
Hardcore Max
(0)
|
|
04-08-09 09:37pm
Replies (3)
|
Review
466
|
Swank Pass
(0)
71.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ 8 member network
+ $6, 3 day full access trial through TBP
+ Probably over 5000 photo sets (1020x680) with zip.
+ Thousands of video scenes
+ No DRM or download limits
+ Cancellation is easy (you know it's bad when this makes it as a "pro") |
| Cons: |
- Almost entirely nonexclusive content
- Search engine does not work. Finding anything of value is a royal pain.
- Quality is poor to average
- Majority of pic sets have fewer than 20 pics
- Majority of vids available only as clips
- Each site updates once a week. |
| Bottom Line: |
I really was hoping for more when I signed up, thinking that for $6 (I got off cheap) I would find some OK stuff. NOT!!!
Let's start by saying if you have ever been to a Deny DeFranco (DDF) site, Vivthomas, Karupspc, etc. you've seen all there is of value seeing here. All the content from the last few years appears to be shot by these major studios. It wouldn't be so bad but that the quality is worse (downgraded for this network) and often times you don't get the full scene at least for the pics. Some of the oldest material, mostly photos, I don't recognize so I can't say it's all nonexclusive.
Swank (and all the accompanying network sites) are originally magazine based. Like most magazine sites, they seem unable to make a decent leap to the web; unwilling to shake off what they do in print in hopes of actually having long term economic viability. Swank is apparently betting the farm that some fool will spend money on their mags in the future because they're not investing anything here.
You figure with a network the search would be a great way to bring things together. Nope. The search don't work. You can only browse by vids or pics or model directory. Oh yeah, a lot of sets don't have model names attached to them so good luck.
It gets worse because several of the sites have over a thousand pic sets. It gets worse again because some of these sites don't tell you on the pic preview pages how many pics are in a set so it's hunt and peck (some sets 4 pics, some 300: What's behind the curtain Monty?). It's just too exhausting to hunt and peck through the mounds of reheated content to find the occasional gem. While pic sets go back over a decade it's only the last few years of material where the sets have more than 20 pics per set. Guess what, some of the network sites won't even tell you what year the set was published ... more hunt and peck for gems ... more swearing. Oh yeah, some of the pics only max at 800 pixels despite the fact you click on the icon for large photos. Most of the content is solo, while there is more hc in the last year or two of updates.
The vids max out at 640x480. Some sites having nothing but clips available. Some are about evenly split between full length and clips. Again, all is nonexclusive and average to good quality. About the only good thing is that most of the vids appear to be hardcore.
About half the sites cater to big boobs. Otherwise the models are all over the radar from pornstars to amateurs. The solo model pics tend to be more glam oriented harkening to the magazine theme at work here. There is no content from the mags though besides the pics.
The only reason I can score this in the 70's is because they have a mountain of content and because they still have acceptable pic and video sizes. Don't waste your money even on the trial. Save your pennies and pay a little extra to see the original stuff in mint condition at the sites that sell Swank their material. |
|
04-08-09 09:06pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
467
|
Just 18
(0)
|
|
04-08-09 08:38pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
468
|
N/A
|
Reply of
badandy400's Poll
I would have said networks but for the most part I don't like their quality. For pic lovers, nothing is worse is than the damn brazzers or realitykings with their 900x600 offerings. They tend to focus on vids so we lose out. Thus, the standard fare is basically the gold standard here.
|
04-08-09 05:43pm
|
Review
469
|
Leg Action
(0)
71.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ 3 day full access trial for $6 through TBP
+ Full access to 8 other sites (Swankpass network)
+ 960 photo shoots and 343 vids
+ Zip download available
+ No download limits or DRM
+ Smallish watermarks |
| Cons: |
- Search function doesn't work & no model directory
- Pic sizes max out at 1020 x 680
- Vids max out at 640 x 480
- About 50% of vids downloadable in clips only
- Mostly nonexclusive contact
- Updates about once a week |
| Bottom Line: |
For the price I figured this one was worth a trial. I figured it wouldn't be HotlegsandFeet but I was still hopeful of getting some decent leg shots. As they say "hope springs eternal" ... and this site is just another mediocre pit stop on that long eternal road.
Legaction started as a magazine (the other 8 network sites are also mag oriented). These sites never seem to have their act together enough put out a quality web based product and this one is no different.
Most of this stuff is nonexlusive as they farmed out a lot of the photography. For the hardcore stuff, most of this comes from Deny DiFranco (DDF) so if you've been to his sites recently skip this place. The rest of the hc is stuff you've probably already seen on other mega sites. The solo material has more stuff I haven't seen before but I can't vouch for exclusivity.
The girls here range from known pornstars to amateurs to milfs. The quality of the sets/scenes varies greatly from poor to good.
Pictures: As I said, pics max out at 1020 x 680. The photo archieves date back to 1997 but the sets prior to 2006 are crap. You get about 8 - 16 shots per set there (aka: worthless). The newer stuff spreads out to about 60 to 250 shots. Unfotunately, most of the good stuff (aka newer) is also the stuff you've probably seen already. The quality is average (nothing HQ about it). Most of the pics are solo with about 25% being HC and lez.
Video: There is only a couple years worth of video but only half have full length downloads available. The full downloads range from about 20 to 90 minutes. You can download in wmv, ipod or watch in flash. The older clip based stuff is strange in that you get 3 or 4 short clips with the last clip having most of the content and length. Again, you've probably seen a lot of this stuff from the DDF sites and other megasites. Quality is so-so; the full length clips at, say, 40 minutes long only come in at about 250 mb in file size. About half the vids are HC and the rest solo or lez.
The search function looks good but it doesn't work. You can only search under vids or pics and even then the layout is random, not by date. A lot of models, especially in the pics, have only a first name or no name at all or a "wrong" name so good luck there. There is a model directory.
As a bonus you get a slew of crappy 3rd party streaming feeds that I thought went extinct years ago (thus providing proof of "nonintelligent design" at this site): When's the last time you've seen a streaming vids options at 56k, 128k or 250k? The 8 other network sites are similar to here but have their own content and niches.
As another mild downer, when I ran my card the confirmation page didn't appear. Thus, I had to venture to my email to confirm everything.
Basically, for you leg lovers this site is more like a hamhock then a beautiful gam. The only reason this one scores in the 70's is because of the volume of content and network availability. |
|
04-08-09 05:29pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
470
|
Denude Art
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
Great review as always. I'm guessing by the site name and review that this is pretty soft (no lez, no toys, etc.)? Just wanted to double check with da' man before considering their trial.
|
04-06-09 03:42pm
|
Reply
471
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
Hell, if it's free send me a on a round the world cruise on the Queen Mary. Sipping Champagne, downloading porn on the high seas and working on my James Bond alter ego personality.
|
04-06-09 11:16am
|
Reply
472
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
Why would you waste your time playing some poorly designed pointless game on a pay porn site? If you're done ripping content I certainly wouldn't stick around to play the low rent game district. I think, if anything, it's a poor attempt at marketing to the younger generation who expect to see games and entertainment everywhere.
|
04-06-09 11:13am
|
Reply
473
|
Day With A Pornstar
(0)
|
Reply of
atrapat's Comment
I've been trying to figure out what identity Mofos has in comparsion to Brazzers? I assumed Brazzers was just branching out to generate more revenue, just rebranding their stuff for the new place.
|
04-03-09 04:07pm
|
Reply
474
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
Skip's Review
Hey Skip, welcome to PU. Just wanted to say that overall we're kind of finicky about reviews. Everyone is free to put in what they want but in order for your reviews to be helpful they need more information (video size, quantity, organization, search function, overall quality, etc.). The more info the better the rest of us are able to make a buying decision in the future. Videobox has been reviewed to death but for other sites this extra info becomes more importent.
|
04-02-09 12:56pm
|
Reply
475
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
Whoo-Hooo. My poll and I'm the first to respond. Of course I freakin' live here. However, after I submitted this I actually took the time to ponder my poll and realized that if you're only coming here once a week or so then you're probably not going to be voting on this poll. Proof once again that there are only statistics and damned lying statistics.
|
04-02-09 12:11am
|
