I'm a long time subscriber (at the $19.99 "please stick around" rate that was offered when I canceled last Fall) and agree with a lot of what you say. In fact I just submitted a poll question prompted by your review about a site's search function. FTV's is the worst in the business.
I really like the quality of the current HD videos and the very detailed and extended shots of a babe's body. I also like the fact that there is seldom any lighting issues and phony orgasm grunting.
And I find the current crop of models in the new releases to be outstanding and love the video work on them.
That said, I really don't like (I have written the webmaster about this), is the amount of time spent on a single aspect. While a dildo insertion in a lovely young cunt is a great thing to watch, when a 10 minute segment starts and finishes with the exact same camera position and the model is still pumping away with her toy, it gets rather boring.
I also dislike the fact that there is no opportunity to download an entire set at one time. This is the only "premium priced" site I am aware of that hasn't caught up with the technology.
The naming convention mbaya mentions also sucks, but what's worse is that they have some pornstars in their sets that are identified by completely different names and are described as if they were some young college girls doing soft porn as a lark. (Among their stuff you can find Carmella Bing, Phoenix Ray and Gianna Michaels, all having been posted long after their successful porn careers were in full swing but with silly first names like Clara and Becky.) To their credit they do have Isabella Camille and Jessie Capelli identified accurately.
As a final note, being a tit man and leg man myself, FTV's productions do an excellent job of showing absolutely gorgeous and well thought out explorations of those body parts of each model.
In my humble opinion, mbaya's score is a very fair one and reflects my opinion as well.
As you I'm OK with the "null listings" (names in the dropdown with no content or incorrect content). I saw that when I played with the preview site.
The issue is the number of cases where a particular star is not mentioned at all in the list but who does have content. In my earlier post I mentioned Natasha Nice and Jenna Doll who have content in Adult.com but are not listed in the pornstar list.
Because they chose not to list those two (and others) you can only hope to stumble on them as you surf through all titles.
Mind you, it's more like a treasure hunt than a problem because they become happy discoveries when they show up unexpectedly, but I definitely would not score their tagging as 10/10. Their tag accuracy is not much better than that of VideoBox.
I have run into some other issues with the site as well, but I'll save them up for a complete review after I've given it a full workout.
But having been on the Adult.com site now for 3 days, overall I am very happy with it (I've added a lot of brand new stuff to my stash already), and it's all because of your excellent review. I was unaware of it previously. Thanks for that.
I joined the site based on TrashMan's review and on the $14.95 deal in the cross sell on Brazzers and will be posting a review after about a month.
But a few initial observations:
-Very fast download speeds (fastest I've experienced) at 10-12pm Pacific.
-The pornstar list is the longest I've seen. Unfortunately it's also among the most inaccurate as well. Many of the models that appear in their content are not listed. (The first two I looked for were Jenna Doll and Natasha Nice. Although not in the index, they both have two or more videos in the site that do not duplicate videos on VideoBox or other sites.)
-The search engine will search names and genres but there's no video title search. The good news is that it also has a boolean, key word search engine that will search by terms (names and titles) and will list the results in order of relevance. I was able to locate videos with Natasha Nice and Jenna Doll that way.
-The search engine is slow.
-The screen caps are good but are too small to gauge the desirability of the video and there is no flash feature or photo set to see a short preview. One must download the video to evaluate whether it's a keeper or not.
Last thought. As does TrashMan, I'm liking the site so far, especially because it has a lot of new stuff, and better, does not duplicate a lot of stuff I have in my stash. But I'm disappointed with the accuracy of the tagging and the omissions from the star list. I also don't care for the extra step to download that was mentioned by Trash Man in his review, but it's a minor annoyance.
But the shortcomings I mention above will impact my evaluation.
It's tough to determine from a preview site and PU/TBP reviews frequently do not mention bit rates so if that were a really important factor in signing up, I would not be a mamber of many sites.
However, IF sites would promise a good bit rate and/or if PU/TBP reviews included that stat in the future it would be a very worthwhile addition.
TrashMan, your scored list of 12 sites will be very useful going forward. Last night I was playing around with the Adult.com preview site's searches checking to see what babes were in their inventory and to see if there were titles that would be worthwhile additions to my stash.
My second search was for Anastasia Christ. First disappointment, she showed up with only two scenes. Second disappointment, one of the two was really Jane Darling (Big Boobs in Prague, Scene 3), also a babe but definitely not Anastasia. I already have the Anastasia scene in that video (she's actually in scene 4 and is identified by Adult.com as Laura Lion).
I really like the head shot index a lot but I couldn't find a title search function if there is one. (My fallback on VideoBox is to check iafd.com or CAVR.com to see a summary of titles for a babe, then search the database for those titles.)
The good news is that, after playing around with Adult.com last night, I went over to Brazzers to see if they posted the Friday update. And what did I find? A cross promotion ad for Adult.com that offered the site at $14.95 a month.
To me the most important part is that there is not too much duplication with other (Video Box) sites. I did a little research on some of my fave babes and found enough new stuff on Adult.com to make a one or two month membership very worthwhile.
Question.
I have found that the search function on other sites have been deteriorating as a result of accuracy issues:
VideoBox - Frequent misspelling (Veronika Raquel shows up on VB as Veronica, Racquel, and in one case Rakel) and out-and-out mis-identification has made VideoBox with their 6,000 DVD's a crapshoot in locating specific talent
X Movies and pornstar.com- Accuracy is not as bad as VB's, but the search takes you to the DVD, not to the scene.
VideosZ - Tracking VB in its accuracy deterioration.
What's your impression of Adult.com's accuracy? Have you had any problems finding the babes and/or seeing obvious errors?
Being more of a tit man than a leg man, I still appreciate a gorgeous set of gams, especially when they are well photographed (or videotaped) and the visual exploration ends up in the magic kingdom where the legs come together.
This site had my interest (especially at the $20 price point) snd is (or rather, was, after reading your review) on my short list of sites to try a one month membership.
As always, TrashMan, your reviews are very helpful and always provide me with all the info I need to make a good, informed decision.
The only answer is to see a creampie or, failing that, a quick, last minute pullout to avoid impregnation. The only way a guy should get jacked off in porn is with a babe's pussy muscles (or sphincter muscles).
It's really hard to imagine a guy needing to pound his own pud after a long fuck with some of the knockout gorgeous babes we see in porn.
The pricing is discounted for TBP/PU users. The monthly price, if you access the site using the TBP/PU link, is $29.95 for the first month and $24.95 for each succeeding month. A 3 month membership is $59.95 instead of $74.95..
I voted WGAF (who gives a fuck) because I watch porn for the babes, not the stud monkey. So long as the paid dick doesn't mess up the view of the babe or so long as he's not totally disgusting, I really don't care.
The most frequent model appearing on the site as listed in the index is shown as: Actors: eeehh... I forgot.
The problem is that, without identification even the most gorgeous babes are totally lost in the huge number of videos. One not uncommon example is a babe called Misty Mae, a young chick with a very nice set of naturals with huge, pancake sized, areolae. I downloaded her video when it appeared in an update but was unable to find out if she has any other stuff on BB.
84 is a fair score. I have been a BB member off and on over the last several years. In comparison to RA and Brazzers, they haven't done well to keep pace, in particular with their search function (it sucks). (Ask for Carmella Bing and you will get some Carmella Bing along with others who are not Carmella Bing such as Riley Evans.)
And in far too many cases their identifications are misspelled or just plain inaccurate.
Their videos frequently have far too much crap in them that make them unnecessarily large (in far too many cases it takes over 5 minutes just to get to the part where the female finally arrives, then too much chatter before we get to the good stuff.
Navigation needs upgrading. Way too many clicks just to get to the point to download a video.
That said, I'm OK with the 84 score because of TrashMan's "Pro's." BB is still producing lots of very good stuff and is still a good site. But NA and Brazzers are better.
BTW, their tit classification - Real/Fake - is not totally accurate. Some babes have videos made both before and after the aftermarket enhancements were installed so a new category, "Both" is needed. Other babes have tits that have clearly been subjected to some work by a Beverly Hills surgeon but are still listed as real.
As others have said, I had several very bad experiences until I joined PU 2 years ago. Since then I've only had two bad experiences, both were when I signed up despite there being no reviews on PU.
Lesson clearly learned. If it ain't on PU/TBP, I ain't signing up no matter how great the site looks.
[The two bummers were AngelicaCostello.com (Venus Knight) and JanaRocks.com (Jana Jordan). See my PU reviews on these two sites.]
A TGP Site is a "Thumbnail Gallery Post" site that contains a bunch of free pics and/or video clips with links to the sponsoring sites. Some can be reasonably good (KindGirls.com and asktiava.com are two that I like) but most are lousy and can be unintentional sources of malware.
Good review (because it reflects, accurately, a lot of my thoughts).
The site is huge so it is impossible for anyone who has a life to check out each end every model. The boredom factor hit me as well because many (most?) sets were so similar that I got the feeling I'd seen the set before.
But the part I really appreciate about the site is elephant's observation that the site treats its models with total respect. That's a rare characteristic that shows up in very few sites.
As for me, I'm a video guy so I can't be a continuing member on a site whose videos are, mostly, recordings of photo shoots.
My other problem is that the models are identified only by first name and a number so if I really like someone and want to see if she appears on other sites, I cannot do that.
Last point. If you are into the harder side of soft core (insertions, pussy play, etc.) this site is not for you.
I have a few that I check frequently just to see if there are any new babes or sites that I haven't discovered, but as Wittyguy says, the TGP sites are really of limited value. That's the only reason I chose the first option.
Denner, this looks like an excellent "find." I bought my share of Fiona Cooper videos back in the day and the preview video brings back some memories. But when the preview video is like this one, lousy quality, it makes me nervous that it is a true representation of the actual quality of the full content.
Also, the preview site has photos of the models but they are not identified. Does the site properly identify the models?
Looks like a good "one month" site. (A site that warrants just a one month membership to provide an opportunity to drain it of the good stuff, then move on.)
NO. $30 is my max. Period. And a $30 site must have outstanding reviews for me to bite. But I will never pay #35 a month for any site. If they are stupid enough to overcharge for their site, I'll let them wait until they wake up and figure out that a $30 price will make them a whole helluva lot richer than a $35 price.
Monty, either they are monitoring the PU site and added Victoria right after I entered my reply or I simply missed it when I checked the public site...because her name is there (as you said) and the preview clip is similar to the one I found on AskTiava.com. (I suspect it was my error, not a last minute fix by NA.
So NA passed that test perfectly (but I didn't). Thanks for that.
The basic style of the NA site is quite similar to the style of RK, BB and Brazzers but it looks like a big notch better in its design.
I'll be spending $25 on a membership tomorrow (when I have more time to explore and download).
Using Gianna as an example, one site (Video Box) spells her name three ways; Giana, Gianna and Jianna and has some videos with Gianna in them but she's not listed at all. To find all of Gianna Michaels' stuff one must try all the various spellings in a search and then check every video in the inventory.
Brazzers has an outstanding babe (Victoria Vonn) who can be found only by paging through all of their content because she's not listed in their index at all.
So because I'm now very interested in the Naughty America site, I decided to do some testing.
So then I went to the Neighbor Affair site. I found Victoria Vonn in the list of models and a link to her video on that site.
Thus it looks like NA has the same problem with accuracy in its indexing function as other sites do.
While perfection is an unrealistic expectation, sloppiness in indexing is a big problem with me. The search function for NA is terrific, but if it isn't accurate then what's the point?
The NA site looks great, but with a sloppy indexing process, I would find it hard to give it a score of 100.
Great review, although I have yet to see anything worthy of a 100. 99 maybe, but 100?
One thing you didn't mention in either your review or in your replies is the accuracy of the search capabilities of the various sites.
VideoBox is sloppy in identifying the models in each video. Way too often they misname a babe in a video which makes it nearly impossible to find all scenes for that babe. Brazzers.com is also rather bad at that as well. Bang Bros has an inefficient search capability and seems to have a bad time spelling even simple model names. RK, while they have an "intelligent search" capability similar to what you describe for NA, they also have accuracy issues.
TrashMan, can you comment on how accurate NA's identification and labeling efforts are? When I find a babe I want to see more of, I want to be reasonably confident that the search function is accurate so I don't have to look for the needle in the haystack.
Again, thanks for a superb, well written review. Love your stuff.
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.
