| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1676
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I second Schnitzel. I do as he does rather than buying hard drives. a "cake box" of blank DVD's is a whole lot less expensive than a 400 Gb hard drive, and the DVD's are a lot easier to sort and store.
|
07-18-07 12:24am
|
Reply
1677
|
Vivid
(0)
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Review
I signed up early in 2006 for one month and was seriously disappointed as well. nygiant's comments match my recollections almost exactly, especially the video quality which isn't really as good as is available on other sites.
I also agree with a 79 score, based on my recollection. It's not a site I am interested in subscribing to again.
|
07-17-07 03:04pm
|
Reply
1678
|
Gods Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Glad to hear that. PU has obviously become a force in the business and with that comes the bad element that will abuse the privilege.
I like the User Reviews, a lot, but when a "glowing" review is written that is contrary to the comments made by the TBP professional reviewers, and when user comments show up describing specific bad experiences not mentioned in the review, I ignore the review as being written by a shill.
|
07-16-07 12:56pm
|
Reply
1679
|
Porn Pass For All
(0)
|
Reply of
damon21's Reply
Interesting response to a new subscriber who, I would assume, he's want to retain as a long term customer. But he publicly argues with him and uses excuses, not explanations.
Worse, there's a second complaint filed over a month later that raises serious issues with the accuracy of the advertising and the terms of use where damon21 remains totally silent over the last three months.
My interest in checking this site out has diminished to about zero.
One more matter. The one and only review of this site was written by someone who has posted only that review and has not contributed anything at all beyond the review.
I suspect we might find that the author of the review (recreation) and the webmaster are one and the same.
|
07-15-07 11:12pm
|
Reply
1680
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
Schnitzel's Reply
Apart from a much cleaner home page, the new Beta site adds a fflash player so you can check out a scene quickly without having to D/L. The flash quality is very acceptible. All members can opt in to use the Beta version.
The Beta also catalogues your d/l's and your flash plays so you can quickly find a scene you recently watched but did not save.
It also has an AI (artificial intelligence) feature that takes your interests and will suggest videos/scenes you haven't checked out yet.
I like the new version a lot even though I wonder how much data they have on me that I may not want them to have.
|
07-15-07 02:20pm
|
Reply
1681
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I agree with all the foregoing comments and I hope Khan takes them as a strong recommendation to change the current process. I've been kicking around here since shortly after it started but have been reluctant to post any reviews because I got hit with anonymous "No trust" ratings with no explanation.
I worked on each review to be as complete, helpful and honest as possible and to conform to PU's guidelines, yet I get dinged anonymously without any explanation.
I just posted my first new review since being told I can't be trusted to see how many more dings I attract. Hopefully none, but if I do get a No Trust, I sincerely hope whoever so votes will provide an explanation so I can improve how I write my reviews.
|
07-15-07 12:54pm
|
Reply
1682
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
"Moderated" merely means frivolous explanations should be poofed. Permitting an explanation to remain on the rating should never be perceived as being the opinion of management.
|
07-14-07 10:38am
|
Reply
1683
|
N/A
|
Reply of
apoctom's Reply
I agree 100%. An anonymous "NO" vote without explanation is like getting flipped off on the freeway but not knowing why. Negative trust ratings make no sense at all without a specific explanation. (Even eBay requires an explanation for a negative feedback for a buyer/seller. I think it's very appropriate on this forum as well.)
|
07-14-07 10:33am
|
Reply
1684
|
Girls Love Toys
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Comment
As they all do the size varies. I found a range of 714 to 958 on the long side. However I also get a message that I need to wait 30 days from my original sign-up date to be eligible for Hi-Res Zip files, so I am reading that to mean that the wait means for both High Res and for Zip files, not just for Zip files.
The resolution is good now, but not nearly as good as the HiRes photos on Met Art.
I'll post an update after I pass the 30 day mark and qualify for the upgrade.
|
07-13-07 11:20pm
|
Reply
1685
|
Girls Love Toys
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Reply
The scenes run from about 10 minutes to as much as 25 minutes in length.
The scenes can only be d/l in full. A high resolution scene (720x540) takes up about 9.5 Mb per minute of running time. I just checked and a 14"18' scene I pulled up took up 131.71 Mb of hard drive space. The low res (320x240) option took up 54 Mb, but the scene should not be run on a full screen..
I have basic cable modem and the d/l's were blasting in at from 450 kbs to 650 kbs. The typical rate was bouncing between 550 and 600 kbs.
Two other points I plan to add to my review. There is no DRM, and there is a watermark on each video but it's rather small and stays in the lower right corner.
Feel free to ask any other questions. I'll be happy to answer them for you.
|
07-13-07 04:59pm
|
Comment
1686
|
Freaks Of Cock
(0)
|
|
07-13-07 01:46pm
Replies (2)
|
Review
1687
|
Girls Love Toys
(0)
89.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-Superior video quality, very sharp
-Excellent, and large, inventory of models, genres
-Some anal and DP masturbation
-Sure to satisfy those who like solo masturbation by uniformly gorgeous ladies.
-Top notch production values - good lighting & editing
-TBP has a special deal $9.95 per month. Major discount
-No DRM! |
| Cons: |
-Site has zip down loads for photos (excellent quality) but you must be a subscriber for at least 30 days to have access to the Zip feature. My scure dropped from 93 to 89 because of that.
-Single focus is as advertised, so there is not much variety in the situations and themes.
-Navigation is a bit clumsy but not awful.
-Some content is not exclusive.
-Small but permanent watermark appears in lower right of all videos. |
| Bottom Line: |
If your preferences include masturbation in its various forms, from finger play to dildo and veggie insertions, this site is definitely for you. If you are into solo strip tease, this site is also recommended. Crisp, clear camerawork and great camera angles throughout. The Best Porn has an incredible special price right now ($9.95 vs. reg price of $24.95) and the TBP team posted positive reviews. The price and the reviews caused me to sign up just to check it out. I'm happy I did, and I may stick around for another month or two if only to be able to use the deferred zip feature. |
|
07-13-07 01:25pm
Replies (3)
|
Reply
1688
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Same as Schnitzel. My last computer purchase (2006) included a 250 Gb hard drive plus a 300 Gb Seagate external hard drive. Since then I bought an 80Gb Iomega portable hard drive for road trips.
|
07-12-07 08:18am
|
Reply
1689
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
The first time I saw fisting in porn was when Nancy Suiter was getting fisted during a group sex scene in the original Taxi Girls.
Then it was outlawed, presumably because the porn producers did not want the audience trying it out and causing damage as a result...then suing the producers. Even currently available copies of the original Taxi Girls have that scene removed.
To me it's simply an extreme form of insertion that, for some reason is a turn on.
G/G - fine with me.
B/G - fine with me.
B/B - not fine at all
Self fisting, however, is my favorite form of fisting.
BTW, for some reason I also get off big time when a babe stuffs her panties or other such items completely inside. One of my favorite scenes is Kelly O'Dell when, after a hot shower scene she sits on the edge of the tub and pulls a long string of anal beads out of her pussy. We never see her push them in so presumably she was doing her thing all the time having the beads stimulating her inside. I really found that scene pretty damned hot. But I really don't know why.
|
07-10-07 04:51pm
|
Reply
1690
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I agree. Same applies to mirrored ceilings.
|
07-06-07 09:52am
|
Reply
1691
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Trimmed with a nice large set of labias!
|
07-05-07 09:26am
|
Reply
1692
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
Each adds his/her own elements. I like all of them equally.
|
07-05-07 07:03am
|
Reply
1693
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
My problem with POV is that I like seeing the entire babe as well as the action closeups. All too often we don't see everything in action.
Ever see a good reverse cowgirl in a POV video?
|
07-03-07 08:09am
|
Reply
1694
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Reply
Precisely right. Full access trials tell me that the site Webmaster is confident that it's good enough to attract me to invest a full monthly fee.
The worst idea is this 2 or 3 day "limited" trial nonsense where you pay to see birtually nothing.
|
06-30-07 10:51pm
|
Reply
1695
|
N/A
|
Reply of
djwolf's Poll
I voted "other" because:
1- I'll measure a reviewer's comments against my own experience to see if the comments are fair and balanced.
2- I read the review to see if the reviewer tries to provide balance; for example, someone who prefers photo sites who reviews a video site gets my trust if he says so and tries to evaluate the site objectively anyway.
3- I compare the review content to that of the 4 TBP's reviewers to see if there are significant differences without explanation. (Yes, I trust the four TBP reviewers who have yet to steer me wrong.
|
06-28-07 09:24am
|
Reply
1696
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Sorry Khan, I must have misunderstood your reply (#5). It sounded like it would be more difficult, but not impossible, for a Webmaster to post a Negative Trust.
If Webmasters are not permitted to post any (negative or positive) Trust Ratings (except by intentional contravention of your rules) that is as it should be.
Thanks.
|
06-28-07 09:18am
|
Reply
1697
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Poll
There are really two options here.
1 - Should anonymous trust ratings be permitted?
2 - Should all negative ratings be required to include a reason for the negative?
My answer is yes to both...but anonymous negative trust ratings with no explanation accomplish absolutely nothing at all. An anonymous negative rating with an explanation is helpful.
Also it is not the poll question, but I don't feel that webmasters should ever be permitted to vote on a Trust Rating. After all, they are, by their function, biased against any negative comments made by genuine Porn Users.
|
06-27-07 10:52am
|
Reply
1698
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I agree 100% that if a site uses CCBill AND gets a good review on TBP, I don't worry very much about getting screwed. But I still look for those little check marks that offer unwanted "other" sites.
|
06-22-07 02:02pm
|
Reply
1699
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I agree with the 1500 limit. Otherwise the valuable stuff gets lost in the word forest. Being one who tends to be effusive with words, I find that word count limits are effective at getting me to reduce an overabundance of adjectives and adverbs...and to get straight to the point.
|
06-22-07 01:56pm
|
Reply
1700
|
Danni.com
(0)
|
Reply of
SnowDude's Reply
Just checked. Codi Milo has 3 videos added since May 7, 2007, plus one photo set on May 28, 2007. Julia Hayes is no longer listed in the model index for Danni.com.
|
06-21-07 07:42pm
|
