| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1676
|
Lightspeed World
(0)
|
Reply of
Gazette Risque's Comment
In my opinion, a site that whacks you $40 with no preview option is an automatic ripoff. ("You pays your money and you takes your chances.") If these guys charged $10 less ($29.99) they would probably get 3 or 4 times the signups and make a whole lot more money...and you know they know that.
However they must also know their site is crap and that it won't attract renewals (that's where the big money is) so they do a hit and run, cash in for a few months, then they'll go away.
Shame, because they could be good if they raelly wanted to.
|
07-27-07 11:36am
|
Reply
1677
|
N/A
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
I agree 100%. I see a Trust Rating as useful, but only when they communicate something worthwhile as well. A "No" without any explanation is useless except in making the reviewer not want to waste his time writing additional reviews.
A "Yes" without a comment doesn't do much either except that it doesn't drive away those who sincerely want to write good reviews.
|
07-26-07 08:44pm
|
Reply
1678
|
Busty Adventures
(0)
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Review
Two adds to NYGiants' review.
1. One of the sites included in the subscription is Big Ass Adventure, which stopped all updates back in February. Another site is he phony chance encounter stuff which generally finishes with a BJ in a dark alley or garbage area of an apartment bldg. even after 30 minutes you might get a glimpse of a nipple and a pussy. In other words, sign up for the boobies (wow!) but don't count on the other sites to add much to your value.
2. All scenes, whether the low res 320's or the high res 640's, are in three parts; the first is the phoney chance encounter with a bit of nudity near the end. The second is solo tease/masturbation, and the third is hard core...most of the time. The cameraman is clearly a big tit lover because he gets a lot of great angles and movement.
PS for Snow Dude...all models are natural, a very good thing. And unless you are a BBW fan, the ladies are, for the most part very well built with a few that are borderline BBW's. You should be satisfied spending $24.00 for one month.
|
07-26-07 08:35pm
|
Reply
1679
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
My formula is rather simple.
If a site is $9.99 or less then I can be very forgiving, provided that it pops regularly with some woody creating content.
If a site is $10.00 to $19.99, I look at it as a site designed to maximize revenue because I (and I suppose many others) are willing to "let it ride" every month because it costs about the same as 11 days worth of vente's at Starbucks.
If a site is $20.00 to $29.99, I'll check out the trial unless TBP warns that it's a "limited" trial in which case I'll forget it unless it's really special (like Met Art) where I'll spring for just one month. A site that doesn't let a trial subscriber see everything it has to offer has a reason to hide their content...which gives me a reason not to trust them to provide decent content.
If a site is $30.00 or more I will not check it out unless somehow the site is overwhelmingly special. Have never signed up for any site over $29.99.
Frankly the site is foolish if it charges more than $19.99 because the buyer resistance will go way up. And when you figure the cost of operating the site is almost entirely fixed, it seems silly to overprice a site. Isn't 10 subscribers at $19.99 a whole Hell of a lot better than 5 at $29.99 and 3 at $39.99? ($199.90 vs. $149.95 vs. $119.97)
|
07-26-07 08:13pm
|
Reply
1680
|
N/A
|
Reply of
apoctom's Poll
I've got three external hards and will probably get a big guy (500Gig) next tmne there's a sale on. But the question is, when will I ever have the time to go through each and every saved video?
I need to establish a personal parameter for when to save and when not to. I like what Jay G says (see above) and may start to weed out some of the stuff that doesn't qualify as keeper quality!
|
07-24-07 03:55pm
|
Reply
1681
|
N/A
|
Reply of
apoctom's Poll
I'll look at a review that has a score under 70 just because I'm curious what makes the site that bad but I'll never sign up for such a site. There are way too many good sites out there that I don't need to waste my money on a lousy site.
Don't get me wrong. A 70-79 score makes me a bit concerned as well, but because there are several cases where the 4 professional TBP reviewers award a high 70's or low 80's score (with good reason) to sites I may have an interest in, I may sink a month's membership in a site to see what it's got.
An 80 plus gets my juices flowing and my attitude is that, unless there's something I don't like about the site's preview, I'll spring for it.
|
07-24-07 03:51pm
|
Reply
1682
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
Jay,
Sorry buddy, but I gotta break the news to you. There's a good market out there for old Playboys on eBay and other sites. Yes it's a pain in the ass to mail and deal with bogus complaints, but there's gold in them thar magazines. Got $15,00 for the Carol Lynley issue, for example.
Jack
|
07-19-07 08:34am
|
Reply
1683
|
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
1684
|
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
1685
|
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
1686
|
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
1687
|
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
1688
|
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
1689
|
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
1690
|
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
1691
|
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
1692
|
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
1693
|
Freaks Of Cock
(0)
|
|
07-13-07 01:46pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
1694
|
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
1695
|
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
1696
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I agree. Same applies to mirrored ceilings.
|
07-06-07 09:52am
|
Reply
1697
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Trimmed with a nice large set of labias!
|
07-05-07 09:26am
|
Reply
1698
|
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
1699
|
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
1700
|
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
|
