| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1651
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
Torn4do's Review
Good review. Torn4do. With over 1800 videos added per year, most of them full length with only a few with deleted scenes, the site is a treasure trove of material.
But with over 7,500 videos now and closing in on 10,000 sometime next year, these guys need to have a much better pornstar naming accuracy and a better search function or they'll lose a lot of us. In fact I'd be willing to pay an extra $2 or $3 a month to support cleaning up the misspellings and misidentifications that are rampant on this site. They get an uptick for identifying pornstars in every scene (not done that often on DVD sites where the star list is just for the entire DVD), but they lost that uptick with their carelessness.
That is my only disagreement with your review. I think they should lose a few more points because they can't be bothered with accuracy.
Now that I think of it, maybe I should catalogue the entire site and provide a separate adjunct site for a fee. Now that's a job I'd like to do.
|
01-19-10 10:32am
|
Reply
1652
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Review
Good review. The search process, as Denner says, is virtually useless. name searches return totally random results. If (a big IF) a model is correctly identified with a correctly spelled name in a scene, you have a better chance finding more of that model's stuff by clicking on the cast name in the scene than if you type the name in the search box.
With their huge inventory that grows at the rate of over 1,800 new DVD's per year, it's a real shame that they've failed so badly in the indexing process.
The price is right (esp. for the 1 year membership that I purchased), but the frustration I experience in trying to find scenes with specific babes makes the 85 score posted by Denner a bit high. I am more like an 82 myself.
|
12-21-09 11:25pm
|
Reply
1653
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Ditto that. I signed up for a full year that gave me an additional 6 free months. Not that sorry I did because the price per posted DVD is $.0367 (less than 4 US cents per video) which is pretty damned cheap. If I catch one video in 100 that is worth downloading my cost is $3.67, which is about the cost of a video rental these days.
But I am finding an average of 2 or 3 DVD's a week that have some good stuff so I've got no price complaints.
The only complaint is that I've got to weed through the crap to find the few good ones.
|
12-06-09 09:14pm
|
Reply
1654
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
Knoman's Review
Great site but it sure ain't perfect.
Some cons:
They have some total crap videos
Indexing is very sloppy
Misidentified models - way too many
Boolean logic is not used in the search function
Aspect ratio problems with streaming videos
Some "DVD quality" videos, esp. older ones, aren't
But the biggest pro:
I agree with all of your pros and would add the one incredible feature: at $14.95 a month and with 150 videos added per month, you pay only 10 cents per video. Now that's one helluva deal for first rate (for the most part) videos.
I gave it a 90 (see my review for the reasons), but no way could I ever give it 100 points.
|
11-30-09 06:27pm
|
Reply
1655
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
Goldfish's Reply
I agree completely. They first included the new channels in their search results but unless you committed to the fee for the site the results were just a tease. The notion was not thought through carefully by any stretch. I suspect it may have cost them some business.
|
04-03-09 10:20pm
|
Review
1656
|
VideoBox
(0)
90.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
OLD Review (1/17/07)Pros:
- 5 FULL videos per day
- Good search engine
- Price is best of any video site
- Offers DVD quality at a $5 per mo. premium
- Permits selective downloads via 30 second segments that can be automatically connected.
- Has a member review section for each video and for each scene
- The vast majority of the scenes have a cast list that is interactive so a member can generate a list of all offerings with a particular porn star.
UPDATE (4/2/09) Pros:
All "pro" comments still apply.
-Excellent blog was added with substantial involvement of the site's management that really adds a lot to the members' enjoyment of the site.
-Anime has been added. |
| Cons: |
OLD Review (1/17/07) Cons:
- No pics at all
- With over 800 vids per year and the limitations on acquiring licenses, a few of the vids are rather poor.
- Occasional mis-identification of the talent
UPDATE (4/2/09) Cons:
- No "real" HD (but some high bit-rate stuff obviates the absence of HD)
- Added two major sources (Evil Angel and Vivid) accessible only at substantial additional cost.
- Comments have deteriorated into wise guy comments about the screencaps so they are of little real value.
- Significant deterioration in the accuracy of the model identification which creates a serious problem using the search engine.
- More "Bargain Bin" compilation videos that contain scenes that have already been posted earlier on the site. |
| Bottom Line: |
OLD Review (1/17/07) Bottom Line:
This site exceeds all possible comparisons to other sites and is a bargain. The occasional obscure weird vids (midgets, hirsute Japanese, trannie) pop up once in a while but so what? The member review section is new and the members haven't figured out what a "review" is because most postings are more like a chat room than an evaluative discussion of the scene or the video.
Great site, great deal. Go for it!
UPDATE (4/2/09) Bottom Line:
The site continues to have the largest number of videos of any site (over 6,000 at this writing) and add 5 per day which is 1,865 new videos per year.
That may be a contributing factor to the deterioration in model identification. The sloppiness in model identification has really made the site a lot less desirable for me because I see the searchability of a site to be very important.
The introduction of Vivid and Evil Angel productions were added with a lot of fanfare but they hit a serious sour note with many when they belatedly added the rather high supplemental charge to access the videos from these studios.
As mentioned in the "Pro" section, the blog is an excellent interactive forum. Management of the site gets into a lot of substantial discussion with the members which is very good.
I reduced my original score from 97 to 90 for two major reasons.
- The significant increase in the sloppiness in model identification is a major annoyance that hurts the site's value.
- The lack of thought given to the roll-out of the two premium studios. (Had they announced the move along with the cost associated at the outset, the reception would have been a lot better.) In my opinion, the roll-out also took their attention away from their number one mission, and that is their primary offerings.
Once again, photo enthusiasts need not apply. There are none. |
|
04-02-09 06:00pm
Replies (4)
|
Reply
1657
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
atrapat's Review
Great job and the review is spot on to this 3+ year subscriber.
And I agree with the need for an improved search function. There are so many videos where the pornstars are mis-identified (or their names are misspelled) and so many more where the names are simply not provided that the only good way to find a particular pornstar is to go to ifdb.com, get a title inventory and search for the title. But as atrapat says, they have a less than optimal metadata search capability so even that isn't the best answer.
The shame is with 6,000+ titles, they've got some really great stuff that will be lost to all but a very few very determined people who are willing to check out each title one-by-one.
|
03-12-09 06:00pm
|
Reply
1658
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
MargulisAZ's Review
Two points to add to MargulisAZ's excellent review:
1. The one major drawback is that about 5% or so of the scenes do not identify the models so the search for Aurora Snow won't result in all of her stuff, just the 74 that were accurately identified.
2. They just passed the 5000 video title total a few days ago. At 1,825 new videos added per year (5 per day), they'll be passing the 10,000 mark by late April, 2011. That's a whole lot of fornicating!
|
08-07-08 06:00pm
|
Reply
1659
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
odlbo's Comment
I've had no problems, except finding hard drive space on my computer.
|
08-01-08 08:26am
|
Comment
1660
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
|
08-01-08 08:24am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
1661
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
joekerr1's Review
I agree. This is the kind of review that adds to the quality of PU and I'm looking forward to seeing more of your reviews going forward.
As for Video Box, I've been with them for at least 2 years and agree with both you and Denner. There is no site that has more stuff and as frequent an update schedule than these guys (imagine, 1,825 updates per year).
My primary beef with that site (and with many porn video productions in general) is that many of the girls are not identified at all so the search function will not capture all scenes for a particular babe. My secondary beef is that they are getting careless when they do identify the chick so that the name and scene don't match correctly.
Minor issues because it's fun digging thru the archives looking at the stuff and always finding some stunning talent that I haven't seen before.
And the comments for each scene/DVD are amusing, and occasionally useful. Always watch for comments by Rope-a-Dope. This guy has an all consuming passion for porn and seems to have cataloged each and every porn flick ever made...and he's always posting great info.
|
05-30-08 01:07pm
|
Reply
1662
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Reply
Spend a few minutes going through the archives and it won't be just your head that will be big. I find old Woody gets very active whenever I go to the lineup on my favorite porn ladies.
|
10-02-07 07:35pm
|
Comment
1663
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
|
09-10-07 02:34pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
1664
|
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
1665
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
djwolf's Comment
They have occasional quality issues on VideoBox ranging from forced aspect ratios and discolored transfers. I have seen only 3 or 4 with aspect ratio issues (with about 1,800 full videos per year being added, a few dogs are no big issue.
The color issue (usually a redish tint) is caused by poor transfer from the original but is easily corrected using WMP's color adjustment capability.
Some "early" videos, meaning videos produced in the 80's and 90's, not early loads on the site, are low quality but that's because the originals were lousy (35mm photography converted to video).
The premium membership ($5.00 extra) provides DVD quality at 4+ times the size. A 25 minute DVD quality scene can easily run 500 Mb compared with a "High-Res." vid of the same 25 minute scene is about 80-90 Mb. In some cases the difference isn't worth the huge size but most are clear and crisp inb my 1440 monitor.
At $14.95, sign up and check it out. I am quite sure you'll love it. (I've been a member for well over a year.)
|
05-15-07 07:46pm
|
Reply
1666
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
knightz's Comment
There are many more masturbation videos than are linked to the search feature. That's my only gripe; that the characteristics are not indexed sufficiently to be sure the search feature grabs everything in their huge data base.
|
02-26-07 10:03am
|
Reply
1667
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
iporn's Review
Been a member of VB for many months and am very happy with the site. Best price on the web, good assortment of videos. A tad heavy on anal but with 5 new vids a day, that's no big deal.
|
01-17-07 07:02pm
|
Review
1668
|
VideoBox
(0)
97.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 6 months (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- 5 FULL videos per day
- Superb search engine
- Price is best of any video site
- Offers DVD quality at a $5 per mo. premium
- Permits selective downloads via 30 second segments that can be automatically connected.
- Has a member review section for each video and for each scene
- The vast majority of the scenes have a cast list that is interactive so a member can generate a list of all offerings with a particular porn star. |
| Cons: |
- No pics at all
- With over 800 vids per year and the limitations on acquiring licences, a few of the vids are rather poor
- Occasional mis-identification of the talent |
| Bottom Line: |
This site exceeds all possible comparisons to other sites and is a bargain. The occasional obscure wierd vids (midgets, hirsute Japanese, trannie) pop up once in a while but so what? The member review section is new and the members haven't figured out what a "review" is because most postings are more like a chat room than an evaluative discussion of the scene or the video.
Great site, great deal. Go for it!
Follow-Up:
Bumped the rating up by 2. See my separate updating comments. |
|
01-17-07 06:00pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
1669
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
Tree Rodent's Reply
I've never been scammed this way but am still very wary of it. i have one credit card on which I requested a very low credit limit ($80.00) that I use exclusively for porn sites. I get notified whenever a charge appears on the account is made and pay it immediately in order to leave an open to spend of $80.00.
The few times I sign up for a high amount, usually for a term longer than one month, I will do so only with CCBill or Epoch.
|
03-31-19 02:40pm
|
Reply
1670
|
Vintage Erotica
(0)
|
Reply of
turboshaft's Reply
True, but I hear that some European sites do have some of her stuff.
|
12-24-09 08:43pm
|
Reply
1671
|
Vintage Erotica
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Review
Just curious whether this site has any stuff by Candy Barr (1950's era), Virginia Bell (1950's & 60's), Nancy Suiter (1970's) and/or Traci Lords (1980's & 90's)
Also, one of my favorites is the porn musical version of Alice in Wonderland.
I'm thinking about signing up for the 3day trial but thought I'd ask first.
Thanks.
|
12-24-09 02:43pm
|
Reply
1672
|
VIPissy
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
You said, "Newer scenes also offer a few options that may be of interest to some members. They have ‘bonus clips’ of a trailer, a cut with close ups and a wide angle cut. This may not be of much value to all members but it certainly shows the site’s attention to detail that they’d make three full-length videos of the same scene available. (I sampled a few of these and can say that there isn’t really much of a difference between the primary scene and the wide angle cut.)"
This is a great idea that I would like to see replicated in other sites. More than once I've seen close-up material that excludes some body parts that I would have enjoyed seeing.
One example is how on a basic fuck scene the camera is fixed on the guys tool as he's porking some babe with unwelcome closeups of his hairy asshole. You get an occasional glimpse of the babe's pussy as it's getting the workout. What would be great is to see a long shot of that same scene where the babe's boobs were flopping vigorously and we can see her face and its reaction to the action.
|
01-09-15 10:59am
|
Comment
1673
|
Vivid
(0)
|
|
09-25-16 04:02pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
1674
|
Vivid
(0)
|
Reply of
Pyrenees's Comment
Video Box is not adding any new content from Vivid, Here's their banner on the sign-up page:
Updates complete
Currently Archived
970 Movies, 5,155 Scenes,
4,579 Clips
|
09-25-16 03:49pm
|
Reply
1675
|
Vivid
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
Good, well written review. And I agree totally.
I signed up and discovered that it was all streaming and low quality. I tried to cancel and get a refund but was denied, so I just canceled and let the membership run out. I think I might have gone in once after the first day just to make sure I didn't misunderstand what I experienced the first time. I didn't.
The $10 would have served me a whole lot better if I spent it on a couple of Big Macs. I know I would have enjoyed the cardboard burgers a lot more than that poor excuse of a porn site.
|
01-11-09 09:47am
|
