| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
176
|
Mature Toilet Sluts
(0)
|
Reply of
Goldfish's Reply
> doesn't it make more sense to give us your experiences with five or ten > sites you've actually joined?
My understanding this is a completely different thing. The question as I read it was about sites out there, not about sites one cares to join (which means pre-selection process, especially for PU users). I think poll results confirm my interpretation too (I don't think that somebody was mistreated by 75% of the sites he joined).
> if there is disclosure of elements in the site that you may not like > in the free area or the terms and conditions, isn't that ethical
> business practice? I think it is.
Yes, and you should note that there were several sites I've considered "probably ethical but definitely not worth to join", so it's not about liking or disliking free area, but an estimate of chances of them lying in free area (if garbage site doesn't promise anything, it's ok, but if it says they have daily updates, it's suspicious). About terms and conditions, I didn't say these guys are necessarily unethical, but outrageous terms and conditions make me quite suspicious, so I wrote "unethical: unclear" for them. Sure this whole exercise is all about personal interpretation, but I hope mine isn't too far out :-).
|
05-16-08 04:44am
|
Reply
177
|
N/A
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
I think there is a BIG difference between "sites I would never join" and dishonest sites. Let me explain. If dead site does NOT say it has any updates, why it is dishonest? It can be completely not worth your money, but as long as they didn't say they have any updates, I don't see why it's unethical. If somebody markets complete crap as complete crap, IMHO it's ok (and it's his problem, not mine, when he goes out of business).
|
05-16-08 03:42am
|
Reply
178
|
Mature Toilet Sluts
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
> In business in general it is common practice to reserve as many rights as you can think of...
You're right, but on the other hand everything has it's limits. I'm reading documents I'm signing VERY carefully, and I'm sure that if my bank would write "we reserve the right to charge you for excessive inquiries at our sole discretion", I wouldn't be a client of that bank :-).
|
05-16-08 03:35am
|
Reply
179
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
Ok, here goes result of "10 RANDOM sites" mini-research: after researching 10 RANDOM sites it was found that about 50% (52 with a margin of error of 15) of the sites are likely to use unethical practices. The most likely unethical practices, as expected, were suspicion of misleading previews (about 40%) and PRE-CHECKED "special offers" (30%). Some sites exhibited both unethical practices).
After some deliberations with myself, I've decided that prize for the "most unethical site out of these 10 RANDOM sites" goes to "Bare Legs".
Summary of last 5 reviews follows (with details available in Comments, under "Random Site comment" title, for first 5 sites see above):
Mia Baby - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: VERY likely. Chances of being unethical are estimated at 80%.
Pornstar Pay Per View / AEBN Video On Demand - PU review: 1, rating 84, TBP review: 80. IMHO unethical: NO. Chances of being unethical: very low.
Mature Toilet Sluts - here goes the price of reviewing RANDOM sites :-(. IMHO unethical: unclear (Terms and Conditions are outrageous, but it's unclear if they were ever used against members). Chances of being unethical are estimated at 50%.
Bare Legs - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (suspicious promise of DAILY updates, and "Join for FREE" combined with Epoch's PRE-CHECKED offer auto-renewing at 39.95). Chances of being unethical: 100%.
Sweet Asian Teens - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (somewhat suspicious promise of 500hrs of HD, and another PRE-CHECKED offer auto-renewing at 29.95). Chances of being unethical: 100%.
|
05-15-08 03:57pm
|
Reply
180
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Oops, sorry for misreading it :-). I hope to finish "reviewing" 10 random sites today and post results here.
|
05-15-08 12:25pm
|
Reply
181
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
> This has got to be based on a feeling...
Sure, but it's even more interesting to compare results of my little exercise to overall feeling of the members, isn't it?
> There are maybe over 100.000 "porn sites" on the net and about 14.000
> registered at TBP.
Come on, I don't pretend my little research to be scientific or something, it's obviously only about TGP-registered sites (though personally I have difficult time finding sites outside TBP). But it still somewhat answers a question "if you're trying RANDOM site out of TBP list, what are the chances of being scammed in some way?"
|
05-15-08 10:00am
|
Reply
182
|
Be The Mask
(0)
|
Reply of
themask's Reply
:-(. Thanks for warnings.
|
05-15-08 09:24am
|
Reply
183
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
Ok, here go first RANDOM sites to check chances of running into unethical site (see also comments titled "Random Site review"); I plan add another 5 sites a bit later.
Crazy Drunk Girls - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: unlikely (don't promise much); chances of being unethical are estimated at 25%.
Porno Dinero Network / LolliHotties - no PU reviews, TBP review: 77.4. IMHO unethical: quite likely (promise updates but unlikely keeps it). Chances of are being unethical are estimated at 66%.
Squirting Pie - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (PRE-CHECKED cross-sale by Epoch). Chances of are being unethical: 100%
Dildo Machine Sex - PU review: 1, rating 75, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: NO. Chances of are being unethical are estimated at: very low.
Nina Wonder - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: NO. Chances of are being unethical are estimated at: very low.
Summarizing numbers above, my findings show that on this sample, chances of running into the unethical site are 35-40%; this number may be corrected as I add more sites to the sample, and obviously your mileage may vary :-).
P.S. obviously it's an exercise in guesswork, and estimates are wildly personal and subjective.
|
05-15-08 07:00am
|
Reply
184
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
Inspired by this poll, I've decided to take 10 RANDOM sites and take a quick look at them; obviously it's an exercise in guesswork, but results can still be interesting. Stay tuned for comments titled "RANDOM Site Comment" and summary here in this poll :-).
|
05-15-08 05:36am
|
Reply
185
|
Slaves In Love
(0)
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
You're very welcome :-).
|
05-13-08 10:16am
|
Reply
186
|
Slaves In Love
(0)
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
I'm not a member anymore (may re-join in the future), so my comments are about 3-4 months out of date.
> but was turned off by the poor main page which gives very little
> imformation (no update info, no quantity of product info, no models
> info), just random photographs.
You're right, but inside it is MUCH better than outside :-).
> Also, there was no reply to my e-mail questions about the site (usually > a very bad sign).
Probably because they're Russians (that's for sure) and could have problems writing in English. Usually it's better to stay away from Russian sites, but this one is an exception.
> Is there lots of content?
Yes; most updates are photos (decent quality), but even my video collection (not full) is more than 100 of their clips (5-10 minutes length each).
> How often do they update?
I think twice per week (or maybe once, don't remember exactly), but updates are either photosets, or quite small parts (older about 5 min, newer 10min or so) of larger videos (some videos span up to 10 such updates, and there is usually a VERY good script behind the video).
> I thought there used to be a lack of videos. Is that improved now?
See above.
> What is the quality of the videos?
The most recent ones were VERY decent 640x480 WMVs at 800-900kBit/s.
Bottom line: if you're into this theme (on milder side, with more of psychology than physics and even less brutality), you should try it (obviously that's assuming that they didn't turn to worse during these few months I'm not a member).
PS If you decide to join, please tell me how it goes - I might re-join too :-).
|
05-13-08 07:33am
|
Reply
187
|
Ultra DVD Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
bobtheelephant's Comment
Good luck in your fight with them. See also my comment here:
https://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=18002
- if you complain about fraudulent charge to your bank, it will be a good thing not only for you, but for community as a whole (scammers don't like to be fined or their license revoked).
|
05-12-08 02:43pm
|
Reply
188
|
N/A
|
Reply of
JBDICK's Poll
Cannot help it: voted for Clinton 'cause it would mean she loses the presidential race :-).
P.S. Would vote for Obama and McCain too if they would be on the list :-).
|
05-12-08 02:34pm
|
Reply
189
|
Be The Mask
(0)
|
Reply of
themask's Reply
:-(. Thanks.
|
05-12-08 07:17am
|
Reply
190
|
18 Inches Of Pain
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Oh, I see, thanks.
|
05-07-08 08:24am
|
Reply
191
|
Kink On Demand
(0)
|
Reply of
Ergo Proxy's Reply
Let's hope that their competition (TwistedFactory) will come up with something better :-).
|
04-28-08 04:27am
|
Reply
192
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pornjackker's Reply
> will the average viewer buy it?
FWIW: I've heard that stories by Private (like "Robinson Crusoe" or "Cleopatra") are VERY popular, so yes, average viewer will buy it. It's more expensive, that's for sure and very few guys are doing it, but that's another story.
Personally I'm quite tired of all the same "meat on screen" and ANY variety is a good thing for me as long as it's not too violent or too disgusting.
|
04-23-08 03:39pm
|
Reply
193
|
The Training Of O
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Comment
Currently it's not that small that it used to be, and IMHO is currently worth the visit if you're interested in the idea.
|
04-14-08 12:27pm
|
Reply
194
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
> professional style reviews that see the trees but miss the forest.
> That's why I read porn USERS more than professional reviews, even TBP
> reviews.
Ditto. EXACTLY the way I see it too.
|
03-26-08 08:47am
|
Reply
195
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
I'm wondering if there will be somebody admitting his reviews are below average :-).
|
03-26-08 05:52am
|
Reply
196
|
Incredible Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Thanks. It looks that the whole industry goes downhill. "We're not cheating anymore" is now considered a good advertisement :-(.
|
03-25-08 02:20pm
|
Reply
197
|
Incredible Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
williamj's Comment
I think I've missed something :-). Could somebody tell what's all this whole story is about?
|
03-21-08 12:03pm
|
Reply
198
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
For me it's about as annoying as a pop-up ad (or a banner which has flashing). And i HATE pop-up ads and flashing banners.
Visually the best-looking are Flash previews which start playing when clicking on it, but on the other hand I'm into downloads and not into streaming, and Flash previews can't possibly show video quality of downloads.
|
03-21-08 11:52am
|
Reply
199
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
"I wish they'd shut up" with one exception: pre-shooting interview.
|
03-04-08 01:52pm
|
Reply
200
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Goldfish's Poll
Buying hardware specially for porn? Sorry, no. Otherwise would like to take a look at thin MacBook.
|
02-21-08 04:41am
|
