| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1326
|
Cherry Red Lips
(0)
|
Reply of
NMC2008's Comment
Thanks for the warning! When I see "Full Trial" in a TBP listing the site gets a big uptick with me.
Your post will same a lot of us $4 for this and the sister sites.
You know when a site is pulling this kind of crap they assume we horndogs don't share the negative 411 with anyone so they think they can just go to the bank. The good news is that we've got PU, the Consumers Reports of Web Porn, so the scammers' opportunities will shrink faster than my willy in a cold swimming pool.
|
07-11-08 07:01am
|
Reply
1327
|
N/A
|
Reply of
apoctom's Reply
Just so long as it's not a fluffer. ;-)
I agree with apoctom. I can't think of any scenes where a "non-nude extra" would be involved except in the "Fuck my Wife, Please" series where some douchebag sits there while his "wife" is getting slammed by some porn dude.
Th one thing about porn that is not available to us horndogs but is available on the set is the olfactory element. I'd love to get a whiff of the raw tuna aroma after a good fuck especially if that aroma is mixed with a sexy French perfume.
But on second thought, looking at some of those sweathog porn studs with their ugly hair and uglier tattoos that look like they are total strangers to personal hygiene, I'm not so sure I'd be very interested in smelling their sweat.
Never mind.
|
07-10-08 01:05pm
|
Reply
1328
|
All Elite Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Comment
Another bad deal.
To all webmasters out there. Scams like this hurt yoiu far more than the few extra bucks you can bring in.
Web porn has "grow up" from the earlier part of the century and your competitive edge will be quality, novelty and value. When you pull scams like this you piss off your mark, of course, but now with PornUsers.com, you will lose a large number of potential motivated customers who won't come near you.
Wake up, webmasters. There's gold and a lot of it in playing this business straight.
Dee, Inc., the site owner, will get no business from me!
|
07-09-08 07:10am
|
Reply
1329
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
OK, when I originally read Rick's post I understood it wrong. The post says, in pertinent part:
Starting NOW, reviews and ratings by registered users with under 5 points (status = Newbie) will no longer count toward the site's score or review count [emphasis added].
How will this help?
1. Previous fake/shill users...
2. This will encourage authentic users to at least reach the rookie level (5 points or more) so the reviews (their vote essentially) do mean something and to shows other users they're legit.
3. This will help discourage fake/shill users...
Will newbie reviews still be displayed?
Absolutely. It's important to us not to point our fingers at who is and isn't a fake/shill. In this regard, all reviews will still be displayed on our site and now labeled as Newbie. This now tells readers that the user has simply not written many reviews and to keep that in mind.
I agree that a legitimate Newbie who takes the time and effort to write a review should have his effort recognized and that a Newbie who reaches Rookie status should have his earlier scores counted so it looks like we're on the same page.
As for the "age-out" of a score, that's a great idea as well, given how many sites stop updating; are sold; get much better, edtc.
|
07-08-08 07:31pm
|
Reply
1330
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
I think you answered my other question.
I got the impression that the scores posted by a newbie didn't count until they reached 5 points, at which time all of the scores posted earlier would count, retroactively.
It sounds like you're saying that the first 4 posts by a newbie will never count and that, once a newbie reaches 5 points, such as when he posts his fifth score, his scores will start counting from that point forward but not retroactively.
|
07-08-08 05:53pm
|
Reply
1331
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Your News
I really like the change. My only question is whether a newbie's rating will affect the overall result:
1. While he's still a newbie?
2. After he's become a regular but has not updated a review written while he was a newbie?
|
07-08-08 12:58pm
|
Reply
1332
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Missing my answer:
Yes, but I'm struggling with it. ;-)
|
07-08-08 07:01am
|
Reply
1333
|
N/A
|
Reply of
mr3633's Reply
That's my feeling as well.
There are too many "lure" sites out there that are designed to be portals onto a computer to do damage of some kind or another. My machine is loaded with all kinds of protection (even Internet sex requires the use of protection these days) but I don't know what someone else's computer has in the way of security controls.
Therefore it's hands off without the owner's direct participation, whether it's accessing MSN Sports to check a score, or accessing PornUsers to see the results of a poll.
|
07-07-08 10:32am
|
Reply
1334
|
Euro Babes
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
I just checked out the public site which isn't very impressive and does nothing to get my interest.
They've got the best name in the business but seem not to want to do much with it. I'm interested just because it may have some good stuff, but their listing of talent is short and is missing some of my favorite names.
|
07-06-08 06:33am
|
Reply
1335
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I have no problem with it, but the fact that the review is written after just a LIMITED trial, where the reviewer did not have the opportunity to see everyuthing on a site should be required. A review from a full access trial is (or should be) the same as from a full month.
That's why I voted undecided, because the question does not distinguish between FULL and LIMITED trial.
That said, my recent review of Whale Tail 'N would have been to rate it quite low if I wrote it during a 3 day trial, not after 2+ months membership, because it's a loaded site with lousy site design. It took me almost a month to get used to it and enjoy the site.
In fairness, when writing a review after only a short 3-day or less experience with the site should include that fact so the reader knows what the review was based on.
|
07-04-08 06:49am
|
Reply
1336
|
Whale Tail 'N
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
I got the discount without any difficulty.
|
07-03-08 01:52pm
|
Reply
1337
|
Whale Tail 'N
(0)
|
Reply of
Goldfish's Reply
Not enough room in the previous response for explanations.
The photos are smallish (768)
The video scenes are the full length scenes taken from the original DVD. The DVD starts with scene 1 and each day they add th next scene until the complete DVD is posted. Then they start with a new DVD the next day.
Updates are posted 7 days a week. Each update lists the cast with a link to the total inventory of all videos by that performer.
In other words, ths is not a great site for photos, but a treasure trove for videos.
|
07-03-08 01:48pm
|
Reply
1338
|
Whale Tail 'N
(0)
|
Reply of
Goldfish's Reply
Here's today's list of updates:
PHOTOS (3 sets): Models in set: Sara Jess Alicia Diana (84 pix)
Models in set: Kathleen Kruz (42 pix)
Models in set: Trina Michaels (146 pix)
VIDEOS (23)
20 Teens Who Like To Suck Cocks scene 14
All Sex - No Talk 2 scene 8
Almost Jailbait 3 scene 1
Backside Bounce 2 scene 2
Black Heat In White Meat scene 7
Blacks In Blondes 2 scene 1
Booty Bandit scene 3
Built For Sex scene 2
Butt Busters 3 scene 2
Filthy Cum Sluts scene 1
Hotter Than Hell 1 scene 7
I Like Cum 2 scene 4
I Was Tight Yesterday scene 1
Interracial P.O.V. 3 scene 3
Legal At Last 2 scene 3
Pimp Daddy scene 4
Pussy Farts scene 4
Ravishing Beauties scene 3
Ready To Serve scene 4
Ripe Juicy Teens scene 2
Swallow Every Drop 3 scene 4
Throated 10 scene 15
White Guy's P.O.V. 2 scene 3
|
07-03-08 01:38pm
|
Reply
1339
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
The PPV reference is now gone. But the review still mentions a download limit, which the Webmaster also says is gone. Perhaps that comment can be corrected as well.
The very good news is that "In The Crack's" Webmaster understands and gets it. Unfortunately he started the site off with some user-unfriendly attributes that, although they are now corrected, will linger on in the review sites because they once existed.
Now, that said, it's time to check my "playtime" budget to see if I can handle a $35 whack...then on to a signup.
(By the way, Khan, this is why PU is such a terrific site for us porn users. The communications capability through this site results in the consumer knows what he/she is getting and, more importantly, provides a site's webnaster an opportunity to address questions and misunderstandings about a site and, thus, increase traffic.)
|
07-03-08 10:39am
|
Reply
1340
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
turboshaft's Reply
Interesting. TBP, today (7/3/08) still says the video is PPV.
I've never signed up for a site that wants more than $29.99 but this one really looks like it might be the first. But a PPV program sucks.
I'm counting on TBP being wrong on this because I'm about to spring for a one month membership.
|
07-03-08 08:09am
|
Reply
1341
|
The Real Me
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
Decided to sign up for the trial. Shay Laren is model # 14, added yesterday (7/1/08) so there's a faint hope that the webmaster will eventually populate the site.
See my review.
|
07-02-08 09:11pm
|
Reply
1342
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
If it's two gorgeous babes and the kiss is a slow, tonguing, heavy breathing, deep down heavy duty smooch, I almost blow my load even when the babes are fully clothed...but when the camera pans down slowly past four tits with fully erect nipples down to a mutual and energetic finger fuck, I'm totally sold.
Forget anal, forget mish. Two babes going at it hot and heavy where the camera almost picks up the feeling of hot breath and the sweet tuna smell of sopping wet pussy mixed with the subtle aroma of a French perfume.
Damn. Ol' Willy is anxious for me to go find some of that because he's really getting ready!
|
07-02-08 02:07pm
|
Reply
1343
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Duante Amorculo's Poll
Not being a big anal fan, I really don't feel qualified to vote for anyone on the list.
I voted for Hilary Scott who is a total babe and really seems to enjoy getting rammed up the ol' poop chute. Sandra Romain, as a total babe, comes in a close second.
|
06-30-08 08:13am
|
Reply
1344
|
Prime Cups
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Review
ace of aces, great review with good info.
You said "ok, who needs a video with 2GB on his hd?"
I agree completely.
I am about to spring $30 (USD) for a month of Prime Cups and went in to the public site just to see if anything has changed. I tested the super HD (1920) test run that used up 15.8 mb for about 25 seconds...and although the picture was crisp and nice, the 960 version of the test was virtually the same on my screen, yet it used "only" 5.6 mb (65% less). Then I tried the 640 version and it came in at a paltry 3.0 mb. And it was damned good as well.
The difference, to me, isn't sufficiently large enough to warrant the lost hard drive space. (After all, only a breast research doctor or a gynecologist may need better definition than you get with 640, IMO.)
I plan to sign up and do a full drain of the pre-identified "good stuff" on the site (anyone can get a full index of all Dev8 stuff at Indexxxed.com . so I've already D/L'd the trailers for each and every video on that site and know which scenes I'll want to D/L once I've signed up.)
By the way, I sent an email to Dev8 asking if there was any less expensive way to access all their stuff like a network pass or something. They referred me to their site called More Gonzo. That site has an inventory of 120 videos from 6 of their 10 sites, total. As they add a new (to this site) video they remove an old one. At any given time they will have 20 older videos from each of their six big and established sites...but nothing from their newer sites, PurePOV, Fist Flush, Milf Thing and FistFlush.
With daily updates (except Sunday), then, one can, with proper planning, drain off 144 videos (the 120 on the sight at signup date and 24 daily updates) in a month and then quit...or just stay enrolled and, if they play it straight, eventually get access to most of their overall inventory.
More Gonzo is probably a good site for a starter to see what the full videos are like in the 6 sites covered (the trial provides access to very short videos so you'll never see an entire video without signing up for a full month)
|
06-29-08 01:58pm
|
Reply
1345
|
More Gonzo
(0)
|
Reply of
Marianna's Review
The answer to my question now appears on the public site. They hold to an inventory of 120 videos, total. As they add a new one (to this site) they remove the old one. At any given time they will have 20 older videos from each of 6 sites...but nothing from their newer sites, PurePOV, Fist Flush, Milf Thing and FistFlush.
With daily updates (except Sunday), then, one can, with proper planning, drain off 144 videos (the 120 on the sight at signup date and 24 daily updates) in a month and then quit...or just stay enrolled and, if they play it straight, eventually get access to everything.
More Gonzo is probably a good site for a starter to see what the full videos are like in the 6 sites covered (the trial is a very limited video so you'll never see an entire video without signing up for a full month)
|
06-29-08 01:51pm
|
Reply
1346
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
I like girls of any age who have taken care of themselves, aren't extensively tattooed and who have great attitudes.
And the ones with great eyes and other body parts!
For example, I go nutz over the older types like Vicky Vette and Penny Porsche...and over young babes like Natasha Nice and Jenna Doll. (And I like their names as well. Classic cars and "nice dolls" always do it for me.
|
06-29-08 08:57am
|
Reply
1347
|
N/A
|
Reply of
asmith12's Poll
My reviews are based on content. A great price warrants a mention in the review but it will not affect my evaluation at all.
|
06-26-08 08:32am
|
Reply
1348
|
Adult Video Access
(0)
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Comment
Thanks for the tip. The public site is very nicely structured and it has some stuff not available on VideoBox. I especially like that it lets the casual drop-in lurker operate all of the functions (except watching the videos, of course) so an interested purchaser can be sure he is satisfied. That's rare in most preview sites.
However, the bad news. They didn't try very hard to identify the talent so one cannot do complete searches by model name. This shows a sign of laziness because they display the cast on the cover.
The good news, for what it's worth, they say they have 844 DVD's (20% of VideoBox's inventory) so searching through each and every box cover won't be as bad.
At $15 bucks (w/ the PU/TBP discount) it's worth going in to supplement my collection (which is organized by model name) with otherwise unavailable stuff. I see what my wekend project will be already.
|
06-24-08 08:21am
|
Reply
1349
|
Mommy Got Boobs
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
$10 Brazzer? Wow. Was that a "please stay" special?
|
06-23-08 04:19pm
|
Reply
1350
|
Photo Dromm
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
This review brings back memories, and not fond ones, of the early days of what looked like great material on sites with lousy D/L speed. I'm spoiled these days and sites that get cheap on the delivery side of the business will have wasted their money building the content side because no one will buy, or if they do they won't stick around.
|
06-23-08 06:23am
|
