| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
851
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Reply
Gee, Pinche, don't hold back. Please, tell us how you really feel!
;-)
Just curious. You don't mention porn vids that are all BJ, or anal sex. What is your opinion of those genres?
|
08-05-07 11:09am
|
Reply
852
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I've been 1/2 hr late on occasion when doing some early morning surfing but never skipped altogether.
|
08-05-07 11:05am
|
Reply
853
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
I use a different approach. I have a single card I used just for joining sites and had the issuer reset the limit to just $80.00. (That's my monthly budget for this stuff.)
I track the account online and whenever a charge its the account, I'll pay it with an online payment from my bank.
It keeps everything simple and makes life easy when a site bills me after a cancellation. (Happens, but not often.)
If my card number is compromised (hasn't been yet), the perp will hit the $80 wall very quickly.
|
08-03-07 07:07pm
|
Reply
854
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
I like 'em but only as part of a vid that does a 100% checkout of a fabulous babe. Sorta like peeing. Once in a while is fine but that's not something that I need a lot of.
Now show me a nice set of flappers (labia lips) along with a guy who enjoys cunnilingus (eating her out) and who flaps the flappers with his tongue and I'm hooked.
|
08-02-07 06:55pm
|
Reply
855
|
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
856
|
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
857
|
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
858
|
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
859
|
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
860
|
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
861
|
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
862
|
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
863
|
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
864
|
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
865
|
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
866
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I agree. Same applies to mirrored ceilings.
|
07-06-07 09:52am
|
Reply
867
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Trimmed with a nice large set of labias!
|
07-05-07 09:26am
|
Reply
868
|
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
869
|
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
870
|
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
871
|
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
872
|
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
873
|
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
874
|
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
875
|
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
|
