| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1501
|
Twistys
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
Good review. The videos are well done and worth joining up, but the photos are as you say, not erotic at all.
|
04-14-08 05:05pm
|
Reply
1502
|
Veggie Bang
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Review
You refer to a "trial price" but I can't find one. The TBP summary shows a $29.95/month price as does the website. Could it be that yours was a short term (or a tie-in) deal of some kind?
|
07-15-08 07:55am
|
Reply
1503
|
Victoria Pink
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Comment
The site has a 7 day trial available for $1.00. Unlimited access. But you must access VictoriaPink.com directly and not through PU to get that price.
They redesigned the home page so I hoped that, perhaps, they might have added more material on Victoria Pink.
Nope. Same old crap with no updates in at least 3 years.
However the site has added several additional sites as bonus sites (all titled [something] Next Door - such as Virgins Next Door, Handjob Next Door, etc.) that show dates that suggest they are updated relatively currently. The bad news is that they download at the rate of about 140 Kb and are the usual unimaginative crap.
I downloaded what little I found any good (a decent, but not spectacular Bree Olson video, for example) and cancelled my trial about 2 hours after signing up.
Warning. Cross sells. Warning. $40.00 if you don't cancel before time runs out. Good news, billing by ccbill.
I gave the site a 64 a few years back but now it gets a 50.
|
09-30-09 11:10pm
|
Reply
1504
|
Victoria Pink
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Reply
Read it. Sadly it shows that no effort has been made at all to update the site in well over 2 years.
I suspect she's found a sugar daddy in Las Vegas who has taken her out of the skin biz.
|
08-21-08 12:49pm
|
Reply
1505
|
Video Angels.tv
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Thanks. I added the site to my favorites for future consideration. (My budget is smaller than my interest in several sites I want to sign up for.)
|
02-22-09 01:00pm
|
Reply
1506
|
Video Angels.tv
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Review
Denner, this looks like an excellent "find." I bought my share of Fiona Cooper videos back in the day and the preview video brings back some memories. But when the preview video is like this one, lousy quality, it makes me nervous that it is a true representation of the actual quality of the full content.
Also, the preview site has photos of the models but they are not identified. Does the site properly identify the models?
Looks like a good "one month" site. (A site that warrants just a one month membership to provide an opportunity to drain it of the good stuff, then move on.)
|
02-22-09 10:54am
|
Reply
1507
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Review
I was a member for a very long time (started when they still added one new DVD per day) but dropped VB when I got tired of their lousy labeling. They have two major failings not mentioned in the review First is mis-identification of the talent. Some babes show up with obvious name errors. Seco0d is scenes where the models are not identified t all. The only good thing is when members see errors and include the info in the comments. But that doesn't help at all with the search function.
Dillion Harper, for example, has several scenes where she's mis-identified or not identified at all.
|
03-30-19 11:36pm
|
Reply
1508
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
I've been a member for several years and agree with RA. Time to focus on quality over the five per day standard.
|
04-13-15 01:04pm
|
Reply
1509
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Comment
I'm a 10 year continuous member from way back with the one update per day, through an update every 4+ hours to the 5 at a time daily updates.
I'm OK with the ratio of crapola to good stuff because there have been a few crappy updates with some really good stuff hidden away in them. For example a few weeks ago there was a really crummy video that had a pre-enhancement Venus Knight video where she "outnastied" her nastiest later stuff.
I just wish they would improve their accuracy in model identification, but that's a subject for another comment.
|
12-30-14 11:53am
|
Reply
1510
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
mike11w's Comment
Ditto everything mike says.
The one saving grace is the fan base frequently provides identifications in the comments.
Being cynical, I expect that the VB folks will remove the comments feature as well.
|
10-18-12 09:35am
|
Reply
1511
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
Excellent review.
My adds:
A big uptick to VB for its continuing effort to list the cast for most of its material.
A big downtick for its incorrect spelling and/or identification of the cast names which, with the size of their catalogue, makes it impossible to find all of the material for a specific performer.
A big uptick for the quality of member commentary. Many members are true pornophiles who know their stuff and are willing to share.
A big downtick for VB's laziness in making corrections in cast member names that are identified by members in their comments.
I've been a member since 2005 and it's still my favorite source for my stash, especially when they exploded from one update a day to 5 or more a day. But I do agree with the score for all of the reasons cited.
|
09-05-12 09:17am
|
Reply
1512
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
I have been a member since 2005 and never experienced any technical problems, just content issues.
I tried logging in this morning and got an offer to join. I thought maybe by 1 year membership had expired but I have another 5 months left.
Based on these comments I think I'll just sit back and wait a few days to see if things get better.
|
08-04-12 09:38am
|
Reply
1513
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
I'm interested in your observations about Videoz and VB. Does Videoz have enough non-duplicated content to make it worthwhile to subscribe to both at the same time?
|
07-16-12 09:43am
|
Reply
1514
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
A few comments about Rearadmiral's review:
5 updates per day - Totally agree that, with 13,345 movies (today's total) there is a bunch of crapola. However their recently added feature of quickie previews gives the discerning porndog the ability to get an idea of the content of a video before spending any time on it. I'm fine with 5 per day and like the opportunity to sort through the offerings myself rather than have someone else do the selecting for me.
New VB3 feature - Totally agree that I prefer the old front-end over the new one. It's good that the VB folks give us the full choice.
Compilations and duplications - Would be an annoyance except there's a loyal group of VB'ers who accurately point out duplications. The good part about that is if you find a scene that you want to download, you may find an earlier posting that runs longer or even that is available in HD.
Inaccurate identification of talent - One major failing that is not mentioned in Rearadmiral's review is the frequent inaccurate identification of the talent. Worse is when there's no effort to identify the talent. With a catalog of 13,345 videos, each averaging 5 scenes, that means if you dig a particular babe, and that babe is not accurately identified, you'll need to dig through over 120,000 scenes to find her stuff; ain't gonna happen. The good part is that the VB'ers who comment frequently provide an identification and/or correction, but the bad part is that comments are not searchable. I've stumbled on some of my favorite babes totally by accident which makes me wonder how much more is out there that is undiscovered.
D/L speeds - Agree. Never had a problem with speed or with simultaneous multiple downloads.
No excuse for using a freebee site - Totally agree. Not only is there no excuse from a cost standpoint, the quality of the video on VB is usually much better.
|
07-14-12 09:53am
|
Reply
1515
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
mike11w's Comment
Bad news...ain't working.
Good news...I thought it was my machine.
|
06-30-12 12:04pm
|
Reply
1516
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Comment
I'm with the PinkPanther on this one. Try finding Memphis Monroe, for example.
But the problem doesn't stop there. Their naming standards suck where they frequently assign the wrong name to a babe (easy to understand in some cases, but not in others) use a variety of spellings (Brooke; Brooke, etc.) and worst of all, fail to identify a babe altogether.
The only saving grace is that the loyal members know this and frequently post the correct name where VB's is wrong, and where they will identify the otherwise anonymous talent.
VB would do well to read the comments and make the rudimentary corrections.
|
04-14-12 09:52am
|
Reply
1517
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
When I clicked on the site link on the VideoBox page, it returned me to the TBP review, not to the site. All is now working well. It must have been a malfunction on my computer.
Sorry.
|
12-18-11 07:23pm
|
Reply
1518
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
slategrey's Comment
The link from PU and TBP to the VideoBox site is broken. The only way to access the site is by going to Videobox.com from your browser.
When I did that I got the monthly price of $15.00...which is still a great beal, IMO.
|
12-17-11 10:10am
|
Reply
1519
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
slutty's Reply
This has been a serious problem for years and has only gotten worse. Although it isn't perfect, I find that one way to locate a specific model is to find a video she's in then click on her name in the scene list.
Typing Gianna Michaels in the search box has yielded no results on occasion and a ton of results otehr times. By finding a video with Gianna in it and clicking on her name I usually get much better results,
But the major frustrations are where they misidentify a babe, or just misspell the name.
AFAIC this site loses at least 5 points for that failure alone. With the money they make they should at least make a small effort to fix the horrible search function.
|
11-13-11 09:22am
|
Reply
1520
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
littlejoe's Review
Been a member for 4 years straight and love the site. When I joined we got 1 new video per day. Now it's 5 with an occasional bonus. The five used to be loaded every 4+ hours during the day. Now they drop all 5 at the same time, an improvement.
I agree with LJ's review except I would boost the score by 5 or 6 points because for sheer content there's no other site with nearly as much stuff. I can't go much higher than 86, though because their identification of the talent still really sucks. If you want to check out a specific model, you'll be really frustrated because to find all of a girl's stuff on the site you need to try a search on several different spellings and even that doesn't always do it especially when they do not identify the girls in the first place.
Good part - Huge inventory.
Bad Part - Lousy needle in a haystack search feature.
|
11-06-11 09:24am
|
Reply
1521
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
nymano's Review
I've commented on the sloppiness of model identification and on the lousy search function in previous reviews. Unfortunately both aspects have gotten worse despite promises by the webmaster to correct the problem.
This failure is a real shame because the site is, by far, the richest site on the web with an unimaginably huge amount of content growing at the rate of 1800+ DVD's per year.
Without a decent model identification process and with a less than adequate search capability, it's virtually impossible to find all the scenes containing a specific model.
|
08-02-10 11:13pm
|
Reply
1522
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
Good review and I agree that VB is the baseline site for any horndog into web porn.
One issue I've raised before and that I consider to be a major failing is their accuracy in their search capabilities with many misspellings and worse, their genre tags. (Gianna Michaels - small tits?????) Gianna Michaels spelled 10 different ways rendering a search for her stuff to be much messier tha n necessary, etc.)
I consider that carelessness/sloppiness to be a real problem with a site with as much content as VB has.
|
02-10-10 03:49pm
|
Reply
1523
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
Torn4do's Reply
Makes total sense. I've been a member for 3 years now so I remember way back when they went from 1 update per day to 5 and did not increase the price at all. They did increase the price since then but the PU price brought it back down.
I also remember how awesome I felt the site was when I first joined and would have given these guys a score in the high 90's.
The site hasn't changed much (except for the two integrated pay sites being added) so perhaps I am being a bit rough because the site is still the best for having so much material at such a reasonable price.
|
01-20-10 07:57am
|
Reply
1524
|
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
1525
|
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
|
