| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
51
|
Erotic Beauty
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
from PinkPanther:
Click on "Free Tour" and it shows you that it updates once a day.
|
12-12-11 08:55pm
|
Reply
52
|
Georgia Jones
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
from Drooler:
I can only give you old info as I joined just once in Feb 2009. The resolution of the pics was 72 dpi -- pretty standard. The largest dimensions of the photos was 1400 pixels on the long end.
I didn't save a whole lot as some sets were too dark. One I did save showed up later in larger dimensions at Stunners.
Georgia's a favorite of mine. Too bad this site with her name on it doesn't do her justice. Typical.
|
12-12-11 07:26pm
|
Reply
53
|
Georgia Jones
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from pat362:
(RLane's Reply)
You may already do that but in case you don't then always look at TBP and/or PU before joining any site. If there aren't any review then there's a very high chance that the site will be a major waste of money.
These days almost every girl that as done porn has a site and I'd say that 99.99% of them aren't worth the cost of a membership. I got burned too many times in the past when I joined solo model sites out of impulse without looking for reviews. Mind you when i first started surfing for porn. There weren't many decent review sites so most sites had less than trustfull reviews. That's why TBP and PU is so great.
|
12-12-11 07:43am
|
Reply
54
|
Georgia Jones
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
from pat362:
TBP has never reviewed this site and I don't think they plan to do so. I think Georgia is super cute and it would be great if she had a decent site but I highly recommend you stay away from this one.
You would feel cheated if it was only a dollar. It isn't so you'll feel even more cheated because of that. If you go to her TBP page and scroll to the bottom then you will see a link to another sites review. The review only gave her site a 73% and that was 2 years ago.
|
12-11-11 05:29pm
|
Reply
55
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
from anyonebutme:
Their oldest stuff is 1090px on the long side. Their newest stuff is 1600px.
Then they have some "big sized" sets that are either 3000px or 4000px but they are more random than anything else, not even close to their complete collection, and only include a sampling of images from a given set.
Assume you're getting 1600px on their new material.
|
12-11-11 05:02pm
|
Reply
56
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from Cybertoad:
(RLane's Reply)
I agree with you on the pixels, but in quality I found the way it was done was ok. I think knowing it was a large picture I thought would give a better photo then it did. There are other sites with large HD video and the quality is still not better then smaller sizes. To give a site a 90 I think it is done very well. I don't give out any reviews above 89 unless the site is exceptional. And why the site is very good, I found it has room to grow. Problem is the better a site is, the more picky reviews get above 90 for me. I start looking at details and ease of site. Things other sites strive to get reviewed, So I really like this site, I am just really picky on my reviews at 90 and above.
Appreciate the feedback.
CT
|
12-11-11 03:54pm
|
Reply
57
|
Kari Sweets
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Review
from rearadmiral:
She's definitely cute, but the lack of zips is a deal breaker for me. Thanks for making that clear. I have no idea why a site wouldn't offer zips.
|
12-11-11 08:13am
|
Reply
58
|
Bikini Pleasure
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
from Capn:
It is a guess really, because as I like more clothing to give a longer strip I would never subscribe to such a site.
Going from the tour though, I would say there would be a fair amount of nudity, but I doubt it would feature in most sets.
Cap'n. :0)
|
12-11-11 07:54am
|
Reply
59
|
Beautiful Nude.biz
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from tangub:
(RLane's Reply)
Yes the download frustrations spoiled what would have otherwise been a nice site.
|
12-11-11 02:37am
|
Reply
60
|
Only Opaques
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
from Capn:
Probably. 'Only' sites are usually quite comprehensive in covering their subject matter.
The only thing they are really shaky on is their definition of 'nude'
It usually covers wearing clothing!
Cap'n :0(
|
12-11-11 02:35am
|
Reply
61
|
Watch 4 Beauty
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
from Capn:
If you are not in the US watch for that regional pricing scam, if they haven't dropped it.
Cap'n. :0/
|
12-10-11 04:31pm
|
Reply
62
|
Helen's Planet
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
from tangub:
The majority of the photo sets start off with her clothed or partially clothed (partially clothed meaning wearing only bra and panties or other items of lingerie). Only 3 or 4 of the 44 sets on the site started off naked. Hope that answers your question.
|
12-10-11 03:59pm
|
Reply
63
|
DOMAI
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Review
from Cybertoad:
Rlane,
I actually thought this site would have rated higher the your other
review. This site seems to have very nice quality photo's at least in the tour section. It takes practice to get reviews down to how you like them done yourself. Like Staff said it your call how and why you rate something. I do like that gave a few details in the end about the sites.
If you are not able to find more to put in a review, look at others that may have posted many reviews.
And letting people know cost, how many photos or video etc.
Remember the reviews often get people to go take a look based sometimes on what you out in a review, so the more you give in details the more a person gets info about the site you are / were a member at .
Welcome to PU
|
12-09-11 10:59pm
|
Reply
64
|
Kari Sweets
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Review
from Cybertoad:
This model is Smokin, very nice body and shape.
However with the limit content and no nudity and this being a porn review site. No nudity may not make it a high ranking site around tehse parts.
I thought 90 was a on the high side myself.
That's not to say the review is not a good one. I just didn't see anything in the review that jumped out and said this site was outstanding place to join.
CT
|
12-09-11 10:52pm
|
Reply
65
|
Kari Sweets
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Review
from pat362:
I respect that taste vary greatly but there are some things that are a must for there to be a high score. She is a really cute girl but who will spend 27$ on a solo model site where there is very little content available in the preview section or the actual site itself and where you don't even know if she's still active? I Googled her name to see what info I could find. There's isn't much. She had a twitter account but only posted twice on February 2010 and nothing since then. She has or had a facebook account but there's nothing except a couple of pics. She states on her twitter account that she's 20 but if that's the case then based on TBP saying that her site was launched in 2007 then she was only 17 at the time.
Now her site is almost 5 years old and all you have is 175 photosets and 35 videos. I made the math and that means less than 3 updates per month on photosets and about 7 videos per year.
|
12-09-11 10:34am
|
Reply
66
|
DOMAI
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Khan:
(RLane's Reply)
For the record ...
You *may* use whatever standard you wish to come up with the score you assign a site. Of course it does help if that standard more or less follows what other apply or you at least explain anything unique about how you arrived at your score.
While some other users may not feel it's fair to mark off for certain things, it's really your call.
Welcome to PornUsers
|
12-09-11 07:02am
|
Reply
67
|
DOMAI
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Capn:
(RLane's Reply)
No perhaps not, but you listed it in 'cons' without a rider on it.
Welcome to PU BTW !
Cap'n. :0)
|
12-09-11 05:25am
|
Reply
68
|
Kari Sweets
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Review
from tangub:
A very sweet model and she seems to have been around for years. Did you notice if the site is still updating when you were there?
By the way welcome to PU and i notice from your input so far you seem to be a fan of the softcore niche so i certainly look forward to reading more of your reviews.
|
12-08-11 11:54pm
|
Reply
69
|
Kari Sweets
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Review
from Capn:
Whilst I can appreciate you rating it this highly if you are enamoured of her looks, no zips is a big negative for photo collectors; and those low res video figures are going to be a problem for vid. folks.
Lack of nudity may be another issue! ;0)
Cap'n. :0)
|
12-08-11 11:35pm
|
Reply
70
|
DOMAI
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Review
from Capn:
To be honest, you can't mark down a photo site for not having videos.
If it didn't have zips, yes.
Cap'n. :0)
|
12-08-11 11:33pm
|
Reply
71
|
Just Nude
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
from tangub:
They do state on the sign up page though that you will not have access to the photos in the highest resolution so its not like they are trying to fool anybody. Personally i was quite happy with the 1600px photos for the $10 trial price.
|
12-08-11 11:07pm
|
