Replies Received
|
Replies to your reviews or comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
Girls Love Toys
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Comment
from Monahan:
Follow-up - I let the membership autorenew (at $9.95 - the TBP discounted rate) to see about the hi res zips.
Nope. Not provided and no reply from tech support.
Great vids, but don't count on high resolution photos, if that's your thing.
|
09-03-07 07:44am
|
Reply
27
|
Girls Love Toys
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Comment
from Monahan:
As they all do the size varies. I found a range of 714 to 958 on the long side. However I also get a message that I need to wait 30 days from my original sign-up date to be eligible for Hi-Res Zip files, so I am reading that to mean that the wait means for both High Res and for Zip files, not just for Zip files.
The resolution is good now, but not nearly as good as the HiRes photos on Met Art.
I'll post an update after I pass the 30 day mark and qualify for the upgrade.
|
07-13-07 11:20pm
|
Reply
28
|
HD Solo Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Review
from King:
I think I saw already those vids. If I can correctly recall it was chasingirls.com (early vids) and some other sites.
|
04-09-07 02:34pm
|
Reply
29
|
Lolly Bad Cock
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from turismo:
(DivBZero's Reply)
Hi,
Not sure what resolution the pics are, but they are decent quality when viewing on the slideshow and there is an option to download hi-res pictures as a zip file.
Again, there aren't a great number of sets on this site, approx 30, with the number of pics between 30-200 in each, although this will increase over time
|
03-09-07 03:30pm
|
Reply
30
|
LSG Models
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from jd1961:
(DivBZero's Reply)
A total pet peeve of mine as well!
|
08-02-07 07:15pm
|
Reply
31
|
LSG Models
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Drooler:
(DivBZero's Reply)
Actually, that's a big peeve of mine, too: file names that are not unique for each image. But if they're too long, that's also a problem because they get trailing "..." in window views, so you can't see the file sequence number anyway.
It's also troublesome when there are 2 or more gallery sets from a single shoot, but each set uses the same numbering, starting from, for example, 001.jpg, as you were saying.
I keep them in separate, uniquely named folders, but the problem is when I put them together. So I delete all of the images I don't want, then add a unique start to the files that need it. It means a lot of "click file name, paste, click next file name, paste ..." Then it's time for physical therapy!
BTW, another pain is file naming on a site that goes "1.jpg" to 9, then it's "10.jpg" to 99, then "100.jpg" and so on. They don't sort correctly, so you have to do what should be the site's job of simply naming files in a sensible, sequential way.
Webmasters, are you reading this? Please give your files unique names, but not names that are so long that they cross county lines. Thanks!
|
05-14-07 02:41am
|
Reply
32
|
Pier 999
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from jd1961:
(DivBZero's Reply)
The Pier 999 webmasters seem distant. But I think they have a small team.
|
11-16-07 08:49am
|
Reply
33
|
Pier 999
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Comment
from Denner:
The photo-retouching is bad - the same is the result.
As jd1961 states - that has been mentioned in PU-reviews.
But their videos: Here's nothing to complain about - crisp, clear and NO retouch. I consider those videos among the best (in tech. quality).
|
11-14-07 09:21am
|
Reply
34
|
Pier 999
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Comment
from jd1961:
Did you read the reviews here Div? They all made it clear concerning what you write about here.
|
11-14-07 08:22am
|
Reply
35
|
Sexy Teen Paradise
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Review
from Evan:
DivBZero,
Thank you for your review, good and bad, they are always informative. I think you brought up a very good point with our image quality, and sparked an internal review of over 180,000+ images (our eyes hurt).
We are currently working on re-uploading ALL of our images with increased clarity and sharpness. The image and zip file sizes will be a bit larger then they are now, but you, members, and future members will enjoy the extra crisp & sharp images.
We will also be categorizing some our older image sets with a keyword called B-Sets, or something to the fact where it will single out the image sets that are not up to our current standards. They are still great looking girls, but the images just are not as of high quality as the other sets on our site.
I thank you for your feedback, and please drop us a line in our quick feedback section on the site, if you have any other suggestions :)
Thanks,
Evan
|
01-23-07 06:51pm
|
Reply
36
|
Simon Scans
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Drooler:
(DivBZero's Reply)
Dear DivBZero,
I'm not much of a toy fan, as you can probably tell, but I don't mind them at all really so long as my "niche" -- the girls looking back in delight as they show their equally displayed fanny cheeks, without hands on them -- is given some "air time." Trouble is, when the toys come out, whether it's at Simon or elsewhere, it's almost always "pussy time" from there on in, and "ass time" (as described) is over.
Kinda funny, this "competition" between pussy and ass, though I'll admit I can't prove it statistically. For that, there needs to be a study ... and grant money. ;)
I think we both like seeing the girls faces as they get off. Nothing like a girl really enjoying horny pleasures.
And 3000px? Absolutely! Wow! YES!
I recently visited SimonScans and he mentioned having fewer "toy" shots and just having the girls work things out more "mano a gato," so to speak. Wonder if the dude's reading our comments here at PU.
|
06-13-07 12:25am
|
Reply
37
|
Solo Interviews
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Review
from uscue:
I haven't checked solo interviews yet, but their network sites OyeLoca and InnocentHigh do indeed have high quality pics. Or rather, just to be safe, i'll say they are smaller in size (700x1050) but high quality regarding how they look. They don't look anything like vidcaps or amateur-ish. They look like any other sites High-Res pics but smaller in size. Video quality wasn't DVD quality like some great sites but wasn't worse than any other regular site and I never questioned it until reading the review.
I agree that this site is not as good as the other sites in the network, but does it really deserve a 51? Is that based just on the pics (it is mainly a video site)? I'd think, based on the things you pointed out that they did wrong, that the site would be in the 70's, described as: Average, some things done right, some things done wrong or 60's: does more wrong than right, low recommendation.
51 just seems low for a site costing 17.84 a month with 4 other sites included (over 100 vids all together), has a score of 78 by TBP and five 80's out of seven other sites reviews, no DRM or download limit (not anymore). Even a site with vidcaps only would be at least Average with all those added at that price, but this site DOES have actual higher quality pics, just not as high (pixels) as others which you wouldn't notice unless you used a program that showed pixels like photoshop or irfanview.
|
03-13-07 10:35pm
|
Reply
38
|
Solo Interviews
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Review
from roseman:
Thanks for the info
|
03-13-07 02:45pm
|
Reply
39
|
Super Glam
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Drooler:
(DivBZero's Reply)
Definitely agree. Piecemealing out a gallery over weeks is absurd. MetArt actually used to do it over MONTHS, but they finally must've realized how foolish that was. It was like, geology in action.
SuperGlam seems way out of touch. I just visited again, and what they have as stated size links are 1000 (actually 750), 2000 (actually 1000), and 4000 (actually 1536). They should be in politics, not porn.
Currently they have 47 models with roughly 4 sets per, about 188 galleries. If their masters are at least 6 megapixels, they could post the 3000px shots right away. (They'd need 12mpx masters to do 4000s). They might want to add their top logo, but that could be done in a batch mode over no more than a week, certainly, with just a couple of techies doing the work at a leisurely pace.
Thanks, DivBZero, for your reply. I know others might read, so I've put in the above for a little more info and perspective.
|
04-29-07 04:57pm
|
Reply
40
|
Virtua Girl 2
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from Celine:
(DivBZero's Reply)
Hi Andy,
Thanks a lot for having tested the animations )) It's really cool to get almost "real time" comments on our product :-P
About the animation size, you can have a look at stripsaver2 : models are stripping full size in a screensaver & wallpaper :-P
;-)
Celine
|
02-26-07 02:55am
|
Reply
41
|
Virtua Girl 2
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Celine:
(DivBZero's Reply)
Thanks Andy! That's definitely a constructive comment! We'll make sure VGHD's photosets are carefully edited too ;-)
Any comment about the animations ?
Cheers
|
02-19-07 02:03am
|
Reply
42
|
Virtua Girl 2
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Review
from Celine:
Thanks a lot for the review & nice words!
About the HD thing, are you aware that we are working on VirtuagirlHD ? Visually & technically, it will change a lot!
Really appreciate your comments, thanks again!
Celine
|
02-07-07 01:53am
|
Reply
43
|
Virtua Girl 2
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Review
from roseman:
the site seems ok.
|
02-06-07 04:24pm
|
Reply
44
|
Xisty
(0)
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Review
from roseman:
It absolutely worths a trial membership, the sites seems very good.
|
02-04-07 04:10pm
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
