Reading this review I just had the feeling that I've read it before so I looked back and it appears this entire review is an exact copy and paste of your September 2017 review of the same site with just the number of scenes and number of updates changed in the pros and cons. Only problem is you haven't changed the bottom line to match where you repeat the number of scenes and update rate at the site so your bottom line contradicts your pros and cons....Careless dude!
I've often wondered how some of you guys manage to get through so many porn subscriptions and reviews because it takes me bloody hours to write a review, often an entire evening or longer....now I know...copy, paste, submit. Do you even have a subscription here because the number of scenes can easily be updated just by visiting the site tour?
Separate from the site or network score (although related), I do try, when writing a site review, to mention some of the positive and negative aspects of the site I am reviewing.
In the case of White Ghetto, the major positive factor is that it is part of a nice network. I searched really hard to find something positive to say about the site. :)
On the negative side, other than I didn't like any of the models or the video clips or anything else about the site, I tried to say it in an intelligent way. But I'm afraid that it mainly came out as "I just don't like this site".
So I'm glad that I finished with my review of that site, and will hopefully focus more on sites that are easier for me to enjoy.
But the truth is that a site score has limited value. What is more important, on an individual basis, is whether the site caters to your personal tastes. My tastes are mainly softcore. I don't mind some hardcore, but I would like it to be good-looking or glamorous or nice. I don't like rough.
Site content (quality and quantity) and ease of use and price are the main factors in determining score, for me. My approach is different than the TBP approach, which does not consider price. But those are the factors which are important to me. Price does matter.
But I do try (and hope) that my reviews will have some usefulness or value to a PU member who might read the review, as an indicator of whether a site might be worth a membership or not. Based on individual tastes, of course. For a lot of PU members, my personal tastes are far too softcore.
I am not following the PU suggestion of rating an individual site that is part of a network as an individual site.
Instead, I am rating the overall network of sites.
I have reviewed several different sites in this netFameSolutions network, and I gave the same score to each site. Each site has a different individual value, but most of the value comes from the ability to access all the sites in the network, to access all the videos (and pictures, which are a minor part of this network).
I explained in each separate review in the BOTTOM LINE (summary) section the basis of my score: that I was not giving the site a score based on the value of the site itself, but on the network of the sites.
Perhaps I did not make that point clear enough.
You are entirely correct that, if I was thinking consistently, based on the negatives I reported about this individual site, my score would have been far lower than the 87 I gave the site--if I was rating the site on an individual basis. But I am not rating the site on an individual basis, but on a network basis.
I wrote at the end of this review: "I'm giving this site a score of 87 for its network value. As a stand-alone site, this site personally has zero value for me. But tastes vary. Some PU members might find it worthwhile to visit."
Technically, I am being too hard when I say the site has zero value, but I basically regard this site as a waste of time for me, personally.
But I wrote in this review, "I'm giving this site a score of 87 for its network value". What I meant was that the network of sites has a score of 87, even though this individual site has, for me, little or no value. Individual tastes vary, so maybe some people will enjoy at least some of the video clips.
Sorry to write such a long explanation to a simple remark, but I am trying to explain clearly what I meant when I said I was giving this site a "network score", instead of a score as an individual site.
Cancellation was by chat and took about a minute. The biller was proprietary and not one of the big names. Oil of Life, which is owned by the same owners as the site.
Now that I think about it, you're probably right and I don't remember which biller I used. If there was a choice, of course I'd go with Epoch. If I'm wrong, I guess it's a bit unfair to call out Yanks for it, but no less unfair as their recycling pretty much all of their content.
Yep - I'm lashing out at a site that was one of my Big Three - the sites that I'd go back to time and time again.. It's garbage now. Guess I'll be called rude and wrong again when they see this comment.
I would say it's a different kind of roughness. At no point does the male model call the girls sluts or go as far as step on their head with his shoes (I think they do that in FA). Also it doesn't have the whole interview aspect where the guy just rips into the girls and asks why is she doing this etc etc.
On the other hand they do toss them around quite a bit and they do get gagged, in a lot of the more recent scenes a big deal is making the girl's make-up run down their faces. Also they seem really big on you seeing the girls eyes as they deep throat.
Overall, I'd say it's less rough, in nothing else becuase of the psychological aspect, but it's definitely rougher than any other young teen site I've seen, including nubiles, teensex network and little mutt.
Remember these are amateur user submitted videos.
Most are pretty good these days, but quite a few are obviously shot with a webcam. So variation in quality is still there.
On the whole they nare of a pretty good.
Very few are professional quality.
So true. I generally like hardcore only and look more for videos over photos. But the price of this site was right. And the decent amount of public flashing content scratched my itch.
I also really respect that the webmaster is up front and direct. And is willing to say this site is not for everyone. I wish every site was direct about what would be purchasers could expect.
08-05-1605:54pm
*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
