Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
426
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#15
from exotics4me:
(pat362's Reply)
Hey Pat, I'll probably give it a try since I too like Jo and especially if it has new Eve Angel content. The webmaster seems pretty genuine in what he's saying. The reviewers seem like nearly all other fly by night reviewers, looking for or getting a discount.
I did think that was funny about the November 2013 updates. Someone defended it somewhere on one of these as a "typo". Looking at my keyboard, I don't see how Nov could be a typo from May, maybe on the first letter since those are right beside each other, but the a-o keys are on separate sides. The future date bothered me mainly because Eveangel.com used a similar method when Eve left their site. They just mass removed the sets from 2004 and listed them as 2007 (which was the current year at the time). Maybe Khan at least gets a chuckle out of all this mess!
|
06-02-13 11:58pm
|
Reply
427
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from messmer:
(pat362's Reply)
I agree about the last review, Pat!
|
06-02-13 10:10pm
|
Reply
428
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from messmer:
(pat362's Reply)
Oops, you know I had no idea that I did a review, Pat. I thought it was a comment. Must go back to see what I wrote at the time! :-) In any case, I agree, when I saw all those very short reviews with high marks .. for ONE site ... my suspicion meter went way up as well. I'm just saying that fans of a site, in their enthusiasm for it, may write a very inadequate review at the suggestion of a web master without being shills. Just sincerely in love with it.
|
06-02-13 12:28pm
|
Reply
429
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#9
from thaavi:
(pat362's Reply)
If you want facts and data that btw DO NOT TELL ANYTHING about how unique and special this or any other site is, you can always read the major review, over there are all the facts. People in their reviews were trying to from their heart and mind describe nicely what is the main attitude and what REALLY is going on there. But this is something some people are I dunno why very suspicious about and missing the whole point...
And btw. number of facts doesnīt mean the review is good.
Ok, just my opinion
Regards.
|
06-01-13 05:38pm
|
Reply
430
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from thaavi:
(pat362's Reply)
Excuse me, Can you please describe me what you consider as relevant data???
Iīm sorry that you havenīt met women in their 30īs that still has the next door girl look.
And btw. she is 31:)
No big deal, no offense:)
|
06-01-13 05:29pm
|
Reply
431
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from thaavi:
(pat362's Reply)
Hahaha, funny, when someone tries to sincerely describe his feelings about the site and open his heart, people start to telling him, damn, it looks weird and not believable:)
|
06-01-13 05:23pm
|
Reply
432
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from thaavi:
(pat362's Reply)
"there is nothing in them to excite a possible fan in joining." Are you sure you have read the reviews?:) BTW. you can see some snippets from IDOJ on tube sites and you will see with your own eyes.
|
06-01-13 04:56pm
|
Reply
433
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from RagingBuddhist:
(pat362's Reply)
In my mind, one of two things is happening. Either the mistress is sending people here (which HAS happened in the past) or some members are talking amongst themselves and are telling people to come here to rave about the site. In either case, it doesn't help the site's standing here in the world of reviews.
|
06-01-13 10:56am
|
Reply
434
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from Elmien:
(pat362's Reply)
You know what if you take up every thing literally you will never be satisfied with anything. What I meant by the "girl next door" look is that she is down to earth, and very humble person.
For the nervous people that can't decide to join....
1. I can assure you there is a weekly update on this site.
2. It original and very artistic porn
3. The models that is used in this site is of the best.
4. Passion and sensuality
5. Photos and videos are of high quality.
|
05-31-13 11:49pm
|
Reply
435
|
Teen Fidelity
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
from marcdc1:
Hi Pat,
Would the gentleman yield for a question?
If the site is "near perfect..." why not give it the perfect 100. You're not like my 7th grade English teacher are you? She would never award an A+ because something could always be better, in which case a 96 (A) is actually a 100.
In a nut shell, Why not give them what they deserve? (perhaps my question is better asked on the sister site porn fidelity, where you awarded a well deserved 98)
|
05-31-13 05:57pm
|
Reply
436
|
I Dream Of Jo
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Marcus:
(pat362's Reply)
I agree. When a lot of biased (even if well-meaning) reviews flood a website profile page here on PU, it does nothing to encourage me to join.
|
05-31-13 09:59am
|
Reply
437
|
Girls For Old Men
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from mbaya:
(pat362's Reply)
I did not know, thanks. My problem with the site was much worse than the updates or lack of them.
|
05-29-13 06:20pm
|
Reply
438
|
Teen Fidelity
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from rearadmiral:
(pat362's Reply)
Good point, especially with a site that produces exclusive material. I'll skip the trial and with a full membership I should be able to get everything I want even with a 10GB daily limit.
|
05-29-13 02:32pm
|
Reply
439
|
Teen Fidelity
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
from rearadmiral:
Holy crap! Exclusive HD scenes with stars like Chastity Lynn, Trinity St Claire, Sierra Day and Riley Reid! And a three-day trial too? Count me in! Thanks for reviewing this site. I'm adding it to my favourites for a join in the near future.
One question though - the TBP page says that there may be a 10GB daily limit. Are you able to confirm that?
|
05-28-13 05:17pm
|
Reply
440
|
Wicked.com
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from rearadmiral:
(pat362's Reply)
Thanks for the info.
|
05-28-13 04:55pm
|
Reply
441
|
Plumper Pass
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from fiou:
(pat362's Reply)
Downloads are still slow.
|
05-24-13 07:49am
|
Reply
442
|
Teen Mega World
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
from Tree Rodent:
Good review pat. I was going to join this network a few weeks ago but found they are now trying to trick customers with pre checked cross selling. That's a shame because it does look better than when I was last here.
|
05-21-13 06:37am
|
Reply
443
|
Teen Mega World
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
from lk2fireone:
Glad you found some of the new content to your liking.
I always thought the selection of models was very good.
The videos are normally good quality. Not as fine as what's shown at X-Art or Diesel Access, but still good quality.
Some of the videos ar Diesel are also at Teen Mega World, but the Diesel site offers those videos in higher definition, and I think the colors and lighting of those duplicated videos is slightly better at Diesel.
I don't know how that works. I assume that Teen Mega World and Diesel both bought a license for those videos, and the Diesel sites are set up to offer the videos in a wider choice of definitions than the Teen Mega World sites.
What is the site that licenses those videos? Is it still in business?
I always thought that the price to license those videos/photosets was surprisingly low.
Because those models were generally extremely attractive. And the videos and photosets were professionally shot.
|
05-21-13 02:30am
|
Reply
444
|
Mom POV
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Roger Siskel:
(pat362's Reply)
OK. I can get by without mentioning the tubes if that's considering a no-no around here. However, the mompov guy is putting free samples on the tubes to drive people to his site. I wasn't recommending torrenting or using illegal sites. Tubes help guys like this survive. This is what led me to become a customer of his site in the first place. So I don't think it's as simple as you are indicating. Feel free to educate me though as you may know more about such things.
|
05-20-13 09:49pm
|
Reply
445
|
Porn Fidelity
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
from Cybertoad:
I was member years ago in their infancy seem they are much better. The plastic would be a turn of for me. Very picky what models with plastic I will enjoy.
|
05-20-13 06:10am
|
Reply
446
|
Porn Fidelity
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from marcdc1:
(pat362's Reply)
With PU offering $20/month I'll just go for a month and see what I like. (from the looks of it I'll stick around for more than a month; they look top notch).
And I'm not offering empty praise. You have some of the best reviews, if you like it I'm sure I'll be more than satisfied.
|
05-17-13 05:38pm
|
Reply
447
|
Porn Fidelity
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
from marcdc1:
Wow Pat, great review.
Seeing your rate a site a 98 is high praise indeed. Thanks for a great review.
I've passed by PF a couple of time but never saw anything stand out, I'm glad you did.
Looking over the site after your review reveals it to be a true gem, and with a PU discount a bargain.
I was really impressed with the production value. Lots of places have hot sex, but there is a lot of creativity on display in the preview section - looks really enjoyable.
I think my next purchase is going to be the dreamnet sites, but Kelly looks like she'll be getting some of my money after I finish up that project.
Thanks for a great find. As always, I highly value your advice.
|
05-16-13 05:28am
|
Reply
448
|
Teen Core Club
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Tree Rodent:
(pat362's Reply)
Yeah I pretty much agree with that, Pat. For me the material is as good as any I have seen. Amazing models and photography, but negatives so bad they shot themselves in the foot.
I am probably one of the few who would be willing to fork out more than a $50 join fee, providing the material is top rate. I am one who thinks porn is too cheap, ridiculously cheap.
The strange thing is, although they have no customer service and don't seem to care less about the site being customer friendly, they don't try to trick you with cross sales, or any other dirty tricks for that matter.
I think I will go out on a limb and say the material is the best porn I have seen (although admittedly that is very subjective). Okay I'll say it's my favourite material, because what is the best porn is just opinion.
I'm not sure whether to feel sad at the demise of a site that produced such quality, or pleased because management is clearly such a bunch of total assholes.
|
05-15-13 09:25pm
|
Reply
449
|
Oldje
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
from Cherry:
On my boyfriend birthday I've made him membership as a gift. :)
I had to choose from so many sites... I've made a huge research... and was hard to decide what I really want... So many sites! Sites with old men but ugly girls that were a disgrace... I wanted something more sophisticated and romantic... Some site have gougers girls but no old men, fake horny and hardcore, no intercourse... or just girls masturbating... many but not for what I was interested in.
Anyway, found some that looked great, some sell on about 30 euros so many sites... I said WOW... but when I looked closer I realized were small poor sites that in total did not had over 500 movies as they have and had diversity the did not interested me at all... also did not had diversity as they have on this new group they sale now... just blowjob, 3 some and oldje...old guys and very old which are also very funny. the nude art pictures amazed me that the girls in fact are no so over Photoshopped .. looks natural and is what I like about...and my boyfriend is a fan of natural.
Anyway I think it's a matter of taste ... a fake BIG mac would not satisfy me... and this is the price... for not so much cheaper you don't really find something great!
[addded by PU Admin] FOR THE RECORD: This reply was made under the guise of a user. The account was switched to WM when it was discovered that the person was actually associated with the site.
|
05-10-13 05:05am
|
Reply
450
|
Nicole Peters
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Monahan:
(pat362's Reply)
I agree. I probably gave too much weight to the nice titty action by Nicole which was, in turn, nicely recorded by the cameraman.
I've given 50's to totally worthless sites like Angelica Costello's site (aka Venus) and one of Jana Foxy's lousy sites.
On reflection, this site is probably worth a 60 overall, not 69.
|
05-06-13 10:42pm
|