| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
801
|
Skokoff
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from Denner:
It looks like the webmaster is not happy about most cons in Droolers review. That's easy to understand.
But that the same webmaster expects PUs NOT to make a review before consulting the site - and/or the webmaster - is a little far off.
PUs does reviews of what we see on the sites - the reviews is a place for consumers.
It's fine that webmasters/siteowners react to these review, but they cannot except us to hold back til after a debate about problems/cons.
|
11-23-08 05:39am
|
Reply
802
|
Skokoff
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from True Alex:
(Drooler's Reply)
Well, I don't post the galleries and movies manually. We are improving our scripts to avoid that flaws in the future. I'm sorry, that your impression was kind of ruined by all this glitches.
And yes, I'll post back, when we fix the problems.
|
11-23-08 05:16am
|
Reply
803
|
Skokoff
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from True Alex:
Hello, Drooler and others!
Thanks for the review!
One thing that I don't understand is when you find an error on the site like missing pictures and you don't even try to email me as a support, but you're writing the review here. I don't mind about mentioning my mistakes in the review, but why don't let me know? I don't browse this site too often, thanks that I subscribed to PornUsers' RSS feed.
Well... back to "cons"
-Unruly thumbs: Have been greeted in some galleries, even new ones, with nothing but empty image-tag X’s, not thumb pics. “X” occasionally marks the spot in some other galleries, too.
I'll check every gallery today
-There’s also the “swollen thumb” -- a tiny fraction of the top left of a pic where the thumb should be.
The same as above
-Some clicks for enlargements expand to a full-screen “404” error page.
The same as above
-Wandering watermarks: At least one gallery had the watermark not in the bottom right where it belongs, but in some pics hovering like a drone close to the model, etc.
I will talk to Skokoff about it, would be really appreciate if you send me the links to those galleries
-Oops! I’m a visitor! Some links in the members’ area expose you to the public space. (Click “members” for re-entry with no additional login.)
My mistake, I check again everything
-Slow downloads. 30 min. for a 324MB vid. Started at 175Kbps; eased down to 139. And a 140MB vid clocked at only 105. A photoset crawled its way to me at 70.
Well, this is up to your location and location of the servers, there are no any limitations for downloading set on the servers. We should use content distribution network in the future, like Met-Art does, but we are quite small yet ;-)
-Only 14 videos. Sorry, but this is a photography site, even in motion. Flash-flash! The mood music helps a bit.
There are much more videos prepared already. All HDV, all hot :-)
So, all the cons are technical and will be solved quite soon. Skokoff is not that good in all the computers stuff that is why sometimes you find copyrights not on their place. And I couldn't check every image :-) The site is very very new and we're working on making it better.
Thanks for the review again!
|
11-23-08 04:45am
|
Reply
804
|
Skokoff
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Toadsith:
(Drooler's Reply)
Indeed JPEG artifacts can be a villainous sort, but do not appear to be the perpetrators in this case. Still, the models are quite fetching and the photographer has a well developed style. I will certainly keep an eye on this site. Thanks for the engaging review.
|
11-23-08 02:45am
|
Reply
805
|
Skokoff
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from Toadsith:
How is the full resolution photo quality? I just went through the photo galleries section of their tour and while I like the models and the poses, I was a bit stunned by the lack of image quality in their high resolution examples. The photos had tons of digital noise and it looked like the auto focus might be a bit off. Despite seemingly nice lighting, sets and props, I'm guessing that they are using a rather low end DSLR camera. My Nikon D50 honestly shows less noise in its photos - and it retailed at around $600. Maybe they are using a low-end Canon. Are these examples relevant to their latest work?
|
11-23-08 01:44am
|
Reply
806
|
Stunners
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
from IKnoPorn:
Thanks Drooler for the comment. I just stumbled onto this site, and the first thing I did was look it up here - it's always nice to find another user's review of the site.
Having never joined Babelicious, I may give this one a try - I like vids as much as pix and Stunners looks like the same leased content as Babelicious but much higher quality vids.
Thanks again!
|
11-22-08 08:45pm
|
Reply
807
|
AV Erotica
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from lk2fireone:
(Drooler's Reply)
Drooler, thanks for quick response on the pricing of averotica site.
You must live on the East Coast, or else you are a night owl like me. Lol.
I'm thinking of rejoining Just Teen Site for 1 month.
Haven't been a member of Just Teen Site since early 2006, and they've added a lot of pics since that time. Also gives me a chance to see the vids at Just Teen Movie.
I've read your review of Just Teen Site, and looked over the models.
I still have the photosets of Just Teen Site I downloaded back in early 2006, but the site was small back then, and it's definitely worth a second visit for me.
|
11-22-08 04:37am
|
Reply
808
|
Sleep Creep
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from atrapat:
(Drooler's Reply)
I was sincerely upset with the theme of the site and that's why I ranked it so low. I also happen to like the "belly-down-flat" position but it doesn't appeal to me at all if the models allegedly stay unconscious throughout the scene. I strongly feel they should add some intro or epilogue to justify it. Otherwise, it's just too creepy.
|
11-22-08 04:34am
|
Reply
809
|
AV Erotica
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from lk2fireone:
Drooler, did you get a special price at $24.95 for several months' membership to averotica?
If yes, can anyone else get that price, or a discounted price for averotica?
Current prices for membership at the site are listed as:
Monthly: $29.95
3 months: $49.95
6 months: $99.95
Pornusers shows a 1 year membership at $99.95, but the averotica site itself shows a 6-month membership for $99.95.
|
11-21-08 10:32pm
|
Reply
810
|
DDF Beauties
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from lk2fireone:
Your review score for DDF Beauties is amazing.
I've been having problems coming up with a sensible scoring method for a site. But after examining your mathematical model, I realized you deserve a "Professor of Scoring" badge.
If there is no such badge, Pornusers should give it to you anyway.
|
11-21-08 09:06am
|
Reply
811
|
DDF Beauties
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from Wittyguy:
I have to admit, yours is the most original mathematical scoring system on a review that I've seen so far. Thanks for the heads up on this; I sort of figured it didn't have much new to offer.
|
11-20-08 10:06pm
|
Reply
812
|
ATK Premium
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from messmer:
(Drooler's Reply)
I know it's a stretch but could "Premium" have taken the pictures and corrected the color tone before publishing them? I agree that CRT monitors sometimes give you a better picture but when I look at picture sets of two different photographers one looks great the other looks bluish/pink on the same flat screen monitor. Toby's sets (not all) also look darkish compared to others. When I complained at AO30 the answer was that he uses some sort of screen to soften and tint his sets, while SeanR, at the other extreme slightly over-sharpens HIS sets. And to end on a positive note, I noticed yesterday that Toby's shoot of my favorite model was, for once, just right! Hooray!
|
11-20-08 01:00pm
|
Reply
813
|
ATK Premium
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from messmer:
(Drooler's Reply)
I agree that experimenting with new stuff has its dangers, I certainly would be turned off by food smearing! :-) Do you have sets by Toby at "Premium?" He's the photographer that drove me crazy on the other ATK sites with his bluish/pinkish tinges to just about every set they published. And he's ubiquitous ... I found him everywhere, it seemed. AllOver30 was one of the sites. However, I find some of his latest sets quite acceptable so maybe some of my criticisms got through.
When it comes to formula, Older Women and Aunt Judy were the worst.
|
11-20-08 07:45am
|
Reply
814
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Pinche Kankun:
(Drooler's Reply)
Yeah, I don't like balloons on women at all!!
|
11-19-08 02:30am
|
Reply
815
|
Just Teen Site
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from lk2fireone:
(Drooler's Reply)
Patience is a virtue.
One I've never enjoyed.
Try sitting in a chair waiting in the emergency room for 6-8 hours before you see a doctor.
Maybe I will achieve patience once I get to heaven.
But the older you get, the more you wish it was like the old days. You're right about Met-art and the 404 files.
I didn't think that was funny, until I saw your comment. Now I really understand why they say, "Misery loves company." I'm glad other people are just as frustrated as I am. Lol.
It really was a simple pleasure, looking forward to the Met-art updates, and clicking on the photosets to see how good they were. Served fresh and hot off the server. Now it's better to wait until the next day, to avoid the dreaded 404 file syndrome.
|
11-18-08 11:10am
|
Reply
816
|
Ariel's Blog
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from lk2fireone:
(Drooler's Reply)
Many thanks for the heads up on eurobabeindex.
www.eurobabeindex.com is a great resource. I hate to think of all the effort that some people used to make it. Would warp my mind to try to cover all those web sites checking out their favorite models.
Seriously, that is one great index, with the model's aliases, a nice photo to identify her, and the web sites she appears at.
There's also the linked forum thread for the model, with pics and links.
Could easily spend weeks or months looking through this site.
|
11-18-08 10:39am
|
Reply
817
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#19
from Cybertoad:
(Drooler's Reply)
No Drooler you are not drunk, hmm but I question Pinche' sobriety in posting lol
|
11-18-08 07:47am
|
Reply
818
|
Ariel's Blog
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from lk2fireone:
Nice, informative review.
Just a side note: If you like the model Ariel: Two of the best photosets I saw of her were posted at Met-art and Metmodels.
The Met-art set was posted 2005.01.04, named "Presenting Gabriela", by Magoo.
The Metmodels set was posted 2006.07.22., named "Fresh", by Magoo.
Ariel was named Gabriela at both Met-art and at Metmodels at that time.
She currently goes under the name of Ariel A. at Met-art.
I don't like the way Magoo colorizes his pictures. I like more lifelike, realistic color tones on the model.
But Ariel really looks like a yummy young girl-next-door in these two photosets, especially the Metmodel photoset. Like you said in the review, the expressions on a girl's face can change a photo from boring to interesting/attractive or vice versa.
She's a sweet, sweet girl, I'd really like to bite into (In my dreams).
More recent photosets of Ariel at either Met-art or Metmodels do not compare to the earliest sets. Glaring hair color, excessive makeup, whatever, she is just not presented as attractively as before. Is there some technical reason why a girl with red hair is more difficult to photograph so that her hair does not look like a dye-job?
|
11-16-08 09:06am
|
Reply
819
|
Hegre Art
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from hondaman:
I agree with your Bottomline 1st paragragh. It is nice to have some places that dont use the "hardcore" forumla. Well said.
|
11-15-08 10:39pm
|
Reply
820
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#17
from Monahan:
(Drooler's Reply)
Schumer's reaction to limitations of free speech, whether they are applied to porn or to radio, are echoed by many, many others in Congress including Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Henry Waxman, all from my state of California. There has been no, repeat, NO disavowals by anyone on the Left of the intentions to establish limitations on free speech and the comment by UpChuck Schumer was not a careless or casual remark. It was totally consistent with all other public statements made by US Liberals.
With the Liberals in power, the UK has already made major moves that are preludes to what we'll be seeing now that we have a Liberal administration and a very Liberal Congress.
Refer to the discussions in the PU Forum Free Speech and Porn and Big Brother Comes Knocking in the UK for more on where we are heading.
I'd sure like to be wrong but I've seen absolutely no indication anywhere that I am.
|
11-09-08 09:41pm
|
Reply
821
|
DDF Beauties
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Denner:
(Drooler's Reply)
Well, it's always easy with hindsight (is that the right word?).
Anyway I think that could be my case here - like some kind of thought that exactly DDF's new sites are a matter of known content.
I've run through every new thing they come up with - trying to scan the content - which sometimes are NOT that easy. But when succeding, yes: I've seen that, and that and that before....
Sure, you could have left them alone, but then again they are good at promoting new sites and wet your appetite.
But as you state: They must realize, that they'll get called on it...
|
11-08-08 06:55am
|
Reply
822
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#27
from Pinche Kankun:
(Drooler's Reply)
Editing... That'z anotha subject! U see Pussy getting thrusted and the guy is reaching inevitability... Next thing U know... The cum is already on the face!!! Okay, so when did the pussy started feeling so good that it made him have to pull out?!!
|
11-08-08 02:45am
|
Reply
823
|
DDF Beauties
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from Denner:
Another fine review from Drooler - and somewhat of a good "warning".
It's maybe not strange that DDF keeps comming up with new niche sites - they are also in it for the money.
But for the sake of the users I think they are a bit too smart. Every new site I've seen from DDF has content where an overwhelming amount is taken from other sites and, yes as Drooler points out: If you have been a member of the motherload: 1byday, you have seen most of it before.
I'll suggest that users who are not familiar with the DDF productions start up with 1byday.
|
11-08-08 02:28am
|
Reply
824
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#22
from Pinche Kankun:
(Drooler's Reply)
Yo Drool Man, Wutz up! Howz it goin'? Life iz quite good 4 now. :D
I just wanted 2 comment on Da stabbing thing. Have U ever had some pussy so good that U couldn't stay in it too long? :D Well Pussy like that, if your intentions are to make that Pussy orgasm, you are gonna stab it... Cuz repeated thrusting of this good Pussy will fucking set off your fireworks!! :D
|
11-08-08 02:02am
|
Reply
825
|
MetArt
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Mr Fountain:
(Drooler's Reply)
I joined a few days ago after a four month absence and was really happy with how beautifull the sets are shot..just some of the most stunning and beautiful models and beautifully photographed sets i've seen...lots of the recent sets beginning clothed and ending with plenty of nude pics.also beutiful locals and richly decorated sets.. I may look into Met model or their other sister sites errotica archives as well.. there are bargains if you join under multi memberships..and join multi sites at once..but wow my breath was really taken by all those beautiful models and sets..I was online for three hours the first night..Ive been a member on and off before for about three years.. but I am glad with what they are now..Met art is a really potent site.. I'm just going through almost every pic of all the new sets...though the old ones are great too..they hsve captured me and I will rebill this time even though I like to change to try new sites each month..
|
11-06-08 03:46pm
|
