Incoming Feedback |
All feedback to this webmaster's managed sites. |
Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Comment
51
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
07-16-13 11:44pm
Replies (2)
|
Comment
52
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
07-10-13 02:32am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
53
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
07-02-13 08:00pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
54
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
06-18-13 07:24pm
Replies (3)
|
Comment
55
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
06-15-13 08:12am
Replies (8)
|
Comment
56
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
06-08-13 12:47pm
Replies (1)
|
Comment
57
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
06-08-13 06:02am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
58
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
05-30-13 05:53pm
Replies (1)
|
Comment
59
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
04-17-13 01:34am
Replies (1)
|
Comment
60
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
04-09-13 08:26pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
61
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
04-01-13 04:38am
Replies (2)
|
Comment
62
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
03-31-13 10:14pm
Replies (3)
|
Comment
63
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
03-20-13 01:35am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
64
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
03-01-13 04:23am
Replies (1)
|
Review
65
|
MetArt
(0)
99.0
|
Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
Pros: |
-The finest softcore teen glamor site on the Internet.
-A huge amount of photosets, number of individual models, number of contributing photographers.
-Easy login.
-Long time before site timeout.
-No DRM.
-No download limits.
-I use DownThemAll download manager, which works at this site.
-Fast download speeds. I normally get 1.3 MB/sec, which is my maximum download speed.
-CCBill billing agent, which is one of the best credit card processors around.
-Search engine to allow you to search for models or photosets or photographers that you might like.
-Wide range of locations for the videos and photosets. In studios or houses, in fields, forests, at lakes or oceans or beach, they pose their lovely models to best advantage to show off these beauties. |
Cons: |
-The cons are basically minor. This is without a doubt the finest softcore teen glamor site on the Internet.
-The sheer size of the site (number of photosets, number of models, number of videos) appears to turn some people off. Instead of appreciating the massive amount of content, many people seem to
think the site has too many photosets to go through, and that, because there are so many gorgeous gils, that the models themselves are not as attractive as they really are.
-Metart has a patent on filming gorgeous naked teens and making the videos boring and a waste of time to watch. This is something I've wondered about for years: It's just a wasted opportunity of attractive models.
-The site will disappoint those looking for midcore or hardcore action. This is strictly a softcore site. No boys are in any photosets. If there are two girls in a photoset or video, their interaction is extremely softcore. No masturbation or fondling of the other girl. |
Bottom Line: |
As I've stated many time in the past, this is the finest softcore teen glamor site on the Internet.
There is an amazing amount of content. The site updates with 4 to 6 updates daily, which is just amazing for a single site.
Site statistics:
Number of photosets: 12,534
Number of videos: 1,045 Movies
Number of models: 2,766 Models
Number of contributing photographers: 250
Number of photos: 1,365,839
Those are staggering numbers, that blow past any softcore teen glamor site that I'm aware of.
Metart is the giant in the field, not just in terms of quantity, but also quality. Since it's start back in the late 1990s, Metart has featured high-quality teen softcore photography from leading photographers around the world.
The photosets are offered in three sizes for both online viewing and for download:
Low definition, medium definition, high definition.
The videos can be streamed or downloaded in three definitions as well: low, medium and high.
Metart was the site I picked for my first review for PU in 2008. At that time I gave the site a score of 97. That turned out to be the highest score I've ever given to any site. Since that time, the site has only increased the number of models and photosets and photographers. I think the review I did about 4 years ago is still basically accurate today.
One difference is that the Metart live shows/live chat have changed. Metart used to offer an in-
house live chat that featured a number of girls that were live each day for a number of hours
daily. The public shows were basically free. True, you could pay for a private show, or you could tip a girl during her public show. But it was basically a free source of entertainment, and the girls were friendly, and the shows were not designed to maximize the amount of money the members would pay to watch the show. That seems almost quaint today. Most live shows I've seen recently try to get the members to pay to watch the girls perform.
Metart no longer has the in-house live chat shows. Instead, they offer a link to a commercial live chat program designed to make money off the members. I believe it's cheaper to go to a topless bar than to watch a private live cam show.
Lately, the site seems to have loosened their rules, and allow two girls to kiss in a photoset or video, but the kisses are almost chaste. The sample video in the preview pages gives a false impression the site has erotic videos. It's true the videos inside are of naked girls, and many of the models are attractive. But I can't emphasize enough how boring these videos are.
I complain about the boring videos. But because of the massive photoset content, the high quality of the photos, the number of photographers that contribute to this site, the site deserves its reputation as best in breed of teen softcore glamor sites. I gave the site a score of 97 about 4 years ago, and the site has only improved since then, adding more content, trying to make using the site easier to use over time, changing the default filenaming system to make the filenames more descriptive, and in other ways they try to make the site more user-friendly.
I am giving the site a score of 99.
How could they improve this site, to give it a perfect 100?
That would be a fantasy project:
1. They could delete almost all their
videos, and hire whoever shoots the videos at X-Art or the Diesel Access network. But that would mean a change in the Met-art philosophy, which stresses softcore porn.
2. They could send their models over to my house, where I could tell if their models are really as attracive as they look. At my age (I'm in my 60s), I couldn't do that much with these girls, but it sure would be nice to try. But that might be illegal. So maybe they could hire me as a stunt cock. Again, that would mean a change in their softcore approach. But maybe they could start a "Metart meets an aging fan reality show", because reality shows are very popular today.
Unfortunately, that's only in my dreams.
For $20/month with a PU discount, this site is a fantastic bargain. Or $99/year, which is an even better deal if you join the site for a month and believe the site is worth a long term membership. I think the site is like a museum of Most Erotic Teens, which I believe is the former name of the site, from which they changed it to MET-Art. For a softcore teen site, this is truly the best in show. |
|
02-14-13 07:54am
Replies (10)
|
Comment
66
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
01-30-13 07:20am
Replies (2)
|
Comment
67
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
01-10-13 09:32am
Replies (5)
|
Review
68
|
MetArt
(0)
88.0
|
Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
Pros: |
Met-Art has a huge number of very attractive models (2700+). A new user could easily spend months going through the entire site. They usually have 4 to 6 updates a day. Excellent photography overall. This is primarily a photo site. They have videos, but they are very soft core. It is also primarily a solo girl site--the occasional "lesbian" sets are really just 2 girls posing together. Another thing worth noting (not necessarily a "pro") is that their Met Live Cams is just their name branded version of Streamate. I don't think there is any advantage to accessing it through their website, and I've only seen one Met-Art model there (Malena Morgan). The main attraction here is the huge volume of quality photos of beautiful naked women. |
Cons: |
The videos are way too soft core for my taste. They are really just an extension of the photo sets. There is no masturbation and not enough explicitness in the videos for me. The site seems to have a rule against the models touching themselves, so there is no pussy spreading here. Too many models don't do explicit pussy photos. The 2-girl photo sets are not lesbian photo sets--they are pretend lesbian photo sets. There is rarely any actual kissing, and no pussy play etc. I guess the site has a rule against actual sex. I know thats their niche, but it does get annoying sometimes. Many other sites have shown that it can be done tastefully. Some of the photo sets do suffer from less than top quality lighting (this seems to be an issue with some of the European photogs). A lot of the sets have too many redundant photos--by that I mean photos that are nearly identical. This makes many of the sets unnecessarily large. Some user submitted search tags do not seem to work at all. |
Bottom Line: |
Probably the best soft-core porn site out there, with a huge number of very attractive girls, quality photography, and lots of daily updates.
One month is nowhere near enough time to explore all of the content. In fact, narrowing down the 2700+ models to find the ones you like is the most problematical aspect of Met-Art. Their search engine uses 9 standard tags (e.g. hair color, breast size, etc), and this is useful to a degree. They also have user submitted search tags which potentially could be much more useful. For example, you can search using the term "beach". However, many of the user submitted search tags do not return all sets that have that tag. One example is the term "perfect pussy". Its in the 100 most popular user submitted tags, but when you enter it, only 15 sets are found, all of which have the word "perfect" in the name of the set. It would be very useful if they could get that fixed. Bottom line though, this a must join site, even if you only try it for a month.
Update: I contacted Met-Art support about the user submitted search tags not working. The next day I got an email back from them, stating that they had corrected the problem (I checked, and they did), and as a way of thanking me for alerting them to the problem, they gave me a free two week trial to one of their other sites! Sweet! |
|
12-18-12 01:42am
Replies (3)
|
Comment
69
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
11-14-12 05:02am
Replies (4)
|
Comment
70
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
11-05-12 08:40am
Replies (4)
|
Comment
71
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
10-22-12 01:20am
Replies (7)
|
Comment
72
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
10-18-12 12:09pm
Replies (6)
|
Comment
73
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
10-11-12 06:01am
Replies (7)
|
Review
74
|
MetArt
(0)
55.0
|
Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
Pros: |
Obviously a very professionally run site. Nothing to complain about the nuts and bolts |
Cons: |
One man's meat is another man's poison. This is undoubtedly true but all men know a beautiful woman when they see one and they are going to see very few of them on this website. I have never seen so many average-looking females thrown together. Most are plain, many are almost ugly and – what is worse – few are genuinely sexy. The whole set-up is more reminiscent of nudism in the 1960s than modern erotica or porn. It beats me why anyone should want to see these plain janes without their clothes on. |
Bottom Line: |
The models are neither beautiful nor sexy. Many look so incredibly softcore that it is doubtful that they would know what to do with a penis if they ever came across one. |
|
10-06-12 10:10am
Replies (5)
|
Comment
75
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
10-03-12 03:30am
Replies (3)
|
|