|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » We want to hear from you - Review Requirements |
| 51-53 of 53 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | Page 2 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 10-30-19 01:00pm - 1880 days | #51 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
^ Freddie - This is a bit late and I realize that I weighed in above. I think it mostly conforms to the current rules anyway. I finally got around to joining Adult Time. I'll write a review as my subscription goes on. I think part of the reason for looking for changes was to give a different weight to reviews of 'sites' on networks like Adult Time. What I didn't fully understand though was how limited some of the sites are on Adult Time. If the rules aren't changing it's no big deal, but I don't think that someone should be allowed to review (for points or not) a site if they've only accessed it on Adult Time. For one thing the site is likely much smaller on AT and the interface will be different. There could be download restrictions or slow speeds on the 'real' site. But... I have a completely different view of most networks. I think I said this above too. Using Kink as an example I think that we should encourage reviews of the individual sites available there. Yes, it's a network but any subscriber who writes a review has access to the full site and can comment on number of videos, site layout, etc. I frequently join networks just to get access to a few sites and I appreciate that people are allowed to review those and do review them. I suspect that this won't be a huge issue though. I don't think there are many networks that amalgamate a bunch of sites but only give 'samples' rather than the full site. The only two I can think of are Adult Time and adding on a 'channel' at Videobox. In both of those examples the subscriber only gets some of the scenes offered on the full site. This is likely hard to police but I can live with that. I'm sure that even though there is a rule that doesn't allow reviews based on trial memberships that there are reviews here based on them. Though I'd prefer a review based on a trial membership of the full site than a review of a full site based on partial availability on a network. Hmmm... that was a bit longer than it needed to be... | |
|
||
| 11-11-19 02:44pm - 1868 days | #52 | |
|
iknowwazzup (0)
Active User  Posts: 132 Registered: Jan 06, '16 Location: United States |
I am late to the game but can I ask a question that I hope will clarify things for me and others? It seems to be that with Joymii, for example, if I accessed it directly after clicking the link here on PU or TBP, I'd know I was on the actual full site, not just a third-party channel. I mentioned checking through TBP because it would alert me if a site was somehow just a clone. Even though that seems to be a different issue than the channel thingy and maybe PU would warn me, too? I just think that even if the rules aren't changing, no one should spend time writing up the wrong version of a site. And I think that maybe these two ways of verifying are an easy way for even a novice to no they're on the right track? | |
|
||
| 11-11-19 05:59pm - 1867 days | #53 | |
|
LKLK (0)
Active User Posts: 1,583 Registered: Jun 26, '19 Location: CA |
It would be nice if the PU staff wrote an explanation of what some of these terms mean, and how they differ from each other. What is a channel? What is a site? Can a channel be called a site? Or vice versa? PU and TBP (The Best Porn) call or list some channels as sites. That's because they would need to re-write or add site code to show the difference. Apparently re-writing or adding site code can be a massive or hazardous task. The same problem with third party channel. The implication by a PU staff member was that third party channels are not as good as "regular" sites. Which can be misleading, I think. LetsDoeIt calls its sites channels. But I don't think those channels exist outside of the LetsDoeIt network. Yet they are called sites at PU and TBP. Adult Time says it has channels. Not sites. Many of these channels can have stand-alone sites, so you can say (though I don't know if this is technically correct) that the Adult Time channels are clones of the original sites. Some PU members, and also the PU staff, have mentioned or complained that some of the Adult Time channels are limited (reduced) versions of the original sites. But even though the PU staff asked for input about reviews and other issues, the PU staff has not responded fully about issues with channels, third party channels (which they should explain what the heck a third party channel is), and other issues. Also, I suggested a while back that as part of the review process, the outline of what a review should contain should be shown in the review form, to remind or tell members what a review should contain. I feel that the PU staff is stretched too thin, and don't have the time to address a lot of issues or suggestions that are brought up in the forums. | |
|
||
| 51-53 of 53 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | Page 2 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
