|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Reviewers vs. Collectors |
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 08-24-09 04:14pm - 5599 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Reviewers vs. Collectors Spencer's review of Explicite Art rekindled my interest in the site. (3000x2000 px photos for one, 'til I realized that it's only since the start of this month.) But then another thing caught my eye: a photoset of "Mia," (aka Michaela, etc.) dated April 22nd in the previous updates for this year. But it looked familiar! So I checked by collection, and there it was. Made sure by matching two exact photos from the site's preview with what I had. The "date modified" on my hard drive? Nov. 2007, the last time I'd been a member of the site. I guess you can't blame Spencer for giving the site a 90.5, especially if he's not a collector of Explicite Art content. But I would never give that high a score to a site that recycles content. Anyway, my point must be clear enough by now: Collectors are more likely to catch such things than reviewers are. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. Edited on Aug 24, 2009, 04:19pm | |
|
||
| 08-24-09 04:54pm - 5599 days | #2 | |
|
Spencer (0)
Active User  Posts: 118 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Denver, CO |
That's an interesting discussion that I won't get into right now, but I did want to let you know that I updated my review with the info you posted here. A new "major con" was added, and the score taken down a notch. It may not necessarily matter to a new user to the site, but long-term fans should definitely take note. Thanks for pointing that out! https://www.thebestporn.com/review/expliciteart/ | |
|
||
| 08-24-09 05:54pm - 5599 days | #3 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 11:42am | |
|
||
| 08-24-09 06:49pm - 5599 days | #4 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
There has been quite a few cases of sites repackaging their old content as new content in the last few months to a year. It's all great for newbies but rather annoying for previous members. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 08-24-09 06:56pm - 5599 days | #5 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Well, thanks for being so prompt! That was quick update! And this a first for me. I've never had any direct influence on a review at TBP. And the girl, yes, well, she's something else. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 08-24-09 07:02pm - 5599 days | #6 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
You know what it feels like to read that? Like work! Where I work we have this procedure and that procedure and this problem with this one and that with that one. I need a break, man. Some down time when I not having to worship some fucking process to execute. And it's not about exclusive content. It's about ERC! Exclusive recycled content! Now go do your tax planning for next year. ;) I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 08-24-09 07:06pm - 5599 days | #7 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 11:42am | |
|
||
| 08-25-09 12:25pm - 5598 days | #8 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
You guys can send m your money for a modest fee. I subject my clients to no taxes but I do offer the hassle of a loan office. Or you could have me be your broker. I would smartly invest your money into new hard drives and internet porn, you could watch you money make my collection grow! Best of all I would keep your identity and contribution completely private for as long as you keep your money with me, or until someone offers me more money to rat you out. Isn't rotating content kinda like changing the date on a gallon of milk in the grocery store. Effectively they are tricking people into thinking it is something new. How much of a disappointment is it to find a site has finally updated with your favorite girl just to find they used the same shoot as before? Dirty, dirt, dirty. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 08-25-09 03:59pm - 5598 days | #9 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Or restamping an expired can of Spaghettioes! I get a sick feeling when I see even ONE recycled item, because there may well be more fire from whence came that little plume of smoke. I don't like having to be wary of a site I'm a member of. It's like discovering that you're in a relationship with a devious sort of person. Reminds me of an obscure but great song by the Atomic Rooster, "People You Can't Trust." (Sorry, it's not on YouTube.) And so we return to the generation gap! Heh! I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. Edited on Aug 25, 2009, 04:05pm | |
|
||
| 08-25-09 08:51pm - 5598 days | #10 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
What about when a site 'remasters' old material? This is actually more recycling than simply reposting old content, which is nothing more than reusing. As we have discussed in other threads, particularly ones dealing with video quality, we know that content can only be as technically good as how or what it was originally captured on. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 08-25-09 08:53pm - 5598 days | #11 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Spin that wheel Drooler! Just spin it! ;) "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 08-26-09 02:11am - 5597 days | #12 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
This is an interesting point, even though it's not what the thread's about. (Like, who cares?) Had Explicite Art reposted that set at 3000px, I wouldn't have made a peep -- and the score Spencer gave it would still be 90.5. I like it when sites repost older content when the sizes are larger and the quality doesn't suffer. Sometimes it really does, as you're pointing out. ALS Scan reduxes of really old, really scanned stuff can be pretty dicey. However, other stuff (Lucy Lee, Monique Alexander, etc.) done originally with better equipment looks nice! Digital Desire does quite a lot of enlarging and reposting their stuff, too. Overall, they don't do it nearly as well as ALS Scan in quality terms. Now, I suppose someone will say that it's the same thing as just recycling. To them, it is. To me, it ain't. Go figure. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 08-26-09 03:32pm - 5597 days | #13 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
Remastering is okay so long as the site advertises it as such. If I am to download a 600 MB version of a 200 MB video and it looks 400 MB better I want to know it so that I can go back and get ride of the original. I know, I know, you might say "well badandy400, what the hell do you care with 31 TB and all!?!?" We that is still 200 MB of inferior video and that can add up pretty quick. In fact I actually like the to remaster and if I were a site I would do it when the opportunity arises. It does not cost them much to do it and it is basically free content since it was already shot. If the process yield better quality than by all means do it. The trick is to get the site to understand that remastered content does not count as updates of new content. It is a bonus and should be considered that. Purely recycling content is a rude practice. That is kinda like selling a used car as new, or at least rolling back the odometer. It is lazy and that reflects on my decision to join a site. Spaghettioes is like porn, it should not be messed with. Redating them is a bad as calling 320x240 screen captures high def photo updates! "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 08-26-09 07:07pm - 5597 days | #14 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
If a site remasters their older material and the end result is that the older material is of much greater quality, than that is very commendable. My problem is that I have yet to see one site that did that to their old content all the while still updating regularly with new material. I don't think a site claiming to update with new material when it isn't, should charge the same price as when they were releasing all new content. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
