Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
  
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » Quantity vs. Quality
1-16 of 16 Posts Page 1
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

03-24-09  08:29pm - 5714 days Original Post - #1
GCode (0)
Active User



Posts: 386
Registered: Feb 23, '09
Location: USA
Quantity vs. Quality

Yo,
I'm sure this has been brought up before but after posting a comment I supposed this might be a better discussion for the forum. So I bring up the question, what is better on a site, quality of content and models or the quantity?

Personally, I think when a site brings in the factor of needing to do constant updates (in the daily range) it can really hurt the site. However, I suppose this would affect niches that are a bit more specialized. For example, a site like Met Art, which updates daily always has great models but seriously, how hard is it to find attractive models to do posing that is the softest of softest. I suppose I'm just wondering if people would rather see weekly updates with quality models and great content rather than a quick pose or something of that nature for a unattractive model or the same ol' just so they can get a quick update in?

-GCode Sexted From My iPad

03-24-09  08:55pm - 5714 days #2
Toadsith (0)
Active User



Posts: 936
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: USA
Quality.

I've often signed up to a site due entirely to the exclusivity of its content. Huge networks often become tiresome to me. Sure you never run out of content, but you never quite find what you are looking for either. Due to the sheer quantity of enormous network sites available these days, I'm a serious stickler for properly good search engines. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"

Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo

03-24-09  11:35pm - 5713 days #3
turboshaft (0)
Active User

Posts: 1,958
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Quality

Someone once said -- and I think it was Stalin -- that quantity has a quality of its own. I am pretty sure he was talking about World War II and not porn, but he had a point.

In porn, quantity can be a great deal, offer lots of choice, and sometimes even cater to more than just one twisted taste or fantasy. Unfortunately, I am too often underwhelmed by the quality of a site's quantity; a lack of good variety, too much repetitiveness and formula, unattractive and unhappy girls, poorly captured content, etc.

You mentioned Met Art, who, unless I am mistaken (current/former members please correct me if I am), archive their content, and therefore really seem to offer quite a deal on quantity. But personally I would not want to look at hundreds of models in softcore only, so I would consider their quantity a bad thing.

A better example might be VideoBox: low price, with thousands of videos from which to choose, and quite a few niches too, but nothing that ever really stands out. Some of my favorite studios are not offered there, plus it is almost entirely American, and a lot of the content felt just repetitive and even cliche. To me they are kind of like a big chain bookstore that only offers recently published mainstream books at great prices; yeah, there is some good deals, but most of it comes off as bland and homogeneous.

That being said, there is a minimum level of quantity that can make or break a site. What that level is varies greatly from person to person, and even from niche to niche, especially with some of the crazier, far-from-mainstream stuff now available. I think there are those that are willing to forgive a site's relatively small size (much like a loved one would ;) ) if it makes up for it, and even surpasses it, in the quality department. "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 Edited on Mar 24, 2009, 11:39pm

03-25-09  01:57am - 5713 days #4
lietuvagirls (0)
Suspended Webmaster




Posts: 10
Registered: Mar 20, '09
Location: Ryga Latvia
in our site lietuvagirls.com we update daily, because our content includes all amateur girls and there is no prof porn models, so it's easy to find girls to shoot a lot of photo sets, because there are no big requirements exept one - be NATURAL. For sites with professional model I think it it difficult to find profs everyday... Real and natural Eastern Europe girls http://www.lietuvagirls.com Edited by Staff on Mar 25, 2009, 05:00am (Khan: corrected link)

03-25-09  02:06am - 5713 days #5
Drooler (0)
Disabled User



Posts: 1,831
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
"Quantity vs. quality" is a false dichotomy. It's analogous to "body or face?" Or to put it another way: Being half-assed as bad no matter which cheek you're left with.

Human beings are natural-born categorizers, so there's no denying that it is natural for people to think in these terms. But I think that bifurcating them into an "either/or" choice imposes a mutual exclusivity between the two that cannot possibly function to anyone's satisfaction.

More satisfaction can be had by thinking about how much of each together is acceptable. For sites that do well with photos, I'd say that MetArt is a good example. For hardcore vids, these days NewSensations might do. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. Edited on Mar 25, 2009, 02:13am

03-25-09  05:52am - 5713 days #6
lk2fireone (0)
Active User



Posts: 3,618
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I think quality and quantity are useful distinctions in rating a site.
-How much do you like what is on the site?
-How much of what you like/dislike is on the site?

If there is a ton of mediocre material, the site does not have a lot of appeal, in spite of the huge quantity.

If there is very little material (pix or videos) that is highly appealing or erotic, then the quality of the site, for you, means the site has very little value, and is not worth joining.

You need both quality and quantity to rate how much value the site has for you as a user/buyer of the site membership.

Price is also a factor in whether you think the site is worth joining. Even tho PU/TBP does not factor price into site score, anyone who joins a site does consider the price to join. Even if the site is free (PU/TBP only rates pay sites), once you joined a free site, you would still go to that site only if you thought it was worth your time. You find a site that is basically worthless for your tastes, or takes too long to find anything worthwhile, you won't spend much time at that site.

Met-art offers a huge amount of high quality softcore glamor pix, and a huge number of models (European teens to early twenties) that are extremely attractive. Not every model will appeal to everyone, but if you are into European teens, you won't find a site that offers as much softcore high-quality pix.

Quality and quality are useful distinctions.

Also, for some people, face and body are useful distinctions. The face might be appealing, the body might be appealing, or both might be appealing. To put it simply, some girls/women have a gorgeous face, and some girls/women have a gorgeous body (depending on personal taste).

As for me, I think there are a ton of great-looking girls on Met-art. It has as many or more good-looking girls than any other porn site that I've seen, along with a huge amount of their pix.

Actually, thinking about the face and body distinction: There are some she-males with great-looking faces. And they can have great-looking breasts. But when I try to evaluate the lower part of their body, my mind stalls. As a supposed straight, am I allowed to think that part is attractive?

Has associating with PU has turned me into a pervert? Should I follow those other courageous souls who have disabled their membership? Or is my daily PU fix more important? Edited on Mar 25, 2009, 07:13am

03-25-09  12:03pm - 5713 days #7
GCode (0)
Active User



Posts: 386
Registered: Feb 23, '09
Location: USA
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


You mentioned Met Art, who, unless I am mistaken (current/former members please correct me if I am), archive their content, and therefore really seem to offer quite a deal on quantity. But personally I would not want to look at hundreds of models in softcore only, so I would consider their quantity a bad thing.


I think I may have worded my post title a bit wrong and my mention of met art got a little disjointed. I love the responses so far and I have to agree with most. I suppose my post stems from how smaller niched sites (such as TRUE mature, trannys, pissing, so on) seem to be obligated in to having quick updates because that's what the people want. However, I think this destroys the overall sites quality because their rush for quantity (quick updates) resulted in lower quality of content (mostly models) because those niches are harder to fill in. Therefore, my mention of met art was to show that a site of that nature is easier to update with quality because it is just softcore posing. Sexted From My iPad

03-25-09  01:06pm - 5713 days #8
GCode (0)
Active User



Posts: 386
Registered: Feb 23, '09
Location: USA
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


Also, for some people, face and body are useful distinctions. The face might be appealing, the body might be appealing, or both might be appealing. To put it simply, some girls/women have a gorgeous face, and some girls/women have a gorgeous body (depending on personal taste).

Actually, thinking about the face and body distinction: There are some she-males with great-looking faces. And t-art. It has as many or more good-looking girls than any other porn site ththey can have great-looking breasts. But when I try to evaluate the lower part of their body, my mind stalls. As a supposed straight, am I allowed to think that part is attractive?


Yo,
I understand the difference in opinion to attractiveness in a model based on person preference. However, most can agree by looking at a model and go, yes, she's attractive, but not my type. Therefore, I think the majority of people can at least say, "that's not an attractive model nor my type". Maybe I'm wrong, some models I suppose can be open to debate but I'm sure most would agree upon a certain trait that's quality. As for the post, it was stemming mostly from allover30, which updates almost daily and attempts to get all natural women who are actually over 30 (which I give kudos for, believe me). However, it just seems amongst the attractive models, there are a lot of genuinely unattractive (to elaborate, these women were prolly not even attractive in their early years, let alone now). I just think that their duty to update quickly to appease the crowd who wants this has forced them to accept any models. On top of that, the niche and staying true probably does not help at all either.

I really do not want to get in to the whole she-male thing and attractiveness because I still don't understand it fully myself. I just don't think you are homosexual to find them attractive. Explainable at this point? I cannot say.

-GCode Sexted From My iPad

03-25-09  01:11pm - 5713 days #9
Wittyguy (0)
Active User



Posts: 1,138
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 02:51pm

03-25-09  06:08pm - 5713 days #10
PinkPanther (0)
Active User



Posts: 1,136
Registered: Jan 08, '07
Location: Oakland, CA
Would Stalin prefer Evil Angel or Wicked? Inquiring minds want to know!

As to the quantity/quality thing, a lot of crap is crap.

A lot of good stuff is good.

Some sites that I like a lot (Phil Flash's sites) piss me off because their update schedule sucks beans and I'm rather fed up with that crap - and now since all of the models that I liked the most are gone or are doing their cam shows elsewhere, there's less keeping me there.

Sites that don't have things as special as live events, such as cam shows, had better be offering a good update schedule and exciting updates - or I'll be gone baby gone.

03-25-09  06:22pm - 5713 days #11
pat362 (0)
Active User



Posts: 3,575
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by PinkPanther:


Would Stalin prefer Evil Angel or Wicked? Inquiring minds want to know!

As to the quantity/quality thing, a lot of crap is crap.

A lot of good stuff is good.




It's obvious that Stalin would pick Evil Angel because they have more red in their banner.

I can't add anything since your 2 senyences have resumed pretty much what I think. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-25-09  11:22pm - 5712 days #12
badandy400 (0)
Active User



Posts: 869
Registered: Mar 02, '08
Location: ohio
I like this topic. The answer is simple. You need both.

It does not matter if a site is 8000 TB in size if everything is junk. Nor does it matter if a site has amazing material if they only have 2 videos that are 5 minutes long and perfect photos when they only have 4 of them.

The point is there needs to be enough quality content to keep people interested. WittyGuy has already drived this point. Folks like Brazzers while they have decent content and a ton of it lack quality. I believe this hurts an otherwise potentially perfect site. Well near perfect in my eyes anyway. But at this point they keep trying to use the same technology that they were using years ago, I will leave it at that since we have a different thread which covers that.

Stalin would have went with Evil Angel. There is just something about the name that fits him. "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

03-26-09  03:56am - 5712 days #13
Drooler (0)
Disabled User



Posts: 1,831
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by badandy400:


Stalin would have went with Evil Angel. There is just something about the name that fits him.


I'm enjoying this "Stalin thread" in your replies in the forums. It's a tad, mmmm, revisionist but that's of course part of the fun!

Hey, my current tag line, "Twenty Olga's and counting ..." that could have been Stalin's! I wanted something new, so I left England for New England.

03-26-09  12:18pm - 5712 days #14
Wittyguy (0)
Active User



Posts: 1,138
Registered: Feb 04, '08
Location: Left Coast, USA
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 02:51pm

03-26-09  12:41pm - 5712 days #15
redtube (0)
Active User

Posts: 1
Registered: Mar 26, '09
good one http://www.redtube.eu

03-26-09  04:43pm - 5712 days #16
Drooler (0)
Disabled User



Posts: 1,831
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by Wittyguy:


On it's face, it seems that Stalin would be all over "Redteen". It was a cool site in it's day and disappeared only to re-emerge recently as just another overpriced piece of junk that hasn't caused me to rejoin. However, Stalin wasn't actually Russian (he was born a Georgian ... not the US State) and he seemed to really get off on paranoia, torture and gulags so I'm thinking some type of sado-slave site would be more to his tastes. His PU tag line would read sort of like a McDonald's sign "20 million citizens killed and counting". Definitely not someone you'd want to flame on.


Or: "Over 20 Million Citizens Missing!" I wanted something new, so I left England for New England.

1-16 of 16 Posts Page 1
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Cookies - DMCA - 2257 - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

All Rights Reserved © 2003-2024 PornUsers.com.


Loaded in 0.02 seconds.