|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Ranking the ease or difficulty of content downloading |
| 1-4 of 4 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 08-31-08 09:45am - 5957 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
squirrel (0)
Active User Posts: 17 Registered: Jul 15, '08 Location: US |
Ranking the ease or difficulty of content downloading I've seen the subject mentioned in a few forum threads, and my first site review was heavily weighted on the issue, so let's bring the issue out and talk about it: Some sites make it abundantly easy for us to download the content efficiently. Zip files are readily available, the use of automatic downloading sofware is tolerated if not even encouraged, and thus we can quickly and efficiently get all the content we care to download, without too much effort. Other sites make it HORRIFYINGLY DIFFICULT to download their content efficiently, though. No zip files, designs that make virtually anything in our current "bag of tricks" ineffective, and short of using an automatic downloader to spider the whole site, it would appear that we'd have to click on each and every image to download the site's content. This is one area that I find woefully "uncovered" in The Best Porn's rankings, and of course TBP is far more comprehensive than anything else out there. So, I would request that this aspect be covered in the rankings. It sure goes beyond the simple "site navigation" info TBP currently mentions. There are a couple of issues within the overall issue: 1. Seemingly, this has mostly to do with pictures rather than videos -- pictures usually being far greater in number at most sites, thus needing zip files and perhaps automatic downloader tactics to download efficiently. 2. In an "Overall customer-unfriendly" view of a site that makes things difficult for us, I would also add a beef here about sites that don't use unique file names for its image files. Again, this appears to be far more of a "picture" thing, but typical encounters are where each and every image set is filled with files given the same file names, like the following: image001.jpg image002.jpg image003.jpg And so on. Or, I've seen far more random naming, usually with "right out of the camera" file names that could be found in any given set, like the following: dscn001.jpg img002.jpg And so on. In other words, if we actually want to use these files outside of separate folders for each set, we'll have to rename each and every file name we'll download from such a site. About the only qualifier for this beef is that I'm aware that some of us will rename everything, anyway, to fit the content into filing organizations they have built. But still, I think this can be rated along with the ease or difficulty of downloading content into some kind of overall "customer friendly or unfriendly" rating for downloading and using the content each site provides. Anyone else "with me" about this? | |
|
||
| 08-31-08 10:48am - 5957 days | #2 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Yes, I'm definitely with you. Being generally more interested in pics than in vids, I've come across every problem you've mentioned. The only site review in which I've mentioned the file naming problem was for Aziani. When downloaded in zips, the file names are great as they include the model name, gallery number, and file number, but individually downloaded files are just called "push." (?) This is inconvenient because I have to find the file in the zip to give it the same name as in the zip. Some people might say, "So what?" My answer: "So why not just name the files the same way whether they're in zips or plucked straight off the gallery page? I mean, unless you don't mind if sometimes your favorite TV channel 15 is named channel 16." MetArt is an example of a different sort. The file names from the zips are slightly different in number from those that are "cherry picked" OR from zip files of a different size (e.g. small vs. medium). Big deal, right? Well, sometimes there are pics shot at a distance which I still like, so I'll cherry pick those and then put them into the same folder as the zipped ones, but I have to watch it because, for example, the small X05.jpg is a keeper but could be overwritten by the medium-sized X05 which is actually a different image. Then there are those sites that have NO zips at all and the file names look like freakin' alphabet soup. Like, which should come first, printpicCAC6F42S.jpg or printpicCAERKNQA.jpg? Those are actual file names, though the site, topmiss.com, isn't listed here because it's in French and looks like a "zombie" (no longer updating) site anyway. But YoungBusty, which is listed here, has the same kind of problem: no zips, and file names that only a droid would appreciate. Not that I'd recommend the site, anyway. It's mostly non-exclusive, too, and tit size is the #1 factor in selecting the models rather than their looks overall. Anyway, I do factor in +/-zips, download speeds, and file naming my reviews and in my review scores because the hassle can be substantial. However, the scores could still get into the 80's or even the 90's if the problems aren't too great and the other plus factors are significant. For example, I think MetArt is one of the best softcore pic sites out there, in spite of the file naming problem, and some other problems that never seem to go away (darkness, blurriness, cliches, etc.). I'd still rate it in the 90's. I don't do the thing as I described above with their pics very often. But they could think about fixing it just the same. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. Edited on Aug 31, 2008, 11:08am | |
|
||
| 08-31-08 02:59pm - 5957 days | #3 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended  Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
I mostly download videos, but this is issue of file names and ease of access is still of great importance. If the site supports download managers, you have to waste a lot of time getting your downloads set up because of repeated file names. Worse, if it doesn't support a download manager it just adds to the nightmare of excessive time and effort on your part. What you should be able to set up in at most a few minutes can end up becoming a whole day project that you do on a day you don't go to work. I have to go to sleep at night, and cannot download. With a manager, no big problem. Same for going off to work. However, although I mention this area in reviews, I cannot weigh these problems excessively as once the download is done, I forget about all of this and pay attention to the quality of the video. Some of the most annoying websites have good videos. | |
|
||
| 08-31-08 11:24pm - 5956 days | #4 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
Real quick here, Playboy.com is very hard to download from. I talked with their customer service people that they even told me that their site is designed specifically to be difficult to download from. I have found some creative ways to make it a bit easier, but it is still a pain. "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 | |
|
||
| 1-4 of 4 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
