|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Tom D Admin, a simple question on mbaya's reply. |
| 1-9 of 9 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 03-17-20 12:30pm - 1647 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
LKLK (0)
Active User Posts: 1,583 Registered: Jun 26, '19 Location: CA |
Tom D Admin, a simple question on mbaya's reply. https://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=111401 mbaya's reply on 2020-03-17 to my review of First BGG, submitted 2020-03-17: Correct me if I am wrong. I must be getting senile. This is a network review. The only facts about the site per se are that it updates once a month and there are 121 videos and photo sets. I must have missed the rest of the information about the site. Tom, what do you think? Teen Mega World had a review by the author last July so it is not a year yet. ----- ----- Reply from LKLK: mbaya must have skipped over the review, or read it too hastily to understand what I wrote: From the pros section: Facts and details that refer not just to the network, but to the First BGG site: -They are working constantly to update and improve the site and network. One of the benefits or pros of the First BGG site: -As part of the Teen Mega World network, you get access to 33 teen porn sites. There are no premium sites you have to pay extra for. -The site (and some of the network) has 4K videos, as well as lower definition videos. -The site (and some of the network) has high resolution images. -Navigation is easy. It's easy to switch between sites in the network. -PU has a discounted price of $14.95/month recurring. -Unlimited downloads. -Unlimited streaming. -Although this is not a glamour site or network, the girls are basically white teens who are attractive. From the cons section: I explain that you should join through the main TMW site, because the search returns content from the entire network. If you join through the First BGG site, or one of the other sub-sites, the search will only return content from the site you joined through. This is important--even though the search at the TMW site is poor, and used to be better. -If you join through the main TMW site, the search returns content from the entire network. However, if you join through one of the other sites in the network, the search returns only content from the site you joined through. So do yourself a favor, and join through the main TMW site. -I think they did a recent update on the search engine and messed it up. Assume you log in through the TMW site, and not the First BGG site. You enter the name "Lolly Small" in the search. What you are returned is a huge number of hits, most of which have nothing to do with Lolly Small. The search for "Lolly Small" returns 301 results. And Lolly Small only has 10 videos at the network. I've been a continuous member of the network for over 3 years now, and the search at the TMW site used to be good, returning only results that matched the model's name. This refers to the site (as well as the network): -Pre-checked cross-sale on join page. -Login and member pages are non-secure. Not https. So easy to hack. I explain why the First BGG site has a slow update rate: -Although the network has a daily update, the update rate for the site is approximately 1 per month. 2018-11-27 the site had 110 videos. 2020-03-17 the site has 121 videos. So over time, the update rate is less than 1 per month. The reason for the slow update rate for the site is that updates are spread over the network, so the BGG site gets less than 1 new video plus matching photo set per month. Which is more than acceptable, since there is a huge amount of teen content in the network to look through. The biller for the site is Vendo. Which is less well known than CCBill or Epoch. -Vendo is the billing agent. Not as familiar as CCBill or Epoch. But I've used Vendo many times, and never had a problem. So I'm listing it as a minor con, but it's not really a con. I've used Vendo for WowGirls, DDF Network, Ultra Films, Lust Week, etc. -Many of the sites are archive sites, that haven't updated in years. The quality of the archive sites is definitely less than the current output of videos and photosets. Some of the archive sites do not have streaming; you have to download the video or photo set to see it. The site photosets have a zip file, but only in 1 definition: -The photosets have a zip file, but it's only in 1 definition, not low, medium and high. BOTTOM LINE(START OF): Site theme: One guy on two girls. Forget love, these girls are interested in sex. And they are willing to share a guy. Site stats: videos: 121 photo sets: 121 This review is on First BGG, but I believe the details on the TMW network, of which First BGG is part of, can be helpful. What I like about the site and network: The models are mainly attractive young teens, who put on a good show: they seem to enjoy the sex. The models are real teens. Not a lot of fake boobs. Not a lot of tattoos. This is not a glam site or network. The network started around 2005. The site (First BGG) started around 2011. The network started out as a low-rent teen hardcore collection of sites. Over time, they have spent a lot of time, effort and money into upgrading the network and included sites. For the last few years, you can stream or download the most recent videos in 360p up to 2160p. The upgrades included: With a membership in any site in the network, you now get access to all the sites (currently 33 sites.) Better equipment for filming and photographing, better, more expensive sets, better costumes (the costumes are street clothes, but better street clothes than what they used to wear), better lighting, sound control. The videos and photo sets from the last few years are excellent quality: not glamcore, but still excellent quality. The quality obviously gets worse as you look at the older material. First BGG is part of the TMW network. TMW is one of my favorite teen hardcore network. I wouldn't say that First BGG is one of the top sites in the network, but it is a worthwhile addition to the network. I'm giving the site a score of 90. That is basically because joining any site in the network gives you access to the entire network. If I had to score the First BGG by itself, without network access, the score would be much lower. But it's still a good site, with 121 videos and matching photosets. In conclusion: although I am mixing details of the site and network in the review, I believe it helps to understand the site better, if the network details are included. To say that "The only facts about the site per se are that it updates once a month and there are 121 videos and photo sets." seems like a huge error. Did mbaya read the entire review? Did he understand my review? To me, it seems he has an agenda that the review is worthless, because it's from a fellow PU member that he seems to regard as a competitor. Is the review worthless, or did it break any PU rules? Not in my opinion, certainly. But different opinions from different folks. To be fair, you could ask the PU members to vote on whether the last 5 or 10 reviews from me, and from mbaya, have any value. Or if they meet the standard of quality that PU should accept. I'm more than willing to accept the vote of the PU membership, if my reviews have any value, or lack value and should be denied. If you are willing to have the PU membership vote on mbaya's reviews, as well. Do mbaya's reviews have any value, or should they be denied? If you really want to get specific: Look at mbaya's reviews of sites from each network. Compare the points he makes with the points in each review. He is comparing a network review I wrote with a review on a specific site (The TMW network and the First BGG site). How many similar points does he make in his reviews, of sites from the same network? Can we go back and deny or disqualify all his reviews that have too many similar details? mbaya, please stand up to be counted for truth and honesty: do you repeat details from related sites? Do you repeat details from former reviews? How many of your reviews have stated there is a pre-checked cross-sale on the join page? How many of your reviews have stated there are no download limits? How many times has mbaya stated the site was part of a network (as one of the pros of the review)? If you delete the repeating points, I believe many of mbaya's reviews should have been denied, due to lack of pros, cons, or bottom line details. Edited on Mar 17, 2020, 12:34pm | |
|
||
| 03-17-20 02:01pm - 1647 days | #2 | |
|
tangub (0)
Active User  Posts: 132 Registered: Feb 03, '10 Location: UK |
I see the big new monthly jackpot is causing bickering already.  Good luck to everyone. I won't be taking part. PU is losing it's integrity imo. | |
|
||
| 03-17-20 04:18pm - 1647 days | #3 | |
|
LKLK (0)
Active User Posts: 1,583 Registered: Jun 26, '19 Location: CA |
Integrity is important. If I broke a rule by posting a review on a network and then posted a review on a site belonging to the network, maybe Tom can speak up. Or if mbaya broke one or more rules by posting a review on a network site, and then posted a review on a different site in the network, maybe Tom can speak up. How many reviews has mbaya posted on sites in the same network? Is that breaking the rules, of consanguinity? There was some discussion previously about reviewing related sites, but I didn't understand a lot of it, or if it was being implemented. Can the PU staff check if the reviews being submitted are acceptable, or if they are breaking the rules? We want a friendly atmosphere at PU. But mbaya seems big on rules. Some of the rules he seems to make up by himself. I would rather follow rules set by the PU staff, instead. But in the interest of fairness and integrity, the rules should be the same for everyone. And if mbaya does win a prize, maybe he can buy new glasses, so that he can read what's written in a review and try to understand it, instead of twisting the facts to support his claims. JMHO | |
|
||
| 03-17-20 04:51pm - 1647 days | #4 | |
|
Tom D Admin
PornUsers Staff  Posts: 39 Registered: Feb 27, '20 Location: Cyberspace |
I did read through and approve the review and as much as mbaya is entitled to his opinion, it my decision to make. It would be odd to talk about a network site without mentioning the network, especially when the members' area is integrated and some usability features aren't site specific. I made it clear to mbaya that if a site is listed (with the exception of clones) and the system allows you to write a review, you can go ahead and do so. There have been a slew of rereviews from any number of members and I am sure there are others not following this old rule of one year. If the interface doesn't police against it, I am not going to play bad cop after the fact. The reality is the reviewers for both Rabbit's Reviews and The Best Porn end up doing updates on some of the same sites more than once a year depending on what pool of people are available when the work comes through. Hello, I'm Tom, your PU admin today. Would you like to hear about our specials? | |
|
||
| 03-17-20 04:54pm - 1647 days | #5 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
Literally laughing out loud here. I saw this coming as soon as I saw the announcement on the new raffle system. Not that I was ever here to crank out reviews for points, I'm with tangub in thinking this site has decidedly taken a turn for the worse and wonder if I need to reconsider my trying to be a part of it again. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 03-17-20 05:01pm - 1647 days | #6 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended  Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
Hi Tom, My objection is that the review in question barely says anything about the site. Using this as a model a reviewer could produce 10 reviews out of a ten site network and they would meet the criteria, even if they were 99% the same. Of course the pros and cons would be almost identical, but the bottom line? Two or three sentences about the site itself is not going to give PU a better name. I have no strong feelings about the one year rule, basically I don't care. Your site, your rules. If PU sinks or swims, it is not up to me or LK. | |
|
||
| 03-17-20 06:47pm - 1647 days | #7 | |
|
LKLK (0)
Active User Posts: 1,583 Registered: Jun 26, '19 Location: CA |
The basic review guide (I don't know if it is still an "official" review guide any more): 1. A combination of at least 5 unique pros and/or cons. Each pro/con should be useful for fellow readers. 2. A bottom line statement about the site. Should include an overall opinion of the site and any other items worth mentioning. 3. Review should be balanced (not one-sided), honest, and respectful. 4. Review should be unique compared to previously written reviews. No copy/paste material. 5. Review should contain at least 150 words of useful content. The review guide does not require a minimum number of facts. Instead, it requires pros, cons, and opinions about the site. As far as I can tell, my review more than satisfied the requirement for a basic review. And I believe it also satisfied the requirements for an excellent review, because of the number of pros, cons, and bottom line statements about the site. A review is built on pros, cons, and a bottom line statement. The review I wrote has 9 pros for the site. The review I wrote has 6 cons for the site. The review I wrote has a bottom line containing facts, opinions, and details about the site. To say that "The only facts about the site per se are that it updates once a month and there are 121 videos and photo sets." seems ridiculous. And for mbaya to write: "My objection is that the review in question barely says anything about the site." Again, either mbaya is biased, or I'm biased, because our opinions of my review are completely opposed. I fail to understand how he can read my review and complain that it says almost nothing about the site. Except maybe he believes that if I mention the word "network", that wipes out any meaning of the idea of a site. So mbaya may be reading the review as a network review, and not a site review. And that's how he justifies the idea that the review is not a site review, but a network review. And since my review of the network was less than a year old, that's how he justifies his position that the review should not be approved. | |
|
||
| 03-17-20 06:56pm - 1647 days | #8 | |
|
LKLK (0)
Active User Posts: 1,583 Registered: Jun 26, '19 Location: CA |
Can I use the same logic as mbaya and demand that most of mbaya's reviews about sites that belong to a network should be deleted? Because, as far as I can tell, if mbaya writes about a site in a network, he is writing about the network. So let's be fair. | |
|
||
| 03-17-20 07:04pm - 1647 days | #9 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
Tom considers this a closed topic as do I. If you want to scream at me, I am not listening. I am asking Tom to delete this mess as it serves no constructive purpose. | |
|
||
| 1-9 of 9 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
