| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Review
101
|
Seduced By A Cougar
(0)
52.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Attractive MILFs doing very naughty things.
- A HUGE amount of content. Sort of. Wait, no. Nevermind.
- Multiple download options. |
| Cons: |
- Downloads will begin but then often time out and fail.
- Site is no longer part of the larger network.
- Ads inside after you've entered the paywall. |
| Bottom Line: |
NO LONGER A CLONE SITE
Seduced by a Cougar is no longer a clone site. It is now officially a standalone, glorious, independent site that is not part of any network and which you have to purchase access to just because you like what this single site has to offer.
Sort of.
Because if movies of good looking big (fake) breasted women undressing down to lingerie before seducing younger guys is your thing, then buddy have I got a web site for you. All you've got to do is invent a time machine, travel back to this time last year, and you can enjoy everything this site has to offer. And boy, let me tell you, this time last year it offered a lot. This site was part of the Naughty America network, and you could see all of these lovely ladies PLUS the other 40 whatever sites on the network. $20/month for probably thousands of videos of all types of women in all types of scenarios, all filmed well, and the newer ones in HD. Let me tell you, it was a great network. One of the best. A, if not *the* top tier.
Oh, sorry. Let me get back to today's Seduced by a Cougar and Naughty America.
Now? Click the join button. See that little sentence at the top? The one that says "Become a member for this month's new releases."
They mean that literally.
Pay your $20 and you get this month's new releases. Let's see, that's... One video.
You get one video. Comically, that video is a re-encoded release of an old video.
Want more? Go back and look at the join page. Scroll down. Yeah, it's down past the screen cutoff, so I understand why you missed it. See the part where it says "Membership Upgrades Available Inside!"? They mean that literally, too. Your first membership fee is to allow you ACCESS to pay another membership fee if you want the stuff that's older than one month.
Go browse the NA forums. They're a trainwreck right now since they've moved to this new subscription model.
AVOID is too light of a word for this level of caution against joining, but it's the best I've got.
AVOID |
|
08-21-18 02:51am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
102
|
Sexy Hub
(0)
|
|
04-22-20 03:19am
Replies (1)
|
Reply
103
|
Sexy Hub
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
Thanks. None of the videos I downloaded appear to have any problems. Unfortunately I'm not on a very fast connection and almost never stream, so I didn't test that aspect. I'll likely add it to my mental list of things to briefly look at for future reviews, though.
|
04-08-16 03:46am
|
Review
104
|
Sexy Hub
(0)
85.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Multiple encoding options for videos, 720 and 1080 included
- Photos available as .zip files.
- Multiple options available for size/quality of those .zip files.
- Gorgeous women and a good mixture of MILFs and college aged women. No silly forced "youngness" that I saw (pigtails, striped socks, etc.).
- Actual pubic hair on a few models. It's not a hairy site and there are more shaved than not, but thank goodness, and please let this be the beginning of a trend back to grown women looking like grown women again.
- Download managers work.
- No download limits that I found.
- Good searchable naming system. Actress and site names included in the video/photo file. Example: Mom_Nancy_12345, meaning from the "Mom" site, starting Nancy. Good job, site designers. I'm amazed that seems so difficult for most sites to incorporate. |
| Cons: |
- Ads inside. I know that's becoming more and more common, but I still paid to get in. Want to advertise? Offer two prices. One slightly cheaper and ad-subsidized, one a couple of bucks higher and ad-free. (FWIW, if the ads are subsidizing a reduced rate/discount then I don't mind so much. I suspect they're there for everyone, though.)
- Scenes won't always have model's names listed. Members will often make a comment below noting who it is, but that's the site's job, especially when linking to all of a model's vids.
- George.
Is.
Everywhere.
- Occasional dead links
- Models will be named in the video (literally- their name will be part of the video file name), but the actress won't be listed on the website. See Kirschley. OR vice versa. The actress will be listed, but the video links will be dead. See "Afternoon Rubdown" and "Her Plaything".
- Not all videos have photo sets.
- Can be a bit repetitive. |
| Bottom Line: |
Overall a good site with fairly good navigation and just a few flaws here and there.
Gorgeous models. Almost all are European.
Download managers (downthemall at least) worked fine with the videos, but the photo .zip files would often time out.
The site logs you out occasionally, but it's more of an inconvenience than an irritation.
HD video options exist, but the lighting/filters/quality often makes the 1080p clips look a lot like the non-HD option. The 480 clips look very good and are very reasonably sized.
There are hundreds of scenes over four sites on the network. MILFs (Mom), lesbians (lesbea), reality-show type lesbians (girlfriends), tasteful sex (dane jones), and massage room scenario (appropriately named "massage room").
There are models that I've never seen anywhere else and who apparently did nothing else (Nancy IIRC), and a few recognizable stars (Zuzanna, Szilvia, Klarissa etc.).
There are also a few pleasant surprises like finding the beautiful and nicely-aged Rene, a favorite from Sapphic Erotica that I haven't seen in years, starring in multiple scenes on the lesbian sites.
I would guess George is in at least half of all the m/f scenes. Go George, but it gets sort of old seeing him everywhere.
Very vanilla sex and lots of creampie or stomach finishes on the m/f scenes. I don't recall any anal, and definitely no drool-streaked-eyeliner-and-that-guy's-foot-on-her-head-while-roughly-entering-her-from-behind sort of stuff. Thank goodness. This is all just attractive, tasteful couples with good, if sometimes a bit soft, lighting.
I'd like to see a bit more age-appropriate lingerie including teddies, stockings, garters, etc., but there's nothing wrong with what is in place.
Would I join again? Yes. |
|
04-06-16 08:16am
Replies (5)
|
Review
105
|
Stiffia.com
(0)
62.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Decent selection of genres/movies/scenes. Lots of euro stars.
- Magma and Pinko were pretty much the entire reason I joined.
- They claim you'll get access to another site after each month of your membership. |
| Cons: |
- Can't tell too much of a difference beyond size between HD and non-HD clips, and I suspect they're all just DVD rips by someone who doesn't know/care.
- Logs you out every half hour and you fill out a captcha to login. Every. Single. Time. And 50% of the time the captcha will tell you it was wrong even if you know you entered it correctly.
- PITA to use overall.
- Slow and unresponsive.
- Every downloaded clip is named something like "scene_hd" or "scene_sd_high". No numbers, no nothing. You will have no idea which movie, scene, or actress is involved.
- Broken or missing links.
- Actresses show up as having X number of scenes, but that's apparently over the network as a whole (and it doesn't point you in the direction of the other sites/scenes). A site showing six scenes for a particular actress may just have one clip available. |
| Bottom Line: |
Possibly the most irritating and poorly conceived and executed pay site/network I've ever joined.
Captcha login requirements every twenty minutes or so.
Random dead links.
Download links missing entirely for some scenes.
Frequent "Site down for maintenance" and 503 errors when trying to login. Then the site is immediately available upon refresh.
Download managers won't work because download links change rapidly. If it took 15 minutes to download one movie the next one will give you an error message because the link no longer works or the system has already logged you out.
Quite a few movies wouldn't finish downloading because link was apparently killed *during* the download.
Every picture ZIP file I downloaded was corrupted and would not unzip.
Some download links downloaded entire movies that the scene was pulled from (but note there is no option anywhere to download the whole movie), and some scenes were missing download links for the scene entirely.
Out of a dozen or so pages of actresses listings on the individual sites, the last half (or more) won't even have photos associated with the name. Just the same blank silhouette for everyone. If you're lucky you can click on it and wait for the really unresponsive website to load and maybe show a thumbnail of a scene showing her face, though.
-------
This network has tremendous potential, but it's too much trouble to use. It *may*, might, maybe, POSSIBLY be worth the $36 annual special I've seen offered, but even then you're going to be constantly irritated unless the site owners make some major changes to make things more user friendly. |
|
05-22-15 09:32am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
106
|
Strapon Fuckers
(0)
|
|
04-02-10 01:46pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
107
|
Strapon Moms Fuck Guys
(0)
|
|
04-02-10 01:48pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
108
|
Tainster
(0)
69.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Very reasonable PU discount
- Beautiful models in nice clothes
- Some videos offer HD
- Some videos offer pic .zips
- Search function works okay sometimes |
| Cons: |
- Search function often can't seem to find actresses
- Oh well, because a LOT of actresses aren't named anyway
- Ads, ads, and more ads.
- Site isn't very responsive. I suspect it has a lot to do with all the ads and the 10 chat boxes that load on the side of every page.
- Ridiculous outfit choices at times. Is a woman really going to continue to wear a fancy hat or constantly fuss with a long, slinky, bothersome purse on one arm during a half hour threesome in her own home? (Very minor con in light of all the rest, though)
- Videos are all named the same thing, so you'll end up with a pile of "540p_fullcomplete" files with no idea who or what is in any of them.
- Navigation is crap. It would often send me to the main updates page (for all sites) when trying to click to the next page of a specific site's content.
- .zip files often have errors in the included/unzipped .jpgs.
- Way, WAY too much focus on the wet-and-messy fetish. |
| Bottom Line: |
A lot of the scenes on the network share content. Example: Fully Clothed Sex and Fully Clothed Pissing scenes are exactly 100% the same with the addition (subtraction, technically, since those frames are edited out in the FCS side) of urine. I'm not into that, and it's irritating to watch a scene with beautiful women glammed up in very attractive outfits and one lady's blouse is suddenly completely soaked for no reason. Well, no reason in THAT video, since it's not the urine site, but yeah, you know the actual reason and it ruins the scene. They often try to cover it up by pouring water or wasting champagne on the models, but once you realize the scenes are shared it doesn't matter. If her clothes are wet in the FCS scenes, it's urine.
Shared scenes and overall video listings for models is not representative of actual content. Take Kate Gold as an example. She has 232 scenes listed (HELL YEAH!), but only about 30 aren't party-orgy scenes. There may be some good stuff in the party scenes, but it's more trouble than it's worth to slog through the photos to see if she's actually involved or only credited because she happened to pass in front of the camera. That means I, and I suspect others, are not going to bother with the party clips (I'm not wasting my time grabbing an 800mb file for 30 seconds of an actress no matter how much I enjoy watching her work- see Rady in the scene titled "720p_fullcomplete" (haha, get it?) for a great example). Of the 30 or so remaining scenes, around half are shared overall (see previous paragraph re:urine), so she only has a dozen or so unique and possibly desirable clips out of the 200+ listed.
Siddi? 32 scenes listed, 2 unique non-party scenes.
Sindy Vega? 17 scenes listed, 3 non-party scenes.
Sweet Cat? 149 scenes listed, a dozen or so non-party scenes.
Zoe Fox? 29 scenes, but only 1 non-party scene.
It goes on and on like that.
Ads and up-sells all over the place once you're inside. Checking the box that says "skip the portal the next time I log in" is apparently meaningless and does nothing to prevent the ads from appearing the next time you log on. When you cancel your subscription a banner appears at the top telling you that you've canceled your subscription and "Please Click here we got a special offer for you." Very irritating.
It looks like their sister site "Sindrive" (very easy to find if you just remember to look for the advertisements on every page) is where they're putting the good stuff these days, along with the 4K videos. FWIW, if it were me I would've given the party-orgy clips their own $10 site and made Tainster a cheap $5 hey-let's-get-what-we-can vessel for all the other sites they advertise for.
BUT
Even after all of that, the worst part of the site is probably that all the newer content has started to be forcibly blended together into the WAM (wet and messy) niche. Parties? Everyone has something poured onto them. Lesbians using a wand massager on one another? Oil. Pornstars ostensibly at home? Urine. Then there are all the actual WAM sites, which are around half the network already. It's a shame, because the site had so much potential. They obviously even had a brief period of time when they tinkered with straponcum.com style lesbian scenes using MILFS/glam, and even had mff threesomes using the same idea, but they stopped that approach and went for large fake rubber cocks spraying ridiculous amounts of lotion out of gloryholes (?) to get the WAM element.
Bottom line: If you like attractive, well-dressed European women getting urine or lotion on their clothes, and/or if you are looking for a place that offers lots of carefree women letting strangers pour any number of things onto their nice clothes (and that's VERY much a fantasy, btw) before suddenly having sex in a dance club while none of the other patrons care orgy fantasy videos, this site is probably worth checking out.
Would I join again? Unlikely. |
|
07-13-16 10:12am
Replies (0)
|
Review
109
|
Team Skeet
(0)
89.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Tremendous amount of content.
- Varied niches in multiple sites.
- Good mix of skin color, body types, etc.
- HD videos.
- No download limits.
- Good navigation and search function.
- Download managers work.
- Promo offers
- Great preview. You can pretty much see what you're getting right up to the point of watching the videos. |
| Cons: |
- Lots of girl next door types, but he innocent young girl mystique is easily broken by yes-I'm-a-stripper tattoos on some models.
- "Innocent young girl" seems a bit forced at times. Silly oversized glasses, pigtails, big hair bows, striped socks, etc. I get the fantasy aspect, but often less is more.
- Um... Let's see... Not enough MILFs? (Joke, btw.) Seriously, there are very few cons I can think of. If you lean towards college-aged girls, you probably need to try this site. |
| Bottom Line: |
This review will be fairly sort of short mostly because there is very little to criticize. Ads inside (and what kept the review from being in the 90s), some rare broken links, and... yeah, that's about it. This is definitely one of the better sites I've joined so far as the user is concerned. I'd put it right up there with Anilos / Nubiles and Sapphic Erotica as a site everyone should probably join at least once if they have any interest whatsoever in the content. It really does seem to be geared towards the user. Even the preview of the site gives a surprisingly good idea of what's inside before joining.
There are multiple video options, and a "best of" choice that is similar to (IIRC) Naughty America's small 5-minute clips. I really appreciate sites that do that, and the only other request I would ask is to offer it in varying quality as well.
There's the occasional oddity like a broken link here and there, or pleasant surprises like the majority of the site being typical American BangBros/NA/Brazzers style of filming before stumbling onto strangely attractive and very European models and filming. Luna comes to mind:
http://www.teamskeet.com/t1/profile/view.../luna/?nats=MDowOjIy
But the good very much outweighs the bad.
Bottom line:
If you like this genre then definitely give this site a shot.
Webmaster- Do y'all run a MILF site? |
|
03-28-16 05:48am
Replies (0)
|
Review
110
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
88.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- 4K available for newer videos
- Tons of content, both photos and videos
- Download managers are allowed |
| Cons: |
- No way to mark favorite actresses that I could see
- Download files are often huge when considering the resolution
-That distinctly Russian style of recent videos |
| Bottom Line: |
Teendreams is a huge megasite with thousands of images and videos going back well over a decade. I saw what were clearly old photo sets that had 2009 as the “last appeared” date, but I’d be surprised if they were any newer than 2005 or so. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s just an eyeball guess.
And that access to older content is a very good thing. No, the quality of the older sets might not be achingly sharp, but they can’t be compared to modern photos and videos because of the limitations of the times. Just having access to the older content is a good thing, and the site is probably worth joining for nothing else other than seeing some favorite models in the earliest days of their careers.
Irina Bruni is a good example. I’m a big fan of hers and saw some early photo sets from 2010 or so that I’d never seen anywhere else. There are lots of other examples of this kind of discovery all through the site. I’d probably recommend it just on this element alone.
Download managers work, and the site doesn’t log you off constantly and require you to re-login. Good job webmasters. That’s the kind of thing that keeps paying customers coming back to give you more money.
The new videos are offered in resolutions up to huge 4K files if that's your thing.
The not-as-good:
It’s not uncommon to find an actress with two or three different sets under different names or in a different set including another actress’ name. It's more an inconvenience than anything, but you always get the feeling that you’re probably missing some content when you find sets of a favorite actress.
The distinctly Russian style of some newer videos is off-putting at times. You know the characteristics: The guys have mullets (often buzzcuts on sides), the women will have flat bangs and/or brightly colored plastic jewelry/socks/etc., and the scenes will seem washed out or overly beige.
The sets will download to your drive with no identifying elements whatsoever, so you’ll end up with a bunch of “10101_1242” style zip files or “49387_85844_1080” video file names. Again, not a huge deal, but a definite inconvenience and something that requires extra work if you want to organize scenes by a particular actress.
None of it is bad enough that I would discourage checking the site out if you have any interest.
Bottom line: Recommended, with a few reservations. I'd definitely re-join. |
|
12-24-18 03:51pm
Replies (1)
|
Review
111
|
Trans Angels
(0)
87.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Multiple download resolutiomns
- Photos and videos available
- Download managers allowed
- Exclusive videos |
| Cons: |
- Not the biggest site
- Watch out for pre-checked “offers” on signup
- In house billing. Can’t do the trick to force an error and get to epoch. |
| Bottom Line: |
A very good site if this is your flavor of kink. Good production values, a decent amount of effort put into presenting an atmosphere and premise. SM-SM, SM-M, and SM-F scenes.
HD videos are available but even the lower resolutions look good. Download managers are allowed but the site will log you off occasionally. Not a big deal - and very much not like the sites that kick you out every 30 minutes or so – but something to check on if you queue up a bunch of clips and walk away for a few hours.
The videos are exclusive to this site and look nice. Good lighting, good angles, and overall competent film-making.
There’s a good mixture of different types of action. To me the scenes involving genetic females are some of the high points, but again, it depends on your taste in kink. Not all of the actors can do everything (I’d imagine hormones affect that particular ability), but I’d say the majority of the shemales on the site can perform intercourse with the other participants.
There are some good scenes waiting to be discovered, too. A sleepover with Jessica Fox (SM) and Bailey Brooke (F) is fairly ridiculous in its setup, but the action overall makes it forgivable.
Interestingly, although the videos are offered in HD and the high resolutions look very crisp, I found it’s often better to go with the lower resolutions in order to not see some of the obvious scars and other things that disrupt the “futa” style fantasy.
Bottom line: Recommended if you like this sort of thing. |
|
11-13-18 06:57am
Replies (3)
|
Review
112
|
Tug Pass
(0)
73.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Decent sized site/network with lots of clips, but not very large data-wise since the videos aren't huge
- Improved video quality since last review
- Allows download managers
- Good download speeds
- Pictures sometimes available along with videos, although sometimes just for viewing and not always as .zip |
| Cons: |
- Ads behind the paywall.
- All videos are named the same thing ("high")
- Some links to photo sets that go nowhere other than a "back to video" page.
- No video quality choices.
- Directing/editing isn't well thought out at times
- Older videos are still really low quality
- $30 seems a bit overpriced. |
| Bottom Line: |
I was a member years ago and was unimpressed, but I thought I would give Clubtug another shot since I saw some bigger names listed as models. The network/site has definitely gotten better. It still comes across as amateurish in a lot of ways (yes lots of amateur models, but also an amateur site), but it's improving.
My feeling was that it's mostly a handjob network with a bit of intercourse (Tease POV IIRC), but don't expect much beyond masturbation and a bit of oral here and there.
There was a large popup ad for other sites after you login that you have to click "no thanks, continue to the site" (or similar) to get to the site you paid for, and ads throughout the site. Each site on the network required an individual login as well, but the sites don't seem to log you out frequently, so I'm okay with the individual login requests.
One of the big problems with the site in the past was tube-quality videos (or worse). This has improved, and according to VLC the newer clips are 720. There are no video quality choices, however, and the old tube-quality clips are designated as "high" exactly like the new 720 clips, so there's no way to know which you're getting until you view it.
The videos are fairly watchable now, although there are some bad choices like stationary filming, poor visibility from bad angles, or attempting to use a macro ring to light up-close scenes similar to Amateur Allure. I don't care much for it there, and it's even less successful here. The lighting washes out the models' skin and they lose most detail in their face/body, and the cumshot washes out the same way on the stark white, flat face. I appreciate trying something new, but it's a shame the actresses like India Summer and Alexis Fawx weren't just filmed with a good lens on a mid-level Canon SLR with decent natural lighting.
Other problems are things like models giving a handjob while fully clothed and then abruptly wearing bra and panties before abruptly being naked. I don't think a storyline is necessary, but 30 extra seconds of transitioning through the models undressing would help the scenes overall.
That said, there are some good choices like POV scenes with a naked model sitting between a (laying on his back) man's legs with HER legs open as she masturbates him. Those scenes are fairly inspired and were nice to see.
I think $20 is probably a more appropriate non-promo day-to-day price, but the site's owners have brought in some bigger names like Veronica Avluv, Dava Foxx, and India Summer, so the $30 isn't unreasonable in light of attracting and paying talent. I personally would recommend the owners get more of Christina Sky(e?) and the actress named Harley. Both seemed fairly interested in what they were doing, and that goes a long way in making the scenes believable/enjoyable. Not to mention you can probably get five or more scenes for what India or Avluv charges for one. FWIW, there are still some less attractive models and the videos from my first review are still there, but the quality of models has improved over the last couple of years.
Bottom line: I reviewed the network under Clubtug last time and they only earned a 62, but the details have improved enough that I'm adding ten+1 points for them putting in the effort and making it a decent site. It's not an especially innovative or outstanding site, but if there are more than a few actresses there doing things you enjoy watching, it's probably worth checking out at least once, especially if you can get a discounted rate. |
|
08-27-16 05:21pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
113
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
bibo's Reply
Ah, I see. Yes, I was looking at the previews of bang.com, and not the "bang originals" material you have click to get to on bang.com.
So is bang.com just a (partial?) clone site of videosz with 100-200 or so original clips leftover from an acquisition by the videosz company?
|
11-17-16 08:37am
|
Reply
114
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
bibo's Comment
FWIW, I'm seeing a lot of what looks like overlapping material from Tainster sites (saw some very distinct slimewave, Party Hardcore, some Bimaxx, and some of their clothing-fetish material). I'm fairly sure I saw some content from clubseventeen.com, too. I think they're associated with Tainster somehow, so that sort of makes sense.
I'll likely join videosz in the next six months, so I'll try to remember to look closer once I'm there.
|
11-12-16 09:07am
|
Review
115
|
Wankz.com
(0)
83.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Large site
- Epoch as payment processor
- Lots of variety in actresses, scenes, etc.
- 4K content
- Didn't encounter any download limits (FWIW, I don't have the speeds to churn through the site and grab a bunch of 4K vids like the other reviewer mentioned)
- Photos often available for download
- Lots of variety in skin tones, sizes, hair, etc.
- Good exposure to some really great stripper/porn star names. My personal favorite: Strokahontas |
| Cons: |
- "Embed" instead of a download link was encountered more than once. Not really sure how that's supposed to work on a paid subscription.
- I'm not positive it's not just a clone of the Lethal site. It looked very familiar. Can one of the PU admins confirm with the owners?
- Photos would be an option, but there would be no photos on the linked page and nothing available to download
- Listed video sizes and .zip file sizes were consistently wrong. |
| Bottom Line: |
The less-good. None is really too bad and none are deal breakers, but it was noticed more than a few times:
Pics and vids organization is a bit of a mess. Sizes will be listed beside the downloads, but 50%+ are incorrect. 1080p sizes will be listed as the same as the 720p clips, and photos' zip sizes will often not seem to correspond to anything in particular. It was nice to have the sizes listed, but many (most?) of the time the sizes listed for the larger video and photo download options were wrong. No big deal, but it was always very noticeable.
I had been a member of Lethal a long time ago, and quite a few of the videos looked familiar to me. I'm not sure if they weren't just similar scenes with the same actresses, but I left wondering if Wankz and Lethal are the same or at least share a lot of content. Maybe admin can confirm with the sites.
There were some dead-end links that led to photo pages with nothing to view or download, and there were occasionally download links that led to tiny ~4kB files that were clearly not the 30 minute clip you were trying to download.
The good:
One of the best parts of this site is the naming structure. Yes, I know it has little to do with video quality or quantity, but let's consider it a rare quality-of-life situation. I run into so many sites that allow download managers and unlimited downloads, and after you load your queue up with clips you discover the video that came from a page titled "Beautiful Milf Kayla Synz Gets Some Help Folding Her Laundry" ends up being saved in your download folder as something like "39030_01_HD" or the even worse "video." Not Wankz. If you download a clip from a page titled "Sexy Secretary Alana Evans gets drilled just right," you will end up with a video titled "sexy-secretary-alana-evans-gets-drilled-just-right."
Even when the video doesn't mention the actress by name, it will at least give you an idea of what is happening in the scene. For instance, "an-office-romance-gets-really-hot-and-heavy" is an actual name of a clip. You might not immediately know who is in it, but at least you have an idea of what's happening compared to 77327_02_HD.
Well done, Wankz.
They offer 4K downloads. I don't have anything that is able to properly view or oherwise take advantage of downloading those huge clips, so I can't comment on quality. Many/most of their newer clips offered portable, SD, 720p, and 1080p download options, and the older clips would often be a choice between two fair-to-decent quality options. They looked okay and the quality was acceptable considering they were older scenes.
Content-wise it's fairly standard stuff you'd see at competitors like Reality Kings, Brazzers, etc., but I never got the feeling this was on the same level. It's still a good site, but it's like watching your local college play football before going to see the playoffs. The first guys were fun to watch and did a good job, but the top teams are almost playing an entirely different game on an identical field.
Would I recommend? Yes, and what especially lifted them out of the "average" range is the recognizable naming of files. I understand it's a little more work, but the coordination between files seems like it would be easy to do when setting up the system, and it's a shame we can't see that from websites more often. |
|
11-21-16 02:44am
Replies (1)
|
|
