| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
The most recent images are roughly 2000 x 1328. The most recent full HD vids are in the 2gig range for MPEG format. Not sure about bit rate. Don't know enough about videos to supply this. I can say, however, the videos are fluid and not choppy when viewed in the browser. Again, I am not much into videos. But even these are higher in quality than I have seen elsewhere. They just have a pop on the screen I have not seen from other videos. It is eye-popping.
But again, for me, it's all about the detail and quality. Regardless of what the specs are, I would rather see a high-quality image at 800x600 than a large 4000x2000 image that is sub-par and poorly taken ,with bad llighting. That is what I value the most.
|
01-12-13 09:17am
|
Reply
27
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
Hi. I understand what you mean. I don't take it as trying to pick a fight. I just provide points I think the average person would be interested in. I could add more comments but it would just be for the sake of adding more comments. I don't think it would be of much use to anyone. Really, what my review is saying is that, in my humble opinion, for those interested in photography and professional-grade production, this is about as good as you will come across in terms of quality of content, etc...
The full HD videos also are as good as I have ever seen in terms of the eye-popping quality. I really haven't seen clearer and more detailed videos from an online service--whether it is netflex or bangbros. To me, the detail and professional quality of the material is outstanding.
The user interface is as good as others. very simple and easy to use. DL speeds are very high. I never had issues with timing out or locking up. Now, whether or not people enjoy the actual content is entirely subjective. Everyone has their own interests and tastes in erotic content.
I really am not thinking about drawing attention to the site or trying to sway opinion by scoring it a 99. The thought never crossed my mind. I am just calling it like I see it personally. To me, it is a near perfect site. Others may see it entirely differently, as some other review scores testify.
|
01-12-13 08:42am
|
Reply
28
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
Well, I base my reviews on impressions. All I have to go by when forming the impressions is past experiences with other sites. Comparatively, it is the best site I have personally come across. I am not a real high powered user so my experiences are limited. I really find it to be as good as my score indicates. That doesn't mean it really is a 99 in an objective sense. That is just how I rate it. Others will see it different perhaps. Someone might not like the content or the camerawork isn't their style etc. but it is the closest to a perfect site as I have come across so far. My views may change if I come across something else in the future and I have a new baseline to judge things. As it exists now, though, this site is at the top of my current baseline. I honestly haven't seen anything better yet.
|
01-11-13 08:46pm
|
Review
29
|
DDF Network
(0)
99.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 2 months (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-- Best erotic photography I have come across so far. Clearly professional-level photography. Perfect lighting. Non-forumlatic and dynamic poses.
-- Classy and conservative style erotica. No extreme stuff, bizarre angles, or depictions of rough sex/choking the models etc.
-- Layout and menus are up their with the best.
-- Photo galleries are put together niceley. No repetitve content in each gallery.
-- Plenty of HD content for those into videos. |
| Cons: |
-- I really struggle to find negatives beyond the nit-picking variety. I guess the only thing I could offer in terms of tangibles is the price. Obviously, the premium price for the network is higher than others. |
| Bottom Line: |
My score is somewhat biased as I am a photography buff and my review is based on what the site means to me. buff so I appreciate the professional work at this site. There is a tremndous amount of high-quality photo content at this site. The galleries are well laid out and the models are all beautiful.
The details in the high-resolution photos are quite stunning. In many cases, you can count peach fuzz hairs.
Clearly, this is not the typical site that offers a large amount of photos where the majority of them are simply repetitions of the same pose as the model stands in front of a muslin and the camera and lighting is set on rapid fire.
Most every gallery I have browsed so far demonstrates impecible lighting and technical expertise. The artists clearly put a lot of thought into the work. There is photoshopping evident, but it is not overdone to the point that the colors are over-saturated and the images look unreal or the models plastic. IMO,
DDF is one of those sites that qualifies as art as well as it does porn.
The models themselves range from petite to busty, depending on what site you view. I have only browsed a few videos. However, the presentations should appeal to most of those itnerested in videos. There are quite a few HD selections to choose from.
The models appear quite engaged most of the time and do not look like they are just standing around bored while scratching their butt.
The site does demand a premium price. But considering the amount of content and the number of sites offered in the network, I find it palitable. For me, it is worth the admission price.
If you are a photography fan, I would not hesitate to reccomend it. It is a must see. If you are into videos, you will likely find the content appealing as well. But for me, the site shines in the photo department. |
|
01-11-13 01:14pm
Replies (8)
|
Reply
30
|
Divine Breasts
(0)
|
Reply of
Claypaws's Reply
Hi.
Well, for a site owner with limited content to offer, it might be tempting to use such a strategy, thinking you could 'hook' users and they would pay to stay around so they can access the content. You could easily grab all the content at this site within a short period of time. It is not a high-volume site.
The problem is, the content is not THAT good that it will keep a lot of people around to view the remaining limited content that they couldn't get to during the period due to restrctions. It's not bad content, but not exactly a pot of gold.
|
06-10-12 09:21am
|
Reply
31
|
Divine Breasts
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
Hi. Thanks. I just try to tell it like I see it. It is easy to write long-winded reviews on sites that rub you the wrong way as you are ticked off enough to vent about it.
Anyways, I wouldn't classify the entire site as junk, just the user experience and treatment. The content is actually fairly decent for this genre. I have seen better and I have seen worse. I suspect most people interested in this genre would come away with positive opinions if the site owners didn't play the games. Considering a magazine today costs somewhere around $15, paying $21 for a modest collection of BBW erotica is really not a bad deal. The owners just play games and hold back content, as mentioned in the review. It becomes obvious after a a little bit of time at the site what the owners are up to.
|
06-10-12 09:04am
|
Review
32
|
Divine Breasts
(0)
50.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
-- Creative photography
-- Unique content.
-- A good number of classic photosets.
-- Site delivers what is advertised--images of women with Large BBW breasts. |
| Cons: |
-- Technical quality of images can be hit or miss.
-- Primitive site design and interface.
-- Exceedingly poor streaming speeds of both photos and videos throughout my entire memberhips period.
-- Site is not growing much.
-- Limited content.
-- Vdeos are just a novelty.
-- Site owners play games with content(hold back content and offer to let you view more content if you stick around longer or sign up somewhere else)
--Bandwidth Limit imposed to 550 MEG per day. |
| Bottom Line: |
Most of the models at this site are of the BBW variety and most sport large EEE size breasts. There is very little silicone here. These are well-endowed amateur models for the most part, with a few glam types thrown in.
Full nudity is rare and the site is mostly softcore. It's all about catering to those with a breast fetish. The photography, in many caes, is actually quite well done and creative. There are a few poorly done sets but this is the exception. However, the owners skimp on resolution at times and the actual technical quality of the displayed images can vary from fairly decent 1600 resolution to grainy and out-of-focus 1024.
If you are into this genre and natural, large breasts are your thing, you would likely find the photo content here to be interesting. However, that interest will fade pretty quickly, as the amount of content is a bit limited and the site seems to be growing at a snails pace. Unless you view only a few photosets once or twice during a one-month subscription period, you will find the content runs out pretty quickly.
Videos are pretty much a novelty and the main show are the photosets. With very few exceptions, most videos are small 350 clips that run perhaps a minute or two.
The site designers also have a habit of 'padding' the numbers when it comes to overall photosets available. For example, they have created a fair number of photosets for each model. Model X may have twenty photosets available for viewing on her page. However, what they do in most cases is split up a single photo shoot into a number of different sets. For example, a lingerie shoot might be split up into three or four seperate sets. The first set on the page would be perhaps fourteen photos of the model disrobing, the next would show the model reclining while partially disrobed, etc etc. In essence, you are being given ten different photosets for a model, when in reality, they are really just one or two actual photo shoots split up.
This type of presentation is annoying and similar things happen in other areas. There are a lot of cross-sell marketing tools being used. In more than one case, a popular model will only have one or two photosets(or perhaps none at all and a few videos will be in the model area) and a marketing link advises you that "btw..this model has her own page !". Unfortunately, that page requires a seperate memebership.
The owners also let you know that the longer you stick around, the more content you can see. For example, Model X may have only a few photosets or a video that is incomplete and ends with a tease. They will then advise you that the longer you stay past 30 days, the more content you get to see --"Want to see more of her? blah blah blah.."
Given the limited content already available, this may be a good business model to get people to stick around, but the content isn't that great that I would eprsonally pay more just to see a bit more of Model X. IMO, this tactic will simply rub people the wrong way and they will just move on. Also, who says you aren't going to do the same thing if I sign up for Model X's page? I would advise the owners to rethink this strategy. You will more often than not just succeed in ticking off your customer base instead of given them a reasont o want to stay around with knowing they won't get the same treatment for next month's rent.
As far as the site design and layout, it is quite primitive. It gets the job done. However, the menus and navigation tools are primitive. The actual streaming speeds of content is about the worse I have ever experienced at any time with any online service of any kind. Strangely, the quickest way to get content on this site is to download the photosets. Usually, the opposite is true.
Without fail, I could view perhaps one or two images in a gallery, then any subsequent images would take a ridiculous amount of time to simply load. I have a high speed DSL connection and have never experienced anything this bad.
The site also limits you to 500 MEG download per day. You cannot stream or DL past this limit. In short, the strategy of this site seems to be to employ any possible means to get people to stick around longer than thirty days. They make it is hard as possible for you to stream or view the already limited content at the site in a thirty day period. Limiting to 500 MEG download a day and freezing the stream after viewing two photos means it will take six months to get to all of the content that would take a few days of viewing to get to at any other site. The goal is obviously to frustrate you by prolonging the time to to view images via streaming so you download the sets and quickly eat up your daily allotment.
Crooked? Underhanded? Shady? I will leave that for you to judge.
I would give the actual photo content a score of 70 but the experience a 0.05. Since I can only score a minimum of 50, I will give the site an overall score of 50. |
|
06-09-12 03:44pm
Replies (7)
|
Reply
33
|
HQ Upskirt
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Review
Good Review and Information. Thanks for sharing.
Tease photos can be erotic. I aggree I would be have toruble enjoying it if I thought it was real. I certainly am not accusing the company of doing it but it wouldn't be proper(or legal) and you could also get yourself in a lot of hot water.
My guess is it is likely staged. You couldn't get that many videos without getting caught--or getting your ass beat by a significant other when you get caught.
|
01-18-12 04:35pm
|
Reply
34
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
A lot of directors today skip any striptease and proceed directly to go. One moment, the model is wearing clothes and heels. The next instant you see her, she is butt naked and the guy is already laying pipe. :( That's why I prefer old-school and don't like a lot of today's high-volume churn-it and burn-it erotica. Impatient boys miss dessert.
|
01-29-12 02:14pm
|
Reply
35
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
For me, it depends on the model and atmosphere of the scene. In general, however, I usually find it most erotic when some element of clothing remains present--especially a skirt. One thing that's a pet peeve of mine is when the model has a sexy par of stilettos or heels on and not only strips off all the clothes at once, but then removes the heels. :(
|
01-29-12 02:02pm
|
Reply
36
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
Yeah, I understand that it could be frustrating for a lot of people. I like the tease elements, however. I also like it when models have some clothing that complimenets the anatomy and it stays on. I like skirts hiked up and tops folded down to the waist, etc..--those types of things do it for me. Also, for me, nothing like seeing nipples sticking through lace bras or drooping out of a corset :)
|
01-29-12 01:54pm
|
Reply
37
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
Hi. Yes. If consistent full nudty is a requirement, this site won't be for you. I would put thise site more in a softcore tease category. There are some full nudes but they are not common and when they exist, they are very conservative. For example, you won't find any images of legs spread eagle or close-in shots of genitals, etc. When it is shown, it's more like full nudity with a flash of bush. This site is R rated and would be something that would pass the censors on HBO.The most hardcore image I saw was a model holding a dildo off to the side. No blowbangs and ATM here.
|
01-29-12 01:44pm
|
Review
38
|
Jugg Master
(0)
85.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ Unique fetish content.
+ Creative photography.
+ Good nostalgic value.
+ Low subscription price.
+ One-month non-reccuring costs the same as ongoing monthly subscription rates. |
| Cons: |
- Low resolution images only.
- Primitive site navigation and layout.
- Site does not appear to be growing much.
- Videos are just a novelty. |
| Bottom Line: |
I can give all the reasons why you might or might not find this site attractive. However, If you know who hese models are without Googling, my guess is that there is a high probabilty that you would enjoy viewing the models at this site--Maria Moore, Denise Davies, Bunny De La Cruz.
If you don't know these names but have a breast fetish or enjoy viewing images of women with truly oversized and natural breasts, meaty nipples, and saucer-sized areola, this site would also be worth a one-month subscription.
If none of the above is true, you should look elsewhere. That's it in a nuthsell. This is a very simple site oriented towards photography. There are videos, but they are simply small low-resolution clips. The videos serve more as a novelty of sorts and really are not worth commenting on.
The site is entirely sofcore. Most of the photosets are of the slow tease variety. They start with the model fully clothed and proceed to various states of undress, with the emphasis always placed on the breasts. You see a lot of images of huge boobs jutting through bras, dangling in the air, or spilling out of clothing items. Many of the sets were taken in natural lighting, outdoors and in pools.
I did come across some full nudes, but this is the exception, not the norm. This is conservative, old-school erotic photography. It is the opposite of today's in-your-face erotica, although there is a section called juggs-eye view, where there are many images of breasts dangling in front of the camera, as if in your face.
IMO, the photographer does a wonderful job with posing. You can tell that he is into the subject. He is just not going through the motions. The photographer has a talent for bringing out the best features of the models and does a good job with angles. The natural lighting and the lack of intense post-processing adds to the natrual appeal of the models. Many of the churn-it-and-burn photographers in this genre simply have the model strip nude and take straigh-on shots of breasts. Post-processing is overused and images suffer from harsh artifical lighting. The approach is very forumlatic. If you've seen one photo, you've seen them all. The photographer here is always creative and uses various angles to capture and profile the breasts-- from the side. the rear, the front, arms in the air, etc.. These won't be the most professional-looking images in terms of lighting and studio backdrops. However, this is more than made up for with the way that the photographer deals with the models.
You will see many of the mdoels elsewhere at the classic breast sites. The sets themselves are all unique, howeve. I know many of the models well from my years of viewing this genre and have never come across these images. Many of the photo sets contain images of popular Big Breast models in their younger years-- Maria Moore, Denise Davies, etc. If you are a fan of these models, you might think this is worth the cost of admission, simply for their nostalgic value.
Where content starts to drop in quality is in image resolution, and this is my only beef about the galleries. This content represents a very unique and sometimes nostalgic cdollection. The photographer should offer these images at higher resolutions. They appear to max out at around 11100x710 and many of the older sets appear to be old chrome scans of low resolution around 700x400. As this is primnarily a photo site, there should be high-resoltion images available.
The site design and navigation is very primitive and has an amateur look to it. I never had any trouble getting to content I wanted to view but the site should be cleaned up a bit to supply it with a more modern interface.
This site obviously wont be for everyone. Unless you can find a way to place natural-looking, ten-pound each breasts on the frame of a ninety-pound runway model, you are left with finding them on women of the voluptuous and BBW variety. If this turns you off, you will likely not find the content appealing. Also, if you cannnot live without high resolution images, you also will be dissapointed.
It was somehwat difficult to provide a score as this site doesn't claim to be a slick and professional studio and is basicallty the work of a single photographer displaying a photo collection that has been accumulated throughout the years. Please take this into consideration when viewing the score. I ended up rating it based on what it meant to me as someone with a breast feitsh and lover of voluptuous women. I would rate it even higher if the not for the relatively low resolution galleries. As a one-month only quick stop for those with a fetish for oversized breasts, its worth a try, especially given the modest price and the unique content. |
|
01-29-12 01:34pm
Replies (9)
|
Reply
39
|
Jugg Master
(0)
|
Reply of
Jutti24's Review
Hi. Thanks for the review and info. I had actually came upon this site last week when browsing through the niche link. Signed up for a one-month non-reccuring to replace my Score sub. Will add my review in a bit after I have had time to really go through the site.
I agree about the cost. It's the main reason I signed up. I have always been a collector of boob-mags over the years--Juggs, Gent, Score, Voluptuous, etc.. Considering that the price is only $16.99 and a single magazine today costs about $12, that's not a bad deal, especially when you can download all the galleries. Many of the models here I have seen and know quite well from the past. I have seen photo sets never seen before I so I think this material is pretty exclusive to the site.
It won't be for everyone, however. The models are of the thick and plump variety, and if you're not into BBW, it probably might not be your thing. If you like those huge, natural breasts with those saucer-sized aroela, this is quite good and the photography actually impressess me--much better than I thought it would be based on the rather rag-tag appearance of the site itself. Also, like you said, no hardcore and seeing genitals is rare. The photos are more of the classic, conservative variety and full nudes are rare. It seems to be all about the breasts.
|
01-26-12 04:23pm
|
Reply
40
|
Just Nips
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Review
It looks like something I would enjoy viewing. I have bookmarked it for future reference.
How would you rate the overall quality of photos? Are the images clear and crisp or somewhat lacking? I looked at a few of the sample images and they looked a little bit like scans of 35mm film. Or perhaps that is simply due to the lower quality of the samples and them not giving away the best.
Thanks
|
01-18-12 06:15pm
|
Reply
41
|
Just Nips
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Review
Nice review.
What is the percentage of different model figures? Is it mostly models on the thin side and a few voluptuous women or distributed all around?
|
01-18-12 04:41pm
|
Reply
42
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Hi. I think people probably download a lot but not a lot on average, by day. I don't know how the sites manage their bandwidth or what the user stats are like. I would just assume the average user probably doesn't download a large quantity after the first few days of excitement with the new site. The average user probably wouldn't go past 10 GIG a day after that, I suspect.
It's not that the sites don't want power users--money is money. But a limit forces the power users to accept the limit and alter their DL behavior, if they want to subscribe. It would help with detering some types of piracy, as well--I think.
|
01-17-12 03:35pm
|
Reply
43
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Hi.
I am not really sure how each site manages their sales. I assume they have hired consultants that analyzed the bandwidth requirements and how this effects the profits.
You are what is termed a power-user. This is neither good nor bad. But I assume that sites prefer not to retain such customers, even though they wouldn't ever publically say so. More DL traffic means you have to purchase more servers or people will complain about slow connectivity etc..
I don't really think anyone would offer this upgrade stratification as the extra charge probably wouldn't justify any possible increase in revenue for offering this.
To me, a site that has DL limits is basically saying they do no want power users who are going to be downloading a lot of content in a short amount of time. Very few sites do this but I think more would like to. They probably don't want to drive away people who think they might be limited, even though they may never really reach daily limits. For sites with DL limits, power-users are certainly welcome to apply, but your requirements are not going to not be met.
Again, everything i offered could be complete BS. That's just my take.
|
01-15-12 04:57pm
|
Reply
44
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Hi.
If you are a high-volume user then download limits are certainly something negative.
As far as streaming and downloads, they are two different animals. Both, done in high volumes, can slow down connectivity and they both take the same bandwidth in most cases. However, one takes an active time commitment, the other does not.
I suspect you would be hard-pressed to find users who stream entire videos from start to finish in front of their computer, and do so 3-4 times a day. Most people probably only stream certain sections they find interesting and the bandwidth used is probably quite small. Streaming videos real-time requires a large time commitment.
With downloads, you can simply set a number of them going and move on and retrieve them later. No time commitment is involved and you don't sit there watching the download. Most people are probably going to download and watch later. The sites all have to know this and understand it is downloads that consume most of the bandwidth. Streaming probably accounts for a small fraction of useage.
Unlimited downloads are kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet. Most people probably won't make more than 1-2 passes to the buffet table in a single sitting before they have had their fill. There will always be people who keep going back, however, and I suspect that most site owners don't really care if such consumers move on to other pastures. It is profitable to retain the ones who only make 2 passes.
|
01-12-12 03:57pm
|
Reply
45
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
Hello. Thanks. I tried to be fair and objective about it. never reviewed a porn site before.
|
01-12-12 03:43pm
|
Reply
46
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Another possibility is connectivity. Users downloading hd content all day can slow down the server for other members.
This is a business that I assume caters to the avg user. Volume is key to profits. I am sure such a business does research using industry data and historical data gleaned from past user behavior when it comes to download figures. The number is likely set based on the needs and behavior of the avg subscriber to such a site. You don't want power users because they are a drain. You want the power users to leave so setting a cap serves a purpose in this regards as well. You make your profits off the avg consumer. Limits likely are set accordingly.
I am not minimizing your frustration but this is probably just what a consultant felt represented the most prudent decision based on profit margins vs retention.
Then again, everything I just offered could be complete bs.
|
01-12-12 07:39am
|
Reply
47
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Hi. Thanks.
I like to know contexts when I read reviews, whether for cars or movies. It's often hard to tell where people are coming from. Everyone has preferences and varied experiences and this can slew opinions.
As far as the reason for having a limit on dl but not streams, I can only surmise that perhaps this is a means of preventing individuals or networks from easily pirating content? Since bandwidth charges are the same for both methods, this might be the case.
Then again, it could be a way to keep subscribers from bailing after a month-long frenzy of downloading all videos for future use. This would also be a valid explanation.
The last possibility would be related to technical specs. Perhaps there is some odd technical reason. I would not be inclined to think this is the case.
My guess is its a combination of the first 2 above. This would be something I couldn't fault a business for implementing. You want to keep a customer base around and piracy is a big issue for any online media outlet. However, you also have to take into account the competition. Apparently, the owners do not see such a limit as stifling sales or they wouldn't make such a move.
|
01-12-12 06:11am
|
Review
48
|
Reality Kings
(0)
80.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
-- Large Amount Of Content, both in quantity and variety. Enough to satisfy many interests.
-- High Quality Videos.
-- Sexy models. Model-types range from bra busters to thin and petite.
-- Good number of sub-sites with decent content(mostly) |
| Cons: |
-- Streaming and Downloading can be hit or miss.
-- No High-Resolution Photos.
-- Repetitive photos in sequences.
-- Downloading Limit of 10 G daily. |
| Bottom Line: |
A little background to put things in perspective:
My erotic interests: I am a breast guy. Curvy Women, Slim-and-Stacked or Voluptuous, Natural Women, MILF, Shapely Behinds.
I am primarily a photo guy, as well. I enjoy streaming videos but my primary taste in erotica is photography. I also travel quite frequently, so much of my viewing takes place on an Ipad, after transfer of data. Keep this in mind here.
With that being said, I have found the site to be somewhat lacking for my preferences, not in content or quality of the presentations, but in the medium available.
If you are looking for sexy models and high quality videos you will not be dissapointed. If you have a bias for high-resolution photography, you are likely to find the site lacking a bit in terms of photographic standards. However, given that I do view many of the images on an Ipad at times, this hasn't been a show-stopper. When viewed on a high-resolution flatpanel monitor, the images are lacking, simply due to the smaller formats and low pixel counts.
The videos themselves are of high-quality and the camera work is fairly decent. Many of the scenes start with the model fully clothed and do not jump right into the action.
Navigating the site is very simple and straightforward. It is designed quite well and is not lacking here, IMO. Jumping from one site to the other is seamless. Getting to the downloads is also seamless and straightforward. Everything is a click away.
As far as DL and Streaming speeds, this is where I give the lowest marks. At times, it was difficult to even stream videos at standard quanity. Most of the time, I was getting nowhere near the claimed DL speed and bit-ratre transfer when I did attempt to download videos at standard resolutions. The times I did try a HD download, I would often timeout and have to restart. On weekends, the problem was particularly noticeable. Slow connections are quite understandable at this time of the week. However, the server seemed to slow to a crawl and would often become asburdly slow.
To sum up, if variety, quality content, and video presentations are your primary interests, it's a safe bet that you probably will not be dissapointed. If transfer rates and streaming connectivity are of paramount importance, I would take this into consideration.
Cancelation: Just a note on this as I know this is one of my concerns when I sign up over the net. When I read reviews, I sometimes hear of extra charges taking place after an order has been canceled. I experienced no issues and giving notice of intent to cancel was no issue and took place as requested.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grades: (obviously subjective calls, so take that into consideration as well.)
Presentation and Site Navigation: A
Overall Quality of Content: B+
Subject Matter Variety: A +
Content Variety for Varied Interests: A
Standard Video Quality: B
HD Video Quality: A
Scene Content and Videography: B+
Photo Gallery Compositions and Content: C+
Photo Resolution and Image Quality: C-
The Models Themselves: A
The Action: B
DL Speed and Streaming: D-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My favorite sub-sites within the URL--relative to my interests and not quality:
Dangerous Cuvres, Big Naturals.
Least Favorite: Pure 18 and Cum Fiesta. (Models too thin and young-looking for my tastes)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other things to note: There is a download limit of 10 GIG daily. This was of no concern to me as I stream videos mostly and did not download much in the way of videos. If you are a massive user of downloadable HD video content, this very well might be soemething to consider. If you aren't downloading HD more than twice a day, it shouldn't be a problem. In fairness to these guys, you would have to be downloading a lot of content every day to hit the max.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suggestions for improvement:
-- Address concerns with streaming connectvity and download speeds. Slower speeds are to be expected on weekends but not weekdays.
-- Add high-resolution image galleries. The days of CRT monitors have long since passed. 800 pixel-width images images no longer cut it in the day of 2800x1900 high-resolution monitors. |
|
01-11-12 06:08pm
Replies (15)
|
Reply
49
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
malikstarks's Reply
Hi. Thanks for the info.
Just an FYI:
I have not heard a reply from Scoreland regarding my questions. The form said they would respond within 24 hours. Maybe they are just busy or maybe they don't want to reply, or maybe they just don't care. Either of these could be true. I will just leave it there. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
I did notice that I got a truckload of promos from Scoreland yesterday in my E-Mail box, offering me an additional site if I stick around, and special deals on other sites. I signed up for one month, non-renewing. I also noticed something odd. Twice now, I have received emails telling me my password was reset as they have noticed suspiscious activity on my account. This happened the week after I signed up and also yesterday. My guess is they do this to make password sharing on the net more difficult and make sure it is the person who signed up that is using the account. I haven't used the site in a week.
I have no interest in renewing--not because of the HD issue itself, but I have seen what I wanted to and downloaded the photo sets I liked.
|
01-28-12 02:37pm
|
Reply
50
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Hi. No Problem. It's good to get straight info from others. To be honest, I have always been supiscious of porn review sites because I always felt they were stacked and bisaed towards certain studios--my opinion is a lot of them really are. It's good to find a place where you can feel confident you are not getting some covert sales pitch or slanted reviews by editors. I wish I would have had straight opinions like this in the past.
Never been into online stuff until recently but mainly was a collector or softcore erotica and photography--Score was one of them. If they write me back with a response to the inquiry, I certainly will post the reply.
|
01-26-12 04:13pm
|
|
