| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
51
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Comment
FYI..I contacted Scoreland through the members area. I also asked if they would add a comment here(if they know about this place).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am a subscriber to Scoreland and was wondering why HD videos cannot be downloaded? Also, older video content is not available for download either. Are HD videos available for download at Score HD?
I am not asking for a refund as I felt I got what I came for. However, this seems to bit deceptive, as the homescreen displays a HD logo and there is no plain information when signing up regarding what is and is not available for video downloads.
There are also a number of comments and questions about this subject at Pornusers.com and people are wondering what the straight scoop is on this. Is there any way you could leave a reply over there, as well?
Thanks and Regards
|
01-25-12 04:29pm
|
Reply
52
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Hi. Thanks.
I cannot really say for sure if Score HD allows the HD to be downloaded. I would think they would or people would get really upset. I do not have access to that without a subscription so can't check for you. I also do not know how far back in time you can download, but I suspect there are similar date restrictions as can be found at Scoreland.
As far as my review and the comment I added, I agree a lot of people will not like the fact that they don't allow any HD downloads at all at Scoreland. All of the videos on the home page have a HD logo on them and you can indeed stream them in HD. Technically, I cannot call this a fabrication as the movies can be viewd in HD --they just refrain from telling you about the download stuff. There is no statement anywhere when you sign up as to what can or cannot be downloaded. My view is that it is indeed a bit deceptive, however, and I think most will be inclined to see it that way. This will eventually upset people and they won't come back.
To be fair, I think the site should, at minimum, put an asterik next to the HD logo indicating this information. At best, they should include full information in plain view on the signup screen. You will just succeed in upsetting people if they feel like they got deceived, whether or not that was the intent.
I am a bit surprised as, over the years,I have purchased from Score in Miami before--mags and even a couple videos. I had dealings with customer service and they were always helpful and even refunded a purchase once. They never struck me as the kind to play games. As I said before, I will always give the benefit of the doubt unless I have reason to believe otherwise. Without hearing what they have to say, most will conclude this is deceptive.
As far as my opinion, I felt I got what I wanted from the site as I am primarily a photo guy. I mention this in my reviews so people know how to judge my opinions on content. I won't be re-subscribing after my 30 day sub has run out, however. I do like many of the photo sets and others into the genre probably will, as well. However, there is really not a big reason for me to stick around longer. The lack of HD download sealed it. Again, I don't view or DL a lot of video content but I like to do so when something really nice catches my eye.
I did not lower my review score even further as in all honesty, I did enjoy the photo content and felt like I got what I came for in that regards. HD video lovers, however, should definately consider all that has been said on this subject of download limits.
|
01-25-12 04:00pm
|
Comment
53
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
|
01-24-12 04:22pm
Replies (7)
|
Reply
54
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
BradlyH's Reply
Hi. Thanks. It's a nice site for at least a one-month subscription.
|
01-17-12 03:27pm
|
Review
55
|
Scoreland
(0)
80.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-- Huge amount of content.
-- Large variety of model types within the 'big-boob' genre.
-- Fairly decent DL speeds.
-- Photography and xxx videos are not over-the-top and the style is classic (think Playboy or Penthouse.) This is either a pro or con, depending on perspective. Will appeal to more classic consumers of erotica.
-- Galleries and vidoes do not jump right into the action. Plenty of tease photos and slow undressing.
-- Images are of high-quality, although sometimes can apper a bit plastic. |
| Cons: |
-- Not the most user-friendly site when it comes to navigation or finding content.
-- Photoshoots sometimes seem to be heavily air-brushed. Can sometimes appear 'plastic'.
-- A little pricey compared to competition.
--- Although the content amount is huge, it is easy to become a bit overwhelmed by it when trying to decide on selections.
-- Might not be as explicit in terms of xxx content as some would prefer. Either a pro or con, see above.
-- No HD Video Download Option--Only Streaming. |
| Bottom Line: |
Background:
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pros and Cons:
-- The amount of content here is huge. I used to subscribe to Voluptuous and Score back in the 90's. The models represent the type of women I find attractive. You can find content dating back to the 90's on the site.
-- Streaming and DL speeds seem to be up to par and there are no problems to report here, so far.
-- The photography and video presentations are sexy and alluring without being too in-your-face. If you are into things like ass-to-mouth, pile drivers, and things like that, you are not going to find it here. This is either good or bad, depending on your own preferences. About 80% of the photo and video content is softcore posing, either solo or girl-girl. hardcore content is typical fare-classic oral, missionary, doggy, etc., although the scenes usually end with popshots on the breasts rather than face--it's a breast site.
-- It can be a bit difficult at first to navigate around the huge of amount of content in the archives. More user-friendly options would be nice.
-- Photography could use a little diversification in poses and sets. The photosets often to seem to follow the same script. The photographers could also tone down the airbrushing a bit. Sometimes this pervades the images.
-- Subscription rates also seem to be a little bit higher in cost than the typical site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion:
This is definately a niche site that will appeal to fans of large-breasted women, especially of the voluptuous and/or curvy variety. Models can range from thin-and-stacked to soft and voluptuous.
The site is a mix of photos and videos. If viewing softcore images of chesty, well-endowed women is your thing, you won't be dissapointed. There is a fair amount of xxx video action to be found, but the majority of presentations, both photo and video, are softcore solo or girl-girl.
Update 1/24/12-- HD Video Downloading is NOT an option. One can only stream HD videos. I discovered this recently. One must subscribe to Score HD to download HD.
IMO, who would like this site:
Photo lovers and those with a breast fetish who enjoy a variety of body types and those who enjoy a more classic conservative style in their photos and explicit videos.
Who won't like this site:
Those who rarely view photosets or solo video action or those who enjoy more extreme hardcore action.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grades(obviously subjective):
Site Navgigation: C-
Video Presentation Style: A
Video Quality: A
Photo Presentations: B+
Photo Content and Quality: A
The Models Themselves: A
Streaming and DL Speeds: A
Quantity: A+
XXX Action: C
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suggestions for improvement:
Improve the site navigation utility and add options to make the user experience a bit easier. |
|
01-15-12 12:04pm
Replies (9)
|
Reply
56
|
Steve Bones
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
That site is pretty different, too, Cap'n.
I wonder how they deal with the 'money shot' on the skeleton. Maybe they shoot dried-up mayonaise flakes out of the dildo onto the models face.
|
02-01-12 11:36am
|
Reply
57
|
Steve Bones
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Comment
I was trying to figure out what I was looking at as the screen was loading slow at their home page. I guess there are all kinds of fetishes out there. Can't say I ever thought about having sex with a medical school skeleton as something that would draw enough interest for a pay site to stay in the green.
|
02-01-12 11:18am
|
Reply
58
|
Top Heavy Amateurs
(0)
|
Reply of
gaypornolover's Reply
Thanks. I usually try to supply whatever info I can to try to help people get an honest opinion. In this case, there was only so much to supply and it is all negative. I honestly can't think of a positive.
I really feel bad for anyone who actually signed up on the 3 or 6 month plan. I just signed up for the 30 day and always do this as I will cancel it right away if I find it is not for me or not what was advertised. In this case, I got burned for $23. Certainly not the end of the world and it is much better than getting taken for $60 for the 3-month plan.
IMO, there should be something like a warning list that sites like this put together to let people know that people are reporting questionable practices or content. Sites certainly can't ban a site just because one person like me says so and I wouldn't expect them too.
I couldn't write anyone and demand money back because their is nobody to write. No customer service or contact info. I am partly to blamew. I should have paid more attention that this info was missing and with any business, I always like to know someone will field an inquiry.
It is technically difficult to call thease guys crooks as they did not falsely rerpresent what you will see at the site--busty amateurs. However, the total lack of qualtiy of the material and the problems with access is such that it is hard to not believe you were taken and that there is someone accepting the payment from CCBill and thinking, "Enjoy, sucker."
I could let CCBill know but obviously the sensitive nature of this and the stigma makes that unpalitable. What do you say? "The nude photos of boobs are mostly small images that are out of focus and grainy shit" ?
IMO, these kinds of vendors do a disservice to the legit vendors out there and gives the business a bad name. It also causes consumers to lose trust. It just reinforces the stereotype that some people hold that porn is run by crooked and unethical cretens looking for a quick dollar. I do not aggree with that opinion for the entire industry but regarding this vendor, it's hard not to make that judgement.
|
06-02-12 01:03pm
|
Review
59
|
Top Heavy Amateurs
(0)
50.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
None |
| Cons: |
-- Photo quality is abysmal.
-- Photosets are largely screen captures of grainy videos and are saved with high JPEG compression.
-- Video quality is even worse.
-- Site frequently freezes.
-- Advertusing bares no resemblence to actual site content. |
| Bottom Line: |
Anyone who has read my reviews in the past knows I am pretty fair and impartial. In an effort to maintain this reputation, I will limit my comments to the facts.
I am hard-pressed to say anything positive regarding my experience at this site.
The site design and layout is extremely primitive. When I was able to access the content, I was exceedingly dissapointed with the content and quality of images and videos.
The vast majority of images are small resolution photos that are saved with extremely high JPEG compression. The Pixelation is severe in the majority of images. Sets that are displayed as HD image quality consists of one or two images saved with 1400x800 resolution, with the remainder at 700x400 or below. I did not come across an image that did not contain compression artifiacts. More than half the images are blurry enough to be useless and appear to be nothing more than screen captures of videos.
The video quality is, in many cases, worse than the photo image quality and at times appears to be video captured with an older cell phone.
Connecting to the site is problematic. I frequently locked up and often could not access video content.
The advertising images are high-quality, but this kind of content is nowherre to be found in any of the actual content in the members area.
In short, I could not in good faith reccomend this site to anyone interested in this genre, whether it be photos or videos. I would even go so far as to supply an entirely subjective opinion, which is that sites like this give online porn a bad name. |
|
06-01-12 01:01pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
60
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Basil's Reply
Hi. Thaks for the reply.
Thanks for the offer. I wouldn't bust your butt just over me, however. I can get to the afternoon Saturday show when I am inclined. I would think most people would prefer evening shows(After 6PM Local) on weekdays. But that is obviously hard to accomodate, given the diversity of memberships on different sides of the pond.
Maybe it is a just and fitting punishment, as the US Porn Industry is responsibile for starting the whole shaving craze in the 90's. Thankfuly, Europe never fell completely under this spell and kept their senses about them. :)
|
02-06-12 08:24pm
|
Reply
61
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
monty4321's Review
I just signed up recently, as well. I didn't pay much attention to the video content as that is not my area of interest.
As far as photo quality, I definately have seen examples where focus issues are present. I don't recall seeing any glaring exposure problems, however, and I am pretty anal about things like that. Then again, I ddin't go through every set.
For me, I don't really find the girls unattractive, I think it's just that they are not over-glamorized and elements such as makeup are kept in check so as not to detract from the natural theme of the site.I certainly wouldn't meet any of these girls on the street in person and think they were ugly. Most men would find them pretty if they walked by them on the street and passed them, IMO. I think we are just so used to seeing the heavily airbrushed and post-processed porn with heavy makeup and lipstick, lingerie, and heavy facial cake powder, that when we do come across models in porn that are not made up in this way, we tend to rate them as less attractive when compared to the pro studio standard of perfection. As an example, have you ever seen a news-babe off the set, without being under the soft, flattering lighting and without the professional broadcast studio makeup? The results are quite dramatic. They can look like totally different people and much more 'average.'
Sites like this are the anti-thesis of high fashioin nude glamour and are more about bare natural beauty, IMO. Seeing a glamorized model with fancy lingerie and makeup, sporting a full bush and underarm hair would be totally out of place, IMO.
Anyways, I am not arguing and don't mean to negate any opinions. Just offering a different perspective. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. However, if you come from a site like DDF or other glam sites to a site like this, I can see how one might be inclined to equate the lack of polish to a lack of beauty.
|
02-06-12 08:07pm
|
Reply
62
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
So far, I have no complaints. Questions are answered almost immediately on the forum at the site.
Regarding the focus issue with some image sets, after having looked around more, I found the issue does appear more often in older sets. Newer sets only have this issue sporadically. When these issues do appear, however, they are only usually a major distraction when viewing the image at full resolution. I think it is definitley a gear-related issue and not technique. Sometimes, the focus will be on the wall behind the model or its locking onto the models jewelry or some high contrast object in the scene. This is almost always due to the camera body being a limited point autofocus DSLR or a subpar lense with a squirelly focus drive, or the point bias not set correctly. The lenses also seem to not always be the sharpest. Something like a Canon L series lens will fix that up in a hurry. They are expensive but produce superb results. I have a 300 2.8 L series lens I use for wildlife and the lens is so sharp that you can pick out a fly on the back of a moose at 50 yards. They are that good.
|
02-05-12 04:49pm
|
Reply
63
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
Yes. I do like it. It is definately an excellant site. If there was more diversity in ethnic and model variety, I would categorize it as a truly exceptional site that would score a 100 in my eyes. I think that's the only thing it is lacking.
Obviously, this all depends on whether or not the content is for you. If someone isn't into this niche, they may rate it a 50.
I think the biggest problem is finding models. With the shift away from any hair in the 80's, not too many models are going to be willing to get into this niche and let things 'grow.'
Unfortunately, sometime in the 80's, the US Porn Industry decided it would define for everyone what represents attractive on the female body. At first, my thought as to why the shave craze took hold was that people suddenly decided that any hair on a female was just too masucline. However,this doesn't explain why even the guys in porn started shaving too--their crotch, their legs, even their pits. Somehow, for some reason, hair became contraband in the North American porn industry. After about 1990, Those of us who feel public hair(or, god forbid, an unshaved armpit) on a female can be erotic, were pushed out onto a fringe into the 'odd fetish niche ' category. Look at some porn review sites and see how something like Hairy Bush would be filed in the bizarre fetish category.
|
02-05-12 01:38pm
|
Reply
64
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
BubbaGump's Review
Ran out of space...
I also wanted to add that this is the first time I have been to a site where I can see myself staying around as a long-term subscriber, instead of downloading intersiting content during a one-month subscription period. The amount of updates and the web cam shows are incentive to stay. IMO, more sites should offer up such ammenities to give a cosnumer the incentive to continue on.
|
02-05-12 12:53pm
|
Review
65
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
95.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ A good range of hirsute content to suit most tastes in this niche,.
+ Wholesome, pretty, amateur models.
+ Large Database of Photosets and videos.
+ Clean and efficient site design and layout.
+ Customizable user settings and search features provide a nice user experience
+ Custom zip files for downloads
+ Multiple Daily Video/Photo updates
+ Free Cam Shows
+ Good customer service |
| Cons: |
- Older photo content can have issues with soft-focus and stray focus.
- Lack of any substantial ethnic diversity in models.
- Web cam show scheduling conflicts with most schedules in north America. |
| Bottom Line: |
I found myself really hard-pressed to come up with any specific negatives beyond those listed above. This is one of the best sites--if not the best--I have come across in terms of the user experience and range of content available to a subscriber. There are extensive photo sets, videos, free interactive web shows, all for a single subscription price. The user experience I can only classify as top-notch, at least relative to the sites I have subscribed to in the past. There are utilities for just about any feature at the site. There are customizable search tools, gallery tools, favorite lists, and custom zip downloads where you are free to choose to select(or deselect) which images go into a zip. There is also a user forum and web masters are very quick to respond to any questions.
The content here is traditional solo softcore posing with some dildo and masturbation action. There is the occasional girl-girl scene as well. If your preference is softcore erotica, the content will meet your demands. If you demand hardcore action, this is not the place to find it and you will be disappointed.
If you are looking for the traditional airbrushed porn star look, this site will likewise not meet your needs. Makeup is used in moderation--it is of the kind you will see on any girl on the street-- and there is no attempt tot hide any blemish or mole with post-processing. The models are pretty and wholesome amateurs but they are not over-glamorized. That is not the look that this site aims for and it would detract from the natural theme. Most of the models appear to be in their mid-twenties, with a few MILF and a few of the just-turned-legal variety.
There is an abundance pf photo and video content and updates happen daily. Galleries are nicely done with semi-pro level photography. Super-high resolution images bring out every subtle detail and nuance on the models. Some of the older sets, however, do suffer at times from stray focus or a soft focus. This issue does not appear in most of the photosets posted after 2010, however. The videos are of high quality and they are clips of roughly 10 minutes in length. The main attraction here, however, is the photography. I found the DL speeds to be more than adequate.
Beyond the occasional image quality issue of older sets, the only other negative that stands out is the lack of diversity in the ethnicity of the models. Most are from Eastern Europe, the UK, or California. It would be nice to see the site expand this range a bit and offer more Latin and ethnic models in the galleries.
There are interactive web cam shows that happen a few times a week. These last an hour Unfortunately, the scheduled times appear to be centered around European time zones. Outside of the 4 PM Saturday show, if you are in North America, you will likely find it hard to attend during the week, out of personal work schedules. Never having attended a cam show in the past, I wasn't sure what to expect as I have no experience with cam media. I did sit in on the Saturday show with the model Raven. One can type questions or comments--or requests--and the model seemed willing to oblige(within reason). The feed quality was decent. The flow could be easily interrupted, however, when users ask questions(or act like toolbags)' Once you find the ignore user option, however, it is less distracting. If you are into cam shows, this is certainly a nice bonus, especially given that it is free of charge and from what I can tell, most fees for cam shows can be ridiculously expensive. Being able to interact with the models adds a personal touch to the site experience.
I chose to join this site as I prefer natural femininity over the glossed-over and heavily-toned airbrushed look of the majority of porn available today. What many people interested in this niche probably want to hear most about is the actual hirsute content available. Based on comments I have read here and elsewhere, it seems that what people find attractive in this niche is all over the board, which one would epect, given the broad scope and relative meaning that the word 'hairy' invokes. There is probably not a niche that has more diversity of tastes and opinions. When reading the review comments for various sites in this niche, I see complaints about models being too hairy or not hairy enough, or not having hair in the right place. What is hairy enough? What is too hairy? What is the right place? The answers are so relative to an individual that I cannot tell you if the content here meets your criteria. What I can say is that this site appears to cater to the middle of the road and it avoids extremes as a predominant feature. This is the way it should be, IMO, as there are so many tastes. No preference is given to any fetish and the content strikes a good balance. You will find just about anything here for most users in terms of hair. However, its unrealistic to expect to see every model always conform to your ideals. |
|
02-05-12 12:42pm
Replies (6)
|
Comment
66
|
We Are Hairy
(0)
|
|
02-01-12 03:20pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
67
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
Hello Buddhist. Thanks for the feedback. I only have two other sites I belong to so only a couple more reviews to do.
|
01-17-12 03:28pm
|
Reply
68
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
hmm..Interesting. I read the reply from the Customer Service rep in that thread.
Not sure what to make of that. Piracy certainly would be a top concern on my mind if I owned a site. However, the 7 week cutoff seems rather arbitrary. Why 7 and not 12, for instance?
My hunch on this is that the explanation is partially true--my opinion only and not to be taken as fact. There are concerns about piracy, but I also suspect this might just be a good business move in terms of bandwidth. I say this as they do not employ this date restriction with photo gallery downloads. I downloaded galleries from stuff dated way back to 2005. There are no restrictions. I assume pirates will go after the photos as well.
So, my guess is that this limit also serves as a practical bandwidth decision that keeps the server from slowing down with folks downloading older videos.
|
01-16-12 01:23pm
|
Reply
69
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Hello.
I don't see anything at Scoreland indicating a limit on downloads. There is no info in the signup screen indicating a limit but it doesn't say 'Unlimited Downloads' either. I do not download much in the way of videos so I didn't even think about this when signing up. If there is a lmit, it's probably snuck in on the fine-print on those user aggreements we always click yes to.
On this subject, something wierd I discovered at XL girls was that some videos did not have a download option at all, while others did. It makes no sense as to why certain videos could not be downloaded. It doesn't appear to be based on when the video was added or any specific content. For instance, a recent XXX action video can be downloaded, whereas a solo video one-month old cannot and vice-versa at places.
|
01-16-12 12:36pm
|
Reply
70
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Reply
Hi. Thanks, guys.
I try to offer the kind of info I like to see. I try not to overdo a review, but considering we spend money on this stuff, it is certainly worth it to give the straight poop.
I always thought of porn review sites as simply fronts for studios, as a lot do seem to be heavily biased. This site seems pretty objective and fair so far and the members giving reviews are not just someone from the company in disguise.
|
01-16-12 09:12am
|
Reply
71
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
They do that at scoreland, too. I was offered XLGirls for $19.99 and the Scoreland sub was $39.99.
As I mentioned in my other review, the price is on the high side.
IMO, XL girls should be a subsite to Scoreland. The sites that are offered at Scoreland as subsites are really not that great--basically just older content of some of the classic scoreland models.
|
01-15-12 05:00pm
|
Review
72
|
XL Girls
(0)
80.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-- Large number of models.
-- Easier to naviagte and find content than Scoreland master site.
-- Photography and xxx videos are not over-the-top and the style is classic (think Playboy or Penthouse.) This is either a pro or con, depending on perspective. Will appeal to more classic consumers of erotica.
-- Galleries and vidoes do not jump right into the action. Plenty of tease photos and slow undressing.
-- Images are of high-quality, although sometimes can apper a bit plastic. |
| Cons: |
-- Photoshoots sometimes seem to be heavily air-brushed. Can sometimes appear 'plastic'.
-- Might not be as explicit in terms of xxx content as some would prefer. Either a pro or con, see above.
-- For some reason, the DL speed and streaming was slower than at Scoreland.
-- Probably not enough updates to keep long-term subscribers used to large volume. Best for one-month subscriptions.
-- Should be part of Scoreland main subscription. |
| Bottom Line: |
Background:
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- The photography and video presentations are sexy and alluring without being too in-your-face. If you are into things like ass-to-mouth, pile drivers, and things like that, you are not going to find it here. This is either good or bad, depending on your own preferences. About 80% of the photo and video content is softcore posing, either solo or girl-girl. hardcore content is typical fare-classic oral, missionary, doggy, etc., although the scenes usually end with popshots on the breasts rather than face--it's a breast site.
--Navigatiuon and menus are a bit simplified from the information-overload present at Scoreland.
-- Photography could use a little diversification in poses and sets. The photosets often to seem to follow the same script. The photographers could also tone down the airbrushing a bit. Sometimes this pervades the images.
-- Streaming and DL speeds are not as quick as at the master site Scoreland.
-- The site will likely not keep long-term interest. Site should probably be included with a Scoreland subscription and not exist as a seperate pay-site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Summary:
I added this site when signing up for a one-month subscription to Scoreland. The cost was $19.99 for one month, non-recurring.
BBW stands for Big Beautful Women.
The first two two terms here are relative. I have had an erotic interest in this genre over the years.. I have discovered that 'Big' can mean anything from slightly plump to to morbidly obese. The women shown at XL girls generally falls somewhere in the middle. One characteristic all the models have is that that they all sport large, natural-looking breasts. Most appear to be young, twenty-somethings, althought there are a few MILF models. Pretty faces are the norm.
Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder and this genre won't be for everyone. It is refreshing, however, to see more natural-looking women in this industry--the kind you are likely to encounter on the street. Also, in the photosets, the models will actually smile and don't look irritated or annoyed.
The photos at the site are much more profresinal-looking than most BBW images I have come accross in the past, The photographers could tone down the airburhsing a bit, however.
I guess this genre is defined by anything that does not fit the cookie cutter mold of what the average man would find appealing in terms of physcique. The women at XLGirls look like natural women on the plump side, all with motherly figures.Silicone appears to be used sparingly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion:
This is definately a niche site that will appeal to fans of plump, rubenesque women one would find in classic paintings, albeit with large chests.
The site is a mix of photos and videos. There is not a large amount of XX action here and most videos are solo or girl-girl.
IMO, who would like this site:
Photo lovers and those with a fetish for plump, rubenesque, motherly women or those who have a breast fetish. Also, this site will appeal to those who enjoy a more classic, conservative style in their photos and explicit videos.
IMO, who won't like this site:
Those who are looking for the cookie-cutter, well-toned models who spend most of their days in the gym and count their calories. Also, those who rarely view photosets or solo video action or those who enjoy more extreme hardcore action.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grades(obviously subjective):
Site Navgigation: B
Video Presentation Style: A
Video Quality: A
Photo Presentations: B
Photo Content and Quality: A
The Models Themselves: A
Streaming and DL Speeds: C
Quantity: B
XXX Action: D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suggestions for improvement:
Addf this site to the standard Scoreland subscription.
More creativity in photos. Diversify the photosets to include more angles and perspectives. Photosets tend to stick to a classic script. |
|
01-15-12 03:12pm
Replies (11)
|
|
