| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
Teenage Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
freesbee's Comment
If you don't get anywhere with customer service, you might try to cancel with your credit card company. What you do is call their help line and identify the charge and say you did not authorize it. They will start an investigation and send you a short document to sign. Return the document along with you complete email correspondence, and a letter explaining what happened. You have the right on your side, so you may get your money back.
|
07-12-07 08:48am
|
Reply
27
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Either the graphics on a Mac are superior to those on a PC, or I'm just used to them. Either way, I would hate to watch porn on anything but a Mac, because the colors and image quality just doesn't look right to me.
|
07-12-07 08:43am
|
Reply
28
|
N/A
|
Reply of
roseman's Poll
Tits grab your attention.
A nice ass makes you wanna grab hold.
Eyes are small part of the body but a large part of the soul.
Why does no one like hair? I always like to see it worn long, not tied up.
Why do so many eastern European girls have pigtails and barrettes?
|
07-03-07 07:14pm
|
Reply
29
|
Danni.com
(0)
|
Reply of
King's Reply
I know you can play .wmv in other players; in fact, I use QuickTime with a .wmv codec for all my .wmv movies.
My problem with Danni was this: there were three grades of movies - I think they were 300K, 700K, and 1000K. 300K was available in Windows and I think .mov format, but the other two were only available in Windows, and for some reason I couldn't play it, even with my QuickTime and codec. For two or three years they said they would fix the problem, but they never did. So I was stuck with either crappy 300K, or a streaming option (and I hate streaming).
Now I haven't been a member in over a year, so maybe this is no longer a problem. But I wanted to see what others' experience was.
Cheers.
|
07-02-07 02:09pm
|
Comment
30
|
Busty Kerry Marie
(0)
|
|
07-02-07 01:54pm
Replies (1)
|
Comment
31
|
Danni.com
(0)
|
|
07-02-07 01:44pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
32
|
N/A
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Poll
The test should be: can you actually tell that the pictures have been touched up? If you can, then it's annoying. You can tell, when a girl at hi-res is absolutely devoid of everything, including stray freckles or the tear ducts in the corners of her eyes (which Playboy used to shop out). You can also tell when there are movies that go with a set, and the girl has marks in the movies that aren't visible in the pics.
I understand that they want to make the models look more 'perfect', but to me it feels almost like censorship, or as if they were saying 'you can't HANDLE the truth!' No, it's just a freckle or a old zit; I'll be ok.
|
06-30-07 11:03am
|
Reply
33
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
I see; you're lumping all the various criteria - qualitative, quantitative, or whatever - all together. That makes sense.
Looking over some of the trust ratings and accompanying discussion, I see that most people get upset when they receive a 'No' trust without any comment. I think it would improve the system if there was a way of insuring that no one could give a 'No' without also adding a comment or discussion or some kind of reason for it (a pop-up box that needed to have a minimum of twenty characters, say). The 'Yes' ratings help other users judge who is trustworthy, but the 'No' ratings ought to also give the reviewer some feedback - some sense of how they could improve. For if you look at the 'No's', only a few people are getting them because they are jerks or trolls; most people get them because there is something really lacking from one or more reviews. And they should be told what that is.
Cheers.
|
06-28-07 08:29pm
|
Reply
34
|
N/A
|
Reply of
djwolf's Poll
Hey, Khan - Yeah, 'trust' is a rather flexible term, especially when you're talking in the abstract, and dealing with something on the internet. I wasn't sure where the definition of 'trust' you're referring to was, so I looked at the FAQ, and this looks like the key passage. I'm going to be criticize this, but just to point out that the ambiguity I mentioned is present even here:
"In essence, the Trust Rating is simply a way to allow the community to judge for themselves who's remarks are trustworthy based on that user's activity."
This basically says that 'trust' = 'trustworthy'. Well, sure; but that doesn't clarify things very much.
"In other words, can the reviewer's remarks be trusted to be accurate to what others will find if they visit a site."
Now "accurate" here means "factually correct" - but what are the facts we're talking about: the other users' personal, qualitative experience with the site (how good, worthwhile, or erotic is it), or the actual, hard, quantitative data about the site (price, number of models, etc.)? And if "trust" means "accuracy," why not just call it "accuracy," or maybe "reliability"?
Anyway, just some food for thought. Is there a definitive discussion of the trust rating somewhere that I haven't found?
Keep up the good work.
|
06-28-07 06:47pm
|
Reply
35
|
N/A
|
Reply of
djwolf's Poll
I think the 'trust' rating is ambiguous - does it mean you don't think the reviewer is lying or making up facts? Does it mean that you have found his or her opinions square pretty well with your own? Or does it mean that in some hard to define way you like the reviews, even though you may disagree with them or find them less than totally reliable factually?
I've given 'trust' ratings for all three reasons.
|
06-28-07 11:46am
|
Reply
36
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
Some honest, quality sites might be worried that they would lose money if they offered $3-4 full access trials. But if sites aren't willing to do a $3 full-access, trial, they should at least go for a $8 one, like Scoreland.com. It seems to me that the Score guys are out to squeeze every penny that they can out of their customers; which tells me that $8 for a trial is not a money-losing proposition, otherwise they wouldn't be so stupid as to continue it.
|
06-27-07 03:18pm
|
Reply
37
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
I have one and tried it for a few months. For a while it was nice, but over time the rubbery material became less silky and more clingy, almost sticky, so that it required more lube. When I had to relube it every three minutes to prevent it from becoming painful, I said enough of this.
Clever invention, but not perfect.
|
06-24-07 08:23pm
|
Comment
38
|
Big Naturals
(0)
|
|
06-24-07 06:17pm
Replies (2)
|
Comment
39
|
Alexandra Moore
(0)
|
|
06-23-07 09:06am
Replies (1)
|
Reply
40
|
DDF Busty
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Reply
That's what I thought too, because they don't feature bustyadventures.com on their homepage. But you know what? When I was a member of bangbros about two months ago, I suddenly had access to bustyadventures. Really! Maybe it was a glitch on their part, but I know I wasn't paying separately for bustyadventures! (I don't know how much to publicize this, in case it's a loophole in their system!)
|
06-22-07 06:06am
|
Reply
41
|
DDF Busty
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Reply
Jessica is great, that's for sure. She has some awesome videos on bustyadventures.com(which you get if you subscribe to bangbros.com).
|
06-22-07 05:09am
|
Reply
42
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Reply
I see; that makes sense now, it was a special and limited-time offer. Cool.
|
06-22-07 05:05am
|
Reply
43
|
XL Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Review
I'm confused by your information about the subscription price for XLGirls:
- the current advertised mo. price is 29.95, not "15 USD"
- there is no FREE 7 Days trial that I have seen anywhere
I hope you can offer evidence for these claims, because they don't match what I've paid in the past or what I can see now.
|
06-21-07 09:09am
|
Comment
44
|
Nadine Jansen
(0)
|
|
06-20-07 09:46am
Replies (1)
|
Comment
45
|
Score Videos
(0)
|
|
06-12-07 06:46pm
Replies (1)
|
|
