| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
401
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
Wow! Probably I should try to get such a 30" Apple beast; I used to think such things are in $5k+ range, but at $1800 (well, it will be more here) it is not prohibitively expensive.
And just curious - do you know how much that 3840x2400 thing cost?
|
11-17-07 03:22am
|
Comment
402
|
Eyes On The Straight Guy
(0)
|
|
11-17-07 12:06am
Replies (1)
|
Comment
403
|
Blacks on Blondes
(0)
|
|
11-16-07 10:50am
Replies (1)
|
Reply
404
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
I know, but content (and names) of these 2 sites are THAT similar that I've thought it might be just an overlook (or recent domain name acquisition, or whatever else).
Thanks for the advice anyway :-).
|
11-16-07 08:02am
|
Reply
405
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Reply
Thanks. I was wondering because NudeInPublic and NudeInPublic.tv have VERY similar concept; even wondering if one just stole content from another one.
|
11-16-07 07:16am
|
Reply
406
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
Wow (honestly, I didn't even know such a beast exists)! But still 3500 pixel picture width should be beyond even your capabilities :-) (and when downscaling with browser, quality suffers, I'm sure you won't object :-) ). So I'm continuing to be curious - do you like anything above your 2560x1600 pixels?
|
11-15-07 03:27pm
|
Reply
407
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Getreal's Poll
Everything except for boring niche :-).
|
11-15-07 03:22pm
|
Reply
408
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
I see, thanks :-).
|
11-15-07 02:22am
|
Comment
409
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
|
11-14-07 12:44pm
Replies (6)
|
Reply
410
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
I see, thanks for commentary. But it looks more of discussion on "why pictures are better than vids" rather than "why download all the vids you won't watch anyway" :-).
Also a question about resolution: I've seen comments like "this site is great, they have pics with resolution of 3500 px width" or something like this; as an image fun (you certainly sound so :-)), can you tell what are people doing with such big images? They won't fit on screen anyway (and scaling algorithms built-in browsers suck, so quality will suffer); maybe somebody prints them or...?
|
11-14-07 07:44am
|
Reply
411
|
Shemale Club
(0)
|
Reply of
boredsurfer's Reply
No problem :-), just looked quite strange to see 2 almost identical complaints within 2 days.
|
11-14-07 04:09am
|
Reply
412
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
abbywinters's Reply
> I have no idea how reliable those stats are, nor what market segment they apply to.
I'd say that it would be a good idea to research this kind of stats BEFORE implementing such a restriction, wouldn't it?
> We know that 100% of our subscribers have JS enabled.
Sure, as you throw away everybody else :-)
> I am not sure of the details of your case
My case is very simple - content of your site isn't unique enough for me to mess with yet another "protection system that magically solves all the problems and doesn't cause any problems except for one single customer".
|
11-13-07 06:25pm
|
Reply
413
|
Shemale Club
(0)
|
Reply of
bobjob's Reply
No, I cannot look for IP addresses and honestly I don't want to. Anyway, if you're different guy your input is welcome :-).
|
11-13-07 06:16pm
|
Reply
414
|
Shemale Club
(0)
|
Reply of
bobjob's Review
Are you somehow related to 'boredsurfer'? Or it is just a coincidence that within 2 days 2 different people write almost the same thing?
|
11-13-07 05:34pm
|
Reply
415
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
abbywinters's Reply
With about 4-5% of all the users having JavaScript disabled
(see for example here: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/November/javas.php ) I don't see how it can possibly affect only single user if you're speaking about many thousands users. Something doesn't really add up here (could theoretically be that only one user out of 100 having problems complains, but it doesn't look too likely, does it?)
|
11-13-07 05:31pm
|
Reply
416
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
abbywinters's Reply
The only question left is - why 99% of other sites can live without these "advanced protection systems which never cause any problems except for one single customer" and your site cannot?
Actually quite a few adult sites cause authentication problems for their users, and as far as I'm concerned I'll never join such a site unless they have content which cannot possibly be found elsewhere.
|
11-13-07 03:25pm
|
Reply
417
|
N/A
|
Reply of
DivBZero's Reply
It is your answer "less than 1/3rd", right? I easily understand that you're getting tired quickly of video, but why do you download that much knowing that you won't view it anyway? Is it because of sites not having reasonably good previews/picture sets to allow to make a good choice, or just because of "download all I can" paradigm, or maybe there is some other reason? Just curious.
|
11-13-07 08:50am
|
Reply
418
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
abbywinters's Reply
I have no idea how it really works on AbbyWinters, so it can work good, but I'm becoming tired of all that modern 'protection' systems with problems in some browsers, sessions expiring and requiring to relogin (and enter picture from code) every half an hour, prompts of "please close all your browser windows before logging in again", temporarily blocked accounts just because of 'protection' system glitches (or because my ADSL got reconnected and my IP has changed in the middle of the session) and so on and so on.
And the funny part is that even if Internet is full of complaints about problems with some site, support still always says "You're the only person experiencing this problem" :-(.
Why some sites can do it simply and properly and some are trying to do some 'protection' at the expense of users (which can easily cost a LOT because of loss of user loyalty)?
|
11-13-07 08:46am
|
Reply
419
|
Sex Vids On Pod
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
At 9.95 it could be not so bad site to keep but lack of search makes it almost unusable :-(.
|
11-13-07 03:51am
|
Comment
420
|
Sex Vids On Pod
(0)
|
|
11-12-07 02:27pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
421
|
Shemale Club
(0)
|
Reply of
boredsurfer's Reply
In addition: I agree that while at 1G/month it would be a rip-off which could easily warrant a refund, but with 1G/day it's more of an inconvenience.
|
11-12-07 01:00pm
|
Reply
422
|
Shemale Club
(0)
|
Reply of
boredsurfer's Reply
Well, IMO 1G/day isn't too bad; not really good, but not too bad. On some other site I've seen that they're doing it because of password sharing; I think there should be better ways to deal with password sharing, but at least they said so :-(.
Interesting that I've already argued with one guy here on PU that 10G/month isn't a problem for most :-), but IMHO 1G/day is worse in a sense at least for me (while I cannot imagine DL-ing more than 10G from single site/month, I can DL all the stuff I need in one day, and it can easily be more than 1G). So, from my perspective 1G/day is worse than 10G/month :-).
|
11-12-07 12:58pm
|
Reply
423
|
Shemale Club
(0)
|
Reply of
boredsurfer's Review
1G/day or 1G/month?
And about CCBill - did you try to tell them that as the essential service restriction wasn't advertised, you can consider disputing transaction via your bank? Occasionally it does help :-)
|
11-11-07 11:18am
|
Reply
424
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Poll
Not my cup of tea - for me seeing the same face all the time is boooooring.
|
11-11-07 10:35am
|
Reply
425
|
Hentai Key
(0)
|
Reply of
Scifighter's Reply
Ok, you do sound convincing enough to throw away my prior suspicions about you being a shill :-). Sorry about it and take care.
|
11-11-07 10:33am
|
