Oh, this background of yours indeed explains "attention to details" which sometimes crosses the border of "not seeing forest for the trees". And it's not your fault, but the one of the whole huge legal system which is built to make formalities dominate over common sense and reason. BTW, if I would be in your place (which is not too likely), I would care much more about "not guilty person behind the bars" rather than about "guilty person walking free".
Anyway, I don't see how this background of yours is relevant to the concern I have raised.
I don't "target" anybody (come on, do you really expect me to care that much about your image here?), I'm just expressing my concern. About those people "below you" - could you elaborate a bit? ANYBODY who will post his/her FIRST review with 98 or so rating is suspicious to me until proven otherwise, period. In formal terms - such rating in the FIRST review by definition carries significant negative credibility attached to it.
> I don't think it's suspicious when someone starts their posting career
> at PU giving the highest ratings ever - probably because that's what I
> did.
Interesting, maybe I'm suspicious because I didn't it? :-) But seriously, starting with 98 or so review is a "business card" of the typical "shill" (we've seen many of them here, and there is no doubt about it); while I agree it is not conclusive evidence, it is still suspicious.
> Met Art deserves high praise...
If only they would make their models look a bit more alive than current "dead fish" looks... But unfortunately there is no holy grail in porn, not even in softcore :-(.
> you cant really tell if any person on this site is honest or not
I think I can tell at least most of the time, otherwise what's the point of reading the site?
> I have the right to put out my opnion about a site
Right
> just cause you dont agree with my score dosent mean that I am lying
Right, but I'm suspicious about you _not_ because of disagreeing with you (come on, I disagree with every second person here, starting from exotics4me, but there are no regulars I can suspect), but because your pattern of reviews is quite close to a typical "shill" who tries to promote the site (or sites) for money.
> I think hondaman done some fine things here after all
For the first review - yes, but IMHO it's still too one-handed. Ok, it can easily be "honestly one-handed", but it's still way too one-handed IMHO.
> But, bro - we'll see in the future - guess there's never any 100%..
For me there are a few 100%s here on PU, starting (surprise) from myself :-), and ending with about 50 or so people (yourself included :-) ); come on, suspecting roseman or exotics4me of shilling would be WAY too far fetching.
Well, bro, to put it bluntly - doesn't it look suspicious when somebody just STARTS his PU life with ridiculously high ratings? You're here longer than me, but even I myself have seen LOTS of different shills around here (coming, making 98 or so review for the site, seeing that rating doesn't count, then sometimes trying to make a few MUCH less detailed reviews to get points, and then usually giving up and disappearing). Granted, it doesn't look TOO suspicious for hondaman, but I'm still not 100% sure about him.
> Not sure what you mean by "lack of fire".
I've meant that at least most of Met-Art models are plastic dollies without any personality. Please read my review and also comments of the other PU'ers to my review.
> Are you sure that you where ever a member of this site?
Yes, I am. Also I'm sure of lots of the other things, though not 100% sure about search on Met-Arts. If it is there, good for them, but my rating stays (I even think of reducing it because of "lack of fire", which IMHO is not compensated by brilliant photo work and locations); just wondering: are ALL Russian models have so little personality?
> There is no real "fire" in many (most?) of the pics.
Exactly; thanks for expressing my feelings it this concise and exact way; IMHO it's a perfect way to describe it in one sentence instead of my long and maybe not so clear description.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+++ beautiful locations
+++ VARIETY of beautiful locations
+++ beautiful models
+++ professional photography
++ variety of outfits
++ free cam
+ daily updates
+ variety of video formats
+ convenient navigation
Cons:
-- too much difference between cover page and gallery contents (see explanation below)
-- mood of some models can be better
-- movies are just recording of photoshoots
- resolution selection is not preserved
- obsession with bandwidth for movies (6Mbit/sec WMV is too much for me)
- lack of search
Bottom Line:
I've decided to join Met-Arts mostly because of cover pages of their daily issues, and those are pieces of art, really. But what really surprised and quite disappointed me was that inside their galleries feel quite different from the cover page. Met-Art doesn't "cheat", and "cover" is from the same gallery, but overall feeling is still VERY different. Sure, everybody selects the very best shot for cover page, but IMHO Met-Arts kind of contrast between cover and gallery itself is unusual both for paper magazines and web sites. Fortunately, Met Art has archives and IMHO back in 2006 and earlier this difference WASN'T THAT BIG. In general, I liked old galleries MUCH better. It's both good and bad to know, as on one hand, it means I can find galleries I like more, on the other hand, means that quality of Met-Art galleries (from my subjective perspective) goes downhill :-(.
Another thing that bothered me (and which isn't present on "covers") is mood of the girls. Granted, they're REALLY beautiful, but it is quite clear from the pictures (and videos) that most of them are just doing pretty boring job; I don't mind what they really think, but when it becomes obvious on the picture, then IMHO something is wrong. And again, this wasn't that much of a problem as late as in 2007.
In addition, I shall say that I'm not fond of picture sizes like 3328x4992: I never print such pictures, I don't have monitor that large, and don't think I will ever get one in foreseeable future (monitor with 4992 HEIGHT? even if such a beast exists, I'm afraid even to think how much it costs). I obviously don't mind about such pictures as long as Met-Arts provides lower resolutions, but I don't consider such HUGE pictures as an advantage too. But one thing calls for improvement, and it is that if I've selected "Mid-Res" once, then ALL the galleries shall start to be shown as "Mid-Res" (now they still default to "Hi-Res").
Bottom line: Met Art is one of VERY few sites on the Net with potential to make erotic ART, but unfortunately it (IMHO) doesn't realize this potential. Also I had a pretty hard time rating it, so to do it, I've compared how much I enjoy it with another softcore site I've recently joined - VirtuaGirlHD (I know it's apples and oranges, but I don't have any better reference). And IMHO MetArt's old galleries are about on par with VirtuaGirlHD (88), and recent ones are significantly lower, about 82, so I've took average (85) as an overall rating.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Results of review of non-member area: looks somewhat more "fishy" than, for example, previously reviewed Nina Wonder. This girl claims she's from St. Louis, Missouri (and I have some doubts about it), says about live-cam girls (which might be true), says there are hundreds of "friends" sites within (and while it implies that they're included into membership, I'm not so sure about it being true; not even clear if membership includes access to 16 sites of Roller Girl 2000 mentioned by TGP).
Bottom line: IMHO quite high risk of it being pretty much a scam, with only a few hundred of pics and nothing else for this price.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ young black chicks in hardcore action
+ chicks are HOT
+ cameraguy work is above average
+ reasonable action variety (anal is frequent, sometimes up to DP and even DPP)
+ easy navigation
+ "one big clip" download
+ access to Jerk-Off Pass network (27 more sites)
+ CCBill as card processor
Cons:
- pics are just screencaps
- not many updates (thecid66 review says 29 episodes in April-07, not it's like 35-40)
- annoying login (with difficult to recognize image recognition), auto-logouts.
Bottom Line:
In an ongoing effort to cover Jerk-Off Pass network, here goes another review of one of their sites.
My Black Coeds is one of the better sites of Jerk-Off Pass. It is about hot (and I mean REALLY hot) black girls in hardcore action. There are about 35-40 episodes on the site (each is 20-30 min video), and all are within the theme. Action varies from just B/G hardcore to DP. Cameraguy work and setups are very good, but video encoding is typical for Jerk-Off Pass network ("average", not so clear 640x480). Pictures on this site are just 640x480 screencaps.
Site also borrows some (mildly) annoying features of the whole network: infrequent updates and very annoying login system.
Bottom line: a good site for those who're into young black girls. Access to the rest of the Jerk-Off Pass network easily compensates for infrequent updates on this specific site.
I see your point, but in a sense "very good" and "even better" are the ONLY valid units of measurement :-) (everything else can be misused or even abused, for example, 5MBit/s sounds great, but only until you realize it is MPEG-1 or poorly encoded MPEG-4 in .MOV format from old Apple days).
If you want to know about bitrates and resolutions for NakedNews downloads, I can't provide much useful info for this specific site, because (as a fairly rare exception for me) I don't do any downloads on NakedNews (I don't see the point in storing "stale" news).
The only thing I've seen is their streaming, which is IMHO the best streaming I've ever seen. I've tried to measure it's bitrate and found that it's surprisingly low, somewhere between 500kBit/s and 750kBit/s, but visually it is MUCH better then "usual" streaming/downloads at this bitrate which you can find elsewhere.
For the record: I was their "Gold" member (the one for which they had "free 3 days" promo a week ago, not sure if it still lasts), for other types of membership YMMV (there should be some difference, shouldn't it?).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+++ VERY original idea
++ girls seem to enjoy it
++ fun to see news anchor undressing
+ added more "unusual" strip patterns
+ added some public topless stuff
+ added a few great-looking anchors
+ pussy haircuts
+ video quality has improved from "very good" to "even better"
+ cheap, plus there is a "3 days free gold membership" promotion right now
Cons:
--- about 50% of the time there is no undressing, girls start nude
-- even when there is some undressing, often it is just from underwear to nude
Bottom Line:
When I've re-joined NakedNews about a week ago, my first impression was that the site operators did read all our complaints here on PU and paid attention to including more undressing in the news. I've even thought "Oh, I might keep my subscription beyond first month" (it doesn't happen to me too often ;-)). Unfortunately, it was just lucky few days :-(, and going through archives, I have run through numerous days where all the girls are completely nude from the very beginning :-((. Funny thing is that owners seem to know what people want, and in "News Off The Top" segment (which starts every day program) they show most of the girls dressed, but it only results in big disappointment when you anticipate some striptease and only get girl who's completely nude from the start :-((.
To be more specific, I've even went through the archives and gathered some statistics to share. Out of randomly chosen 15 days (taken in 2010), I have observed the following numbers (I cannot guarantee they're 100% accurate, I might have forgotten to add 1 here or there):
starting fully dressed - 13 times, starting in underwear - 23 times, starting fully nude - 43 times. I've also counted "unusual patterns" (like panties taken off before bra, or no panties under dress) separately, and the number for the same time was 13.
Overall, the site has stayed more or less the same since my last review, so I will concentrate on differences which I've found compared to my previous review here on PU (which can be found under "Archived" subtitle). First, I "feel" that amount of undressing has dropped (I didn't gather statistics back then, so I cannot tell exactly). Second, they DID add great-looking girls (I especially adored Whitney St John) - and it was one of my complaints back then. Third, they've added "Naked in the Streets" section, which is about the topless girl taking interview in streets or on the beach (loved it). Also addition of program with nude girl cooking was a nice one.
Video quality was very good back then, but now it is REALLY good (with probably the best streaming player I've ever seen).
Bottom line: it is still a site which can be fun to see for 1 month (if you're ok with softcore stuff), and I still don't think it can be interesting for a longer time. On the other hand, I think that IF they would add MORE undressing (especially FULL undressing, not just from underwear), they will become MUCH MUCH better.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
++ very original idea
++ video quality is EXCELLENT
++ mood/attitude/personality of the girls is EXCELLENT - they enjoy it
+ fun to see news anchor undressing
+ different outfits and strip patterns
+ pussy haircuts
+ cheap
Cons:
-- about 50% of the time there is no undressing, girls start nude
-- there is at least one girl which is outright UGLY
- very few REALLY good-looking girls
Bottom Line:
I've re-joined "Naked News" recently, and shall say I've got mixed feelings about it.
It is still news and the girls are still stripping while reading them, and it is still one show every day. The girls are still stripping to all-nude, but not more (not even anything "pink", no teasing, nothing). That's what the site is about, and I don't see any problems with it, just want to be clear.
The first problem I see with it is that while they have some variety by adding different outfits and strip patterns, about half of the time girls start nude, so there is no room to strip further, and no variety :-(.
The second problem is while they're hiring girls who enjoy it, and that's perfectly fine, but there shall be some minimal look standards; there is at least one regular girl which is IMHO OUTRIGHT ugly, and for me it is a major turn-off. I don't have problems with "average-looking" girls there (most of their girls are average-looking and I'm ok with it as long as they have nice personality, and they usually do), but this one is different.
On the positive side, it looks that site has started to pay some attention to make it a bit more erotic: while there is still no "pink" and no "teasing", it looks that girls have started to make nice pussy haircuts :-) (warning - you won't see any close-ups of it, the view is always like in the "normal" news - either full-height or above-waist).
Bottom line: a site which can be fun to see for a month (if you're ok with "just nudity"), but as a long-term fun I don't really see it happening. It IMHO even became a (tiny) bit worse than a year ago because of problems outlined above, and it's reflected in the score. If they would add more stripping variety (outfits, stripping patterns and so on), and pay a BIT more attention to girl looks (I REALLY like girls smiling and have no problems with "average looking" girls, but there shall be some minimal standard) it IMHO could help significantly.
Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- very unique concept (girls read news while stripping);
- girls are very good (also very funny when necessary) in doing it;
- a funny way to keep updated about world news;
Cons:
- can be pretty boring if watching daily, which is somewhat offset by different stripping patterns.
- stripping only;
- needs pretty good connection to work ok (when my ISP has problems with bandwidth, it stucks intermittently).
Bottom Line:
Site is made by a Canadian company, with girls from all over the Canada, including French girls from Quebec.
Concept is pretty simple - girls read news (yes, real-world news with a slight twist towards entertainment), but the girls undress while they read the news. Girls are beautiful and read it quite professionally (which is a surprise). The biggest problem with the site is that if looking at it daily, it becomes pretty boring; they're trying to make it more interesting by changing clothing and strip in different patterns, but unfortunately there is not that much choice with really different stripping patterns, especially as they need to look into the camera all the time.
Bottom line: funny thing to try for a month, but most people aren't likely to renew (maybe in half a year or so).
> fast dl speed (up to 672/kbs)!
Is this kBit/sec or kBytes/sec? For kBits/sec it doesn't look too impressive, for kBytes/sec it sounds "too good to be true" :-).
Hm, it would be a kind of quite misleading guarantee, won't it? It would be interesting to see if anybody has tried to use this kind of guarantee to see if it is real or "30 days or 30 seconds whichever comes first".
On their sign-up page, they say: "If you are a member signed up for a month and you are not completely satisfied with our content and service we will refund a cost of your membership upon a completed customer survey during your 1st month's membership".
Not to say anything about quality of content :-), but this guarantee is definitely a good thing (well, if they do honour it) and I would like more sites to follow it; unfortunately it seems that more sites these days are like TheEnglishMansion, which won't refund even after downloading single gallery - see my exchange with their webmaster.
I've tried to make a distinction between photo content and photo quality. And while content can be different (which I've mentioned), technical photo quality (focus, lighting, color balance etc.) just plain sucks (I'm not sure that I've seen one picture with a good technical quality except for those obviously stolen from porno sites).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ free membership
+ premium membership is non-recurring
+ lots of new pictures daily
+ "nudles": ability to get premium membership for "free" (for clicks that lead to their site)
+ rating system which does work
+ profiles
+ community-oriented features (blogs, chat, forum)
Cons:
- upsells of premium membership (including pop-ups, yuck!)
- upsells of all other things EVERYEHERE
- premium membership at $27.95 is way too expensive for the content that costs site owners nothing
- quality of pictures is way too amateurish even for amateur site
- no scenarios, just single pictures
- content is rather repetitive
Bottom Line:
After all deliberations (see comments to IDoctor's review) I've decided to take a look myself to provide not that biased review.
First of all, quality of pictures is way too amateurish even for free amateur-submitted stuff (TBP reviews say "quality varies" - come on, quality just plain sucks; what kind of picture quality can you expect if a girl shoots herself in a mirror in her bathroom?).
As for the content of the pictures - some pictures are outright ugly, some of better ones are obviously stolen from paysites (come on, girl won't do DP with this kind of professional lighting in private life), and it leaves us with not that much decent ones. Fortunately, rating system seems to really work and those pictures that make it up to the top, are of better content (no dicks), but quality still sucks.
So (as messmer have already said in his comment) it doesn't make ANY sense to go there for pictures. On the other hand, as a COMMUNITY site it's not bad at all. Community is large, active, site provides most of the features needed for such a community.
Bottom line: if you're looking for pictures and you're NOT into amateur pictures of real girls (with profiles) of dubious quality, STAY AWAY. On the other hand, if you're looking for a community of exhibitionists - it's not a bad choice. As a result of this dual nature, I've had trouble with putting single rating for the site, so I've decided to rate it as 60 for pictures and as 85 for community, and take average.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
