| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
51
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
> But selfish me that rubber ruins the fantasy.
Ditto. An ideal for me would be something safe but invisible.
|
10-20-08 11:18am
|
Reply
52
|
N/A
|
Reply of
roseman's Poll
Does "I don't chat" qualify as an answer? :-)
|
10-14-08 03:57pm
|
Reply
53
|
N/A
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Ditto.
|
10-10-08 09:55am
|
Reply
54
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Duante Amorculo's Poll
I'm happy to see porn together with her (it happens, but not too often), and her fantasies about bigger cock are perfectly ok with me (as long as they're fantasies, but this is all the porn is about).
|
10-02-08 02:56am
|
Reply
55
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Duante Amorculo's Poll
First I voted "To some extent yes", but then changed to "Not usually", because IMHO there is a BIG difference between "showing unrealistic sex" (about which there are no doubts) and "creating unrealistic expectations". Come on, are there that many people who believe into everything which is shown on TV, leave alone the Internet?
|
09-14-08 08:05am
|
Reply
56
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Well, at least it is consistent with this one :-).
|
09-13-08 09:19am
|
Reply
57
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Wow! I think 37% of users never using MSIE calls for another poll "Which browser do you use as a primary one?"
|
07-29-08 05:11pm
|
Reply
58
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
> It saves bandwidth (aha! my "compression" guess was in the ballpark),
> but too much to the detriment of visual satisfaction.
Right, but there is also another side of it: it seems that most of web porn is shoot with amateur camcorders these days :-(, and progressive scan is usually not an option there :-((. Or from a bit different angle: 720p is usually about the same class/price/amount of information as 1080i, but see how much better "we have 1980x1080" looks on site web page (either camera manufacturer site or content web site) than measly "we have 1280x720" :-(.
|
07-22-08 01:03pm
|
Reply
59
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
Not only that, but also to make decent 1980x1080, it's necessary to make it at 10+MBit/s, otherwise it's pointless. And those who have 1980x1080 (to say "we have HD") encoded @ 1MBit/s are just playing good old number game implying "the bigger - the better" (like those played with CRT monitor inch sizes or with CPU GHz in the past).
|
07-18-08 06:28am
|
Reply
60
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
This thing is quite complicated, see detailed explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace
In short - some (actually most) HD cameras now use modes like 1080i (where 'i' stands for 'interlace'), opposed to 1080p (where 'p' stands for 'progressive'). When you shoot with 1080i (or any other 'i') camera, it makes every frame out of 2 half-frames: first one consists from even 1-pixel rows, second one - from odd 1-pixel rows. But as they're made with some delay between them, fast movement can easily lead to considerable shifts between odd and even rows, and at least to my eye it looks REALLY UGLY and annoying. Obviously, the effect is the most easily seen when camera is panning (because it means that the whole picture moves quite fast).
Editing software can try to deal with it, making "deinterlace", but it has it's drawbacks (loss of detail and so on). But to make things worse, sometimes encoding process seems to re-introduce interlacing back; this I'm not really sure of, but it certainly looks sometimes, even on big non-adult company DVDs :-(.
So I'm not sure what really contributes to this unpleasant effect of interlacing (camera or encoding), but what I know for sure that I really HATE it and it spoils all the fun for me.
|
07-18-08 06:13am
|
Reply
61
|
N/A
|
Reply of
moshic's Poll
At this point I still prefer REALLY GOOD DVD quality (720x480 or similar) to poor "HD" 1280x720 (and please please PLEASE no interlace - it looks HORRIBLE on any panning).
|
07-16-08 10:57am
|
Reply
62
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Poll
I've found that PU reviews as MUCH more relevant than TBP ones, and only if there are no PU reviews or if they're inconclusive, then I go to TBP.
|
06-16-08 08:06am
|
Reply
63
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
> I've never joined any trial. To pay a few bucks for any trial for a few
> days and have to remember to cancel if I do not like the site or be
> charged full price automatically is just too much of an issue. I
> research a site a lot and then make my decision to join or not to join.
Ditto.
|
05-21-08 05:03am
|
Reply
64
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
> meeting directors and reps of production companies that I've pissed off with my reviews
For me it would be an upside :-).
|
05-20-08 08:07am
|
Reply
65
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Davit's Reply
> This is because (and this is FACT) 83.6% of such analyses are not
> accurate. That's with a margin of error of 4.
Sure. But my analysis doesn't fall within these 83.6%. Undoubtedly. :-)
|
05-16-08 05:01am
|
Reply
66
|
N/A
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
I think there is a BIG difference between "sites I would never join" and dishonest sites. Let me explain. If dead site does NOT say it has any updates, why it is dishonest? It can be completely not worth your money, but as long as they didn't say they have any updates, I don't see why it's unethical. If somebody markets complete crap as complete crap, IMHO it's ok (and it's his problem, not mine, when he goes out of business).
|
05-16-08 03:42am
|
Reply
67
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
Ok, here goes result of "10 RANDOM sites" mini-research: after researching 10 RANDOM sites it was found that about 50% (52 with a margin of error of 15) of the sites are likely to use unethical practices. The most likely unethical practices, as expected, were suspicion of misleading previews (about 40%) and PRE-CHECKED "special offers" (30%). Some sites exhibited both unethical practices).
After some deliberations with myself, I've decided that prize for the "most unethical site out of these 10 RANDOM sites" goes to "Bare Legs".
Summary of last 5 reviews follows (with details available in Comments, under "Random Site comment" title, for first 5 sites see above):
Mia Baby - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: VERY likely. Chances of being unethical are estimated at 80%.
Pornstar Pay Per View / AEBN Video On Demand - PU review: 1, rating 84, TBP review: 80. IMHO unethical: NO. Chances of being unethical: very low.
Mature Toilet Sluts - here goes the price of reviewing RANDOM sites :-(. IMHO unethical: unclear (Terms and Conditions are outrageous, but it's unclear if they were ever used against members). Chances of being unethical are estimated at 50%.
Bare Legs - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (suspicious promise of DAILY updates, and "Join for FREE" combined with Epoch's PRE-CHECKED offer auto-renewing at 39.95). Chances of being unethical: 100%.
Sweet Asian Teens - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (somewhat suspicious promise of 500hrs of HD, and another PRE-CHECKED offer auto-renewing at 29.95). Chances of being unethical: 100%.
|
05-15-08 03:57pm
|
Reply
68
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Oops, sorry for misreading it :-). I hope to finish "reviewing" 10 random sites today and post results here.
|
05-15-08 12:25pm
|
Reply
69
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
> This has got to be based on a feeling...
Sure, but it's even more interesting to compare results of my little exercise to overall feeling of the members, isn't it?
> There are maybe over 100.000 "porn sites" on the net and about 14.000
> registered at TBP.
Come on, I don't pretend my little research to be scientific or something, it's obviously only about TGP-registered sites (though personally I have difficult time finding sites outside TBP). But it still somewhat answers a question "if you're trying RANDOM site out of TBP list, what are the chances of being scammed in some way?"
|
05-15-08 10:00am
|
Reply
70
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
Ok, here go first RANDOM sites to check chances of running into unethical site (see also comments titled "Random Site review"); I plan add another 5 sites a bit later.
Crazy Drunk Girls - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: unlikely (don't promise much); chances of being unethical are estimated at 25%.
Porno Dinero Network / LolliHotties - no PU reviews, TBP review: 77.4. IMHO unethical: quite likely (promise updates but unlikely keeps it). Chances of are being unethical are estimated at 66%.
Squirting Pie - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (PRE-CHECKED cross-sale by Epoch). Chances of are being unethical: 100%
Dildo Machine Sex - PU review: 1, rating 75, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: NO. Chances of are being unethical are estimated at: very low.
Nina Wonder - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: NO. Chances of are being unethical are estimated at: very low.
Summarizing numbers above, my findings show that on this sample, chances of running into the unethical site are 35-40%; this number may be corrected as I add more sites to the sample, and obviously your mileage may vary :-).
P.S. obviously it's an exercise in guesswork, and estimates are wildly personal and subjective.
|
05-15-08 07:00am
|
Reply
71
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
Inspired by this poll, I've decided to take 10 RANDOM sites and take a quick look at them; obviously it's an exercise in guesswork, but results can still be interesting. Stay tuned for comments titled "RANDOM Site Comment" and summary here in this poll :-).
|
05-15-08 05:36am
|
Reply
72
|
N/A
|
Reply of
JBDICK's Poll
Cannot help it: voted for Clinton 'cause it would mean she loses the presidential race :-).
P.S. Would vote for Obama and McCain too if they would be on the list :-).
|
05-12-08 02:34pm
|
Reply
73
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pornjackker's Reply
> will the average viewer buy it?
FWIW: I've heard that stories by Private (like "Robinson Crusoe" or "Cleopatra") are VERY popular, so yes, average viewer will buy it. It's more expensive, that's for sure and very few guys are doing it, but that's another story.
Personally I'm quite tired of all the same "meat on screen" and ANY variety is a good thing for me as long as it's not too violent or too disgusting.
|
04-23-08 03:39pm
|
Reply
74
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
> professional style reviews that see the trees but miss the forest.
> That's why I read porn USERS more than professional reviews, even TBP
> reviews.
Ditto. EXACTLY the way I see it too.
|
03-26-08 08:47am
|
Reply
75
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
I'm wondering if there will be somebody admitting his reviews are below average :-).
|
03-26-08 05:52am
|
