| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
176
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Poll
We all know what the word 'amateur' literally means - but I think what the term means when applied to porn is 'amateur *looking*' - in other words, 'girl next door' image, simple but effective production/direction (often one or two cameramen filming in a bedroom) and a generally unpretentious look. That's my take anyway - I'm probably completely wrong!
|
01-17-08 10:21am
|
Reply
177
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Reply
1 inch in diameter? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;)
|
01-14-08 01:49pm
|
Reply
178
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
Forgot to mention, PP - I know they are clearly labelled as to whether they are photo shoots or whatever - that wasn't the point of my comment.
And the talking thing - he definitely talks in most non-photo shoot vids. I know it's generally not much - but just the occasional sound of his voice is still surely not a pleasant experience for the vast majority of viewers. Does anyone actually think it's a good thing? I suspect that most people who sign up to an all-girl site are people who really *really* would not want to hear a male voice in their porn vids at all, never mind occasionally. I reckon that's fair to say.
|
01-13-08 12:45pm
|
Reply
179
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
Robare's Reply
Hi Robare - your point about me not mentioning American girls is valid - I'm about to amend my review. I didn't mean to mislead - it was an oversight, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. And while I find most American sites to feature annoyingly badly acting girls who can't shut up (!) I did actually find the Americans in this site to be generally much more natural.
If you think this was a negative review - you should hear my opinion on many sites that Porn Users don't feature. There are some dreadful ripoffs out there that I would struggle to give much more than zero, they're that bad, i.e. not delivering any of what is promised in the tour screens - just excuses to get an email address to send junk to!
So on balance, I reckon I gave Alsscan an above-average score.
One final point - you said you only saw one scene where the fluid 'might have been pee' - well, I can tell the difference, there's no 'might' about it! I know which hole pee comes out of, and what pee looks like, as opposed to girl cum. No offence intended.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
|
01-13-08 12:28pm
|
Reply
180
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
Hi Pink Pantha, thanks for your reply mate. But I didn't think I was being inaccurate - if you notice I never suggested Alex actually was gay - I personally couldn't care less about someone's sexuality (I have gay friends like most people these days). I only said he *sounded* gay, which I think is fair to say - because he really does! Any male voice is not nice to hear on a site aimed at lesbian-loving hetro guys - but a gay-sounding one is even worse! Just my take on it.
|
01-13-08 12:18pm
|
Reply
181
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
s1vus1's Review
Agree totally about the director talking to much, and the annoying voice. In fact, he sounds like a gay friend of mine (not what I need to hear in a lesbian porn movie).
And I agree the video content doesn't make it worth joining really. Many of the videos are not even proper porn movies - they are either filmed photo shoots are movies of the girls acting goofy on the beach or in the street, with that annoying guy shouting things to them.
Wish I'd taken more notice of your review before I joined.
Regards
Davit
|
01-12-08 06:51am
|
Reply
182
|
N/A
|
Reply of
surferman's Poll
And another thing. Most talking in porn is just relentless and boring: "Oh yeah, just like that, just like that, right there, right there, spit on it, oh yeah I'm cumming, right there, just like that. Oooh, look at that. Right there".
Who the hell enjoys listening to that crap?!
|
01-12-08 05:41am
|
Reply
183
|
N/A
|
Reply of
surferman's Poll
The real question should be: are you convinced by the acting skills of most girls who talk during sex scenes?
My problem with talking is: it almost never sounds believable! It's always either over-the-top or completely lacking any real emotion. I think the only people who are convinced by it are guys that have never had a real girlfriend.
So, given that the majority of girls are terrible actors, I prefer them to just shut up!
|
01-12-08 05:25am
|
Reply
184
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
qualsite34's Reply
You said 'best is an objective term'. For something like porn, that relies on personal tastes, I would suggest it is entirely subjective.
|
01-11-08 05:40pm
|
Reply
185
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
PosterDude's Review
This looks good - I'm considering joining. Can't understand why you joined a lesbian site though, if you want to see naked men? You said you want to see more boy-girl stuff. If you want to see naked men, surely there are other sites...?
Regards
Davit
|
01-11-08 05:37pm
|
Reply
186
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Davit's Review
Well, I said I'd had enough of this topic but felt I had to comment as once again, we see laughably bad filming from 1 By Day.
I'm gonna carry on bringing this to the attention of potential customers until the webmaster acknowledges it and agrees to look into it. I'll be specific so it is clear I am not giving it BS.
The latest Julie Silver-Vanessa one. What the hell is going on? The cameraman has multiple opportunities to get some decent oral shots - and misses every one (except for the odd few seconds, literally)! There are times when the brunette is licking the blonde from behind, and the cameraman (shaky as ever) is filming from above her head, so you can see the top and side of her head OK, but that's not what we want to see in porn!
Then the blonde climbs on top in a 69. Just as the cameraman seems to get a potentially good angle - he moves away, and zooms out!!! What the fuck! And this goes on - he finds a reasonable angle for all of 3 seconds, then moves away! See how jerky the movements are? See how unnatural the editing is?
And this is NOT subjective. This is NOT personal taste. This is objectively pointing out the obvious! 1 By Day may have some decent cameramen - but they clearly have some absolutely useless ones too, and this movie is just one more example.
And when the blonde is facing the brunette on the bed and rubbing the blue dildo along the brunette's pussy - I would swear the cameraman is having a wank the way that camera jerks and shakes! Just watch - around 8min25. The instant the dildo makes contact, the cameraman has an epileptic fit! Eventually he zooms in again, and holds it - for about TWO SECONDS! Then there's another edit.
It seems to improve shortly after, with some good dildo ass-fucking - but not for long. Our friend with the camera can't keep still for more than a few seconds again. by this time, I'm so pissed off with how this guy ever got this work, I can't be bothered with the rest of the movie, and turn to something on my hard drive with a more professional look.
It's a shame - these girls are HOT and really sexy together. But wasted on any porn supplier that uses this cameraman.
|
01-06-08 05:05pm
|
Reply
187
|
Dirty Dykes
(0)
|
Reply of
SurfingGuru's Review
Hi SG. Just a comment in response to your review of Dirty Dykes. You mentioned that your ID didn't give you access to the bonus sites, if I read you correctly. I think this is because you were on the 7-day trial.
Even trials that offer so-called 'full unlimited access' will rarely include other bonus sites from the network in that offer (although that is never made clear of course!).
I've discovered that to my cost in the past.
Cheers
Davit
|
01-05-08 02:44pm
|
Reply
188
|
Only Cuties
(0)
|
Reply of
OneMan's Comment
Hello again One Man
Just to reply to your comment on using East Europeans etc.
I do appreciate your concern from a moral point of view - i.e. using Eastern Europeans for 'cheap labour'.
But I respectfully disagree. I disagree because sure, it's cheaper from our economy's point of view - but to them they are probably earning a very decent living. This is where market forces actually work in favour of the poorer countries, as they can be more competitive (i.e. work for lower wages than us in the West) and therefore secure work that would otherwise just remain in the UK or USA or wherever.
It's no different to companies outsourcing call centres abroad (I work in a UK call centre, but my employer also uses an Indian call centre for the less technical customer support). And why does my employer use an Indian call centre? Because they're dirt cheap - but they still get the going rate for over there - which affords them a very nice lifestyle. The wages are less - but so is the cost of living within that economy. And that is their 'ace card' in the world market place!
OK, I'm ranting! Just basically saying you shouldn't feel bad about it IMO. Regards. Davit.
|
01-05-08 11:47am
|
Reply
189
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
OneMan's Reply
Thanks for that, OneMan - I guess that makes us TwoMen around here that agree on those points! The only thing I would disagree about is the tripod comment. But everything else you said is spot on as far as I'm concerned.
Happy New Year to you too mate.
Davit
|
01-05-08 11:02am
|
Reply
190
|
Brain Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
Great tip about turning off the web accelerator. I kind of figured it out the hard way (after numerous problems with various websites and then discovering by accident that the problems disappear when the accelerator is off!).
|
01-05-08 07:49am
|
Reply
191
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
Hi Toadsith
No, I never said I'd only seen 6 movies, and I never said I based my opinion on just 6 movies. I was saying that I had just - at that time - sat through 6 movies that all had the same range of problems.
As I said earlier, I originally downloaded over 100GB of movies (although have deleted many now as they are just not very good, IMO). I have seen substantially more than 6 movies that I consider to be badly produced/filmed. Some are excellent. But far far too many are just bad (having no decent angles, and suffering constant shaky wobbly jerky camera movements).
Check out the one example I gave - and then check out others. There are MANY more. It's an issue for me (although I acknowledge, it's not an issue for most on this site so far). Kind regards. Davit
|
01-05-08 02:24am
|
Reply
192
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
Bela
* If I didn't mention about 1 By Day having archives of those other sites, it's because I didn't KNOW. It's not advertised is it, and we both know why.
* The archive stuff from Lesbomat/Lesbo Machine had already been paid for by me when I joined those sites. I will not raise my score just because they appear again on 1 By Day. Same for any other recycled archive material, as long as the original sites still exist and still take subscriptions.
* I cited the Black Angelica movie as an EXAMPLE, I didn't say I based my entire review on it. I could give many more examples - but seeing your attitude - what's the point?
* Until now all you have ever done is come back with sarcasm, insinuation, arrogance, childishness, and wilful misreading and selectivity of my comments. You have not acknowledged that any of my points might possibly be valid, especially the wobbly jerky camera work. And no, I'm not talking about the older ones. And I'm talking multiple dozens. For me, that's a major issue. Thanks for saying you'll look into it now. I wish you'd said that at the start. It doesn't concern me now though, as I've already cancelled my membership.
* Your arrogance that no one could possibly prefer the other sites I mentioned over 1 By Day is a major part of your site's problem (as I see it).
* I was actually quite lenient on the score. After the horrible treatment I've had from you, I nearly lowered it a lot more, based on so-called 'customer service'. I have still kept it in the 70s.
* Stop telling me about the 'average' or 'majority' opinion. My opinion is my own. I have no bias other than what I consider to be good. You cannot say the same.
* I'm bored of this now, and have had enough. Write what you want.
|
01-05-08 02:09am
|
Reply
193
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Reply
Hi Elephant
You misunderstand me. I didn't base my score on just 6 videos. I was just telling Bela that at that particular time I had sat through about half a dozen movies, that's all. My low score is base on a combination of things, mainly bad camera work - and it's on a lot more than just 6 videos.
|
01-05-08 01:27am
|
Reply
194
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
Bela, I speak for myself, my opinions, no one else's. I do not think anyone 'dumb' for having a different opinion to mine. In fact, I respect everyone who has respectfully disagreed with me, and I'm happy to say I've been shown a lot of respect generally also, which I appreciate.
By the way - to offer something positive about DDF - I've just found a couple of their really hot movies on my hard drive. They're probably a little bit old (I don't mean ancient) because they're lower res and split into parts.
But there's Jasmin with Liz Honey, which despite having a music soundtrack (nooo!) it's still very very good (IMO), and also Nataly with Prada. Both have very very good camera work - the camera is rock steady, and when it moves it 'glides' rather than jerks, and it finds great angles and holds them. I think I may have downloaded them from Lesbomat, but I think they should be on the 1 By Day archive too.
I recommend anyone to check these out.
Bela - I hope you will seek these out just to compare with, say, the latest Black Angelica-Nancy Bell movie. I just offer these examples to make my case. The camera work. If you disagree, that's cool. Just giving my opinion.
I half-expect another sarcastic reply (!) but I hope we can both be civil! Thanks. Davit.
|
01-04-08 11:53am
|
Reply
195
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Davit's Review
Just checked out the movie of Black Angelica and Nancy Bell (uploaded to the site in the last few days).
To emphasise my main point, there's a bit where one of the girls is getting fucked with a dildo from behind, and you can see the other girl's spit coming from her pussy, very sexy. She's loving it. Lovely! But does the camera find a nice shot and hold it? No! The camera shakes and wobbles (maybe the cameraman was having a wank, I don't know) and it zooms this way and that in a really jerky fashion and can't keep still for 5 seconds. THAT'S what I'm talking about folks! See what I mean? It's THAT style that I personally hate. Reminds me of NYPD Blue.
|
01-04-08 10:51am
|
Reply
196
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
And as for me spelling Lesbomat with a 'z' (now corrected) - I spelt it the same as I spelt 'Lezbo Honeys'. So I didn't memorise the different spellings. You find that suspicious? All you had to do was politely point out the error, and I would have happily changed it (which I have now done anyway).
The slight lowering of my score is reflected in my list of negatives, which I feel is valid.
|
01-04-08 10:19am
|
Reply
197
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
And like you, I work in customer support too Bela (a call centre in my case). And when I'm having a bad day, I don't take it out on the customers.
|
01-04-08 10:07am
|
Reply
198
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
Hi Bela
Thanks for the apology, which judging from your last remark doesn't account for very much.
I think the reason why you 'can't conceivably see why I prefer Lesbo Honeys/Club Sandy/Dirty101 to '1 by-day' is the whole problem.
I explained EXACTLY why those sites movies are superior (despite the lower res). I've just sat through watching about half a dozen 1 by-day videos and they all have the same principle problem - damn awful camera work.
It seems to constantly wobble (makes me feel sea sick), is way too over-active the way it jumps around and zooms in and out all the time, and the editing looks unnatural - makes me think it was all shot on just the one camera, the way the cuts look. And the camera casts it's own shadow on the women when it's close up much of the time. AND it rarely gets a great angle with two women - it always seems to be filming from an angle that misses the really hot contact. AND the sound on the videos that are not HD is awful too.
I'm sure you've noticed I'm not holding back on the criticism. Well, if you're the support guy then you should handle it professionally or you can choose to disregard it. But the reason I joined this review site was so that I could get my own opinions across (just like every other reviewer does).
Just compare the 'Sandy's Fantasies' movies with the Club Sandy ones. They're probably similar resolution, but the Club Sandy ones are in a whole other league in terms of the way the movies are shot and cut, and the action and images that are captured.
I can't conceivably understand how you can't see that - oh wait, I can. You're biased! Sorry Bela, but by definition, you are.
And I see you haven't lost your sarcastic touch with the 'surely coincidence' remark. So much for the earlier apology. I find your attitude as a 'customer support' guy pathetic.
|
01-04-08 09:52am
|
Reply
199
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
Thanks for the support PP, I really appreciate it. I still stand by my main criticisms -
1. The camera work is far from the best I've seen (too wobbly and all over the place, and doesn't get enough revealing angles)
2. The lighting is often poor, resulting in loss of detail
3. The large-file HD movies are actually less sharp than many non-HD movies that I have (e.g. from Sapphic Erotica)
But this is not some kind of vendetta against Bela. I have criticised loads of sites before (not necessarily here) and have also emailed PornUsers to get certain poor sites reviewed so I can add my scathing review! There are far worse sites out there than Bela's, which at least has exclusive material and gorgeous girls, and is nicely designed, and has a huge archive. That's a lot more than you can say for many of the rip-off sites out there.
|
01-04-08 01:30am
|
Reply
200
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
SnowDude's Reply
Thank you so much for that, Snowdude, I really appreciate it.
|
01-04-08 01:18am
|
|
