| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
126
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
We already know that the government knows our porn passwords and secretly criticizes our taste in porn so the only potential failing to using your own password is that you pick something so blatantly obvious that your grandma could hack into the site using your login info. Otherwise, all these troubling security features like assigned passwords and captcha's are just theater that do little to stop true hacking threats.
|
09-06-13 12:21pm
|
Reply
127
|
N/A
|
Reply of
careylowell's Poll
It's probably going to be about the same: pics and vids. Maybe some more 3-D stuff but no game changers until virtual reality and holograms get good. Looking back 10 years ago, we didn't have large networks and vids were still in their infancy (at least size-wise) and we didn't have zips but not a lot has changed in my mind anyway.
|
08-13-13 03:25pm
|
Reply
128
|
Viv Thomas
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
Just checked the preview again. Yes, they are recycling some content but can't say it's all recycled. FYI.
|
08-01-13 11:48am
|
Reply
129
|
Viv Thomas
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
I haven't been a member in a while but I recently checked out the tour. The quality will be better at the other sites you listed (both in terms of vids and pics) since Viv has been around for so long. I should note that Viv seems to just be recycling old content now. If you've never joined it does have some good stuff to see but not at the same level. The other sites you listed are also more "heartcore" in terms of the sex being pretty tame while Viv is more standard hardcore in approach. Hope this helps.
|
07-31-13 12:07pm
|
Reply
130
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Mostly but that's because of security issues (not including the NSA of course), not convenience. It still irks me that I have to keep several browsers on hand because of the frequency in which porn sites seem unable to accommodate Firefox or other non MS Exploder browsers.
|
07-26-13 11:58am
|
Reply
131
|
N/A
|
Reply of
turboshaft's Reply
I agree that personal info is far more worrisome than a hard drive full of cracks and cleavage. I doubt there are many techs who haven't seen a machine full of porn and I assume that most of the time if they are rescuing a hard drive they're not really paying attention to contents: put the download on auto pilot and go do something else. The cost of trying to save a drive can be pretty expensive so I'd probably just go with the important nonporn stuff and focus on rebuilding the collection later; you'd probably save money doing this but not time.
|
07-18-13 02:18pm
|
Reply
132
|
New Sensations Network
(0)
|
Reply of
graymane's Reply
Thanks for the positive feedback. I wish more webmasters would take our reviews to heart (at least the non newbie reviews anyway) but I doubt that will happen here. My instincts tell me that this is now just a place holder site and that most of the marketing and money at NS is going into their parody productions. While it's disappointing from a consumer's perspective it perversely makes good business sense ... if you can't or don't want to compete with what's out there today just keep doing what you're doing until it doesn't pay any more.
|
07-17-13 11:39am
|
Review
133
|
New Sensations Network
(0)
77.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ Access to 26 site network (no access to their parody porn site which they are best known for today)
+ Thousands of scenes available
+ Mostly exclusive content (some DDF and lesser known site scenes tossed in)
+ Decent price of $15 month through TBP
+ Almost no download failures
+ Network updates about 4 to 5x a week but only on a few sites
+ Lots of good looking, mostly American girls
+ Mostly good lighting and professional shooting
+ Videos have screen caps, all scenes have zip download option
+ Bills thru Epoch, no cross sales on signup and easy cancellation |
| Cons: |
- Lots of recycling of content between various sites and some recycling of older content. A lot of content can be found as updates on 2 - 3 different sites in the network.
- All but a couple of sites are dead or infrequently updated
- No real ability to search, no model directory, updates are rarely dated
- No HD vids, all are 640 x 480
- Download speeds vary from 800 KB/sec to about 50 KB/sec depending on time of day but was mostly around 100 to 200 KB/sec
- No stream options in screen but you can watch a stream via a media player but it's almost impossible to jump ahead or back except at lowest band width.
- Pics only come in at 1020 x 680 but there are zips
- Too much use of fish eye lenses, especially on pov shoots (vertigo here we come).
- Very repetitive in terms of scene layout
- Network feels lost, not really a pic or video network, just a compilation of stuff that hasn't changed in years. |
| Bottom Line: |
There was PU poll question this week asking about the first porn site you ever joined. While this wasn't the first for me, it was certainly a staple for me back in the late 90's and early 00's when 800x600 pics and postage stamp sized vids were standard issue. Unfortunately time has passed this site by and this is probably my last visit here. For uninitiated, this network is 90% hardcore with a few lez and solo shoots tossed in. Here's the overall skinny:
PICS: I primarily joined this time since I'm more of a pic guy. Although the pics going to back 2007 are 1020 by 680 I still get good resolution on my 24" monitor with them. The oldest content is 600x800 and is functionally useless. Most sets have 100 to 200 pics. The bad news is that they seem to be cutting back to only a few dozen so-so quality pics per scene in the last year. There is a fair amount of fish eye lens use on some sites which hurts after a while.
VIDS: Let's face facts, this is not a video site. Your only option is 640x480 .wmv downloads (or the same for ipad/psp). The psuedo stream function is marginal at best. Some of the vids even look sort of bad this level of resolution but everything going back to 2008 looks decent. Downloading is a chore given the slow speeds present for most of the day (it's currently taking me over an hour to DL two 450mb vids).
NAV: Navigation on the network was apparently developed during the internet stone age. Each site comes up in a new window. No search engine period. You can only look up models for each individual site. I frequently found myself digging through my download file to see if I had nabbed the same scene off of a different site on the network because of the recycling of content within the network. A number of sites stopped listing dates on updates to make it seem like they're not dead.
OVERALL: The only sites that continue to update regularly are Freshoutofhighschool, Newsensations, UnlimitedMILFs and Jizzbomb. The main emphasis on them (except the milf site) is younger porn stars. There is a fair amount of uniform and other outfit shoots which I like as a nice change of pace from the usual porn offerings today. The action is usually pretty good, the girls are pretty good looking and there is a lot of content provided you are willing to deal with what is now average at best quality. That's why I gave the network a score of 77.
However, this network just seems to be treading water until the owners can no longer make money offering what they have been doing for so long. I see no reason why a network that's been around for so long can't make the leap into the 21st century by offering HD vids (some of the nonexclusive DDF material can be had in HD on the DDF sites) and bigger pics (a few sets do offer 1500x1080 sizes here, apparently someone forgot to "dumb them down"). Like I noted above, this network just seems lost given the lack of high quality vids and the new found emphasis on limiting the number of pics per set. The lack of navigation and search adds to the sense that this place is just going through the motions in hopes of grinding out a buck or two. For those PU readers who hold on to a sense of nostalgia about the "good old days of porn", I offer up this network as an example that the good old days weren't always so good in comparison to what's out there today. |
|
07-16-13 02:29pm
Replies (5)
|
Reply
134
|
Brandi Love
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Review
I almost did the 3 day trial but after digging through the tour I decided it wasn't worth it. Small pix and not a lot of them in each set. No HD movies. Etc. I have to agree the site is not quite sure what it wants to be but whatever it "is" needs updating. While I agree she is hot what content that is coming out seems to be pale as opposed to content that could / should be coming out.
Forgot to note that "yes" there are pix and video from 3rd party sites that she has appeared on.
|
07-07-13 07:54pm
|
Reply
135
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Probably not for another decade which I assume is about how long for 3-D to get realistic and of high quality without all the expensive extra gear. It's pretty much a novelty act right now.
|
06-26-13 12:24pm
|
Reply
136
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Poll
I don't know what it means, we should ask the Dos Equis Most Interesting Man in the World as I'm sure he's faced multiple fates worse than death .... but did he like it?
|
06-06-13 08:12pm
|
Review
137
|
Babes Network.com
(0)
82.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ Exclusive content that updates 5x a week.
+ Good $10, 30 day membership through TBP.
+ Great 2500 x 1700 pics with zips and true 1080 HD vids with good download speeds. 4 DL options for vids including mobile device sized. Also streaming available with good speeds and ability to jump within a scene.
+ Smallish watermarks
+ Attractive girls (18 - 30 range) with few "enhancements". A good mix between porn stars and more unknowns, at least to me.
+ A unique site in terms of the artistic and hardcore factors it tries to combine.
+ A good mix of content (about 40% HC, 40% solo, and 20% lez).
+ User ratings and comments sections and social media connections. |
| Cons: |
- Tags / search engine is poor.
- Navigation needs an overhaul.
- Some ads on main page and when logging in.
- Prechecked cross sale on signup.
- The "artistic" feel the site is trying to convey gets lost with bad lighting, bad composition and iffy camera / cropping work.
- Very few positions shown for all scenes.
- Has a model directory but with very little info.
- You get timed out somewhat quickly and there are capcha's every time you log in.
- A fair amount of photoshopping and post production effects going on.
- More complicated than usual cancellation process. Web based cancel system doesn't seem to work (call or use email -- aka: don't wait until the end before trying to cancel). Also, must cancel at least 7 days before end of 30 days to keep from getting rebilled. |
| Bottom Line: |
This is my first voyage into the world of "heartcore" / "lovecore" figuring it looked like it had great quality and would be something different. True, it was different. You won't find anal, dp's, gagging and the like here which is fine by me. I'd like to think that years of overexposure to gonzo porn and too much degrading porn (sort of the default it seems) has made me so jaded to my inner sensitive new age guy. However, even using that standard of measure this site just didn't seem to add up for me. Here's the lowdown:
PICS: The setup looked good. Site has about 125 HC, 56 lez, and 106 solo sets (all have 100 or more pics) and the pics are quite large with zips. However, it quickly broke down. When viewing in browser, the default setting is for a slideshow but you can click to a thumbnail layout. If you click on a thumbnail and go back a page you get the slideshow again. Way too much clicking. You can only view the full sized pics by DL'ing the zips; the inbrowser view is only 800x550. Additionally, you can't even see all the thumbnails and the way the thumbnails are laid out (horizontal as opposed to the usual vertical) you have to use their in browser "forward arrow" which is clunky at best.
There are several photographers working here and most seem to be too damn artsy for their own good. Lots of scenes use natural lighting which results in dark pics and lots of shadows. Also the default seems to be to have the camera in a fixed position which limits the angles and views we're used to seeing.
For hardcore, there is a big focus on foreplay which results in only about 2 positions for actual sex. Given that the camera seems trapped in a fixed position for many scenes the result is that it often feels like your watching a scene from some 1980's Hustler where they couldn't show actual penetration, you just sorta know they're doing it. The lack of positions comes across in the lez and solo stuff too. I guess I like more variety as opposed to just soaking in what's in front of me.
While you get about a lot of pics per set, most of it seems to be a mosaic masterclass - here's a pose but in one frame you get a head, another the torso, another a leg, here's another with some artistic blurriness, etc. The vids are better in this respect but it does gets frustrating regarding the pics. I guess when I think artsy I think of some originality and professional output. A lot of these scenes feel more like someone who knows photography but hasn't shot porn before and isn't quite up to it.
VIDS: About 130 HC, 120 solo, and 60 lez. In browser stream works great and the HD is real HD which looks great ... meaning it's only as great as the way the scene was shot. My main complaint with the vids is their composition and artsy feel which is mostly identical to the issues I outlined in the "pics" section above. A lot of the vids have music in the beginning, some music go throughout.
NAV: Yet another site that built a navigation system when they were small and it no longer works for beans once they've grown. I already groused about the in browser pic issues. The scenes have tags but they are limited. If you search under tags, say "brunette", you'll get a result saying there are 182 scenes. However, it will only bring up 30: there is no way I can see to show them all. The tags are too few (some scenes are mistagged too) and too generic given the number of scenes they have.
If you poke around under their 3 general categories of HC, solo, and lez you'll find that recent updates aren't included. The only way to look at everything is to go through every page of updates - which only lets you jump back or ahead a few pages at a time.
I give this site an 82 because of the quality, the amount of content and the hot girls. However, for me they missed the boat on what they were trying to achieve. This is not porn for women since the focus seems mostly centered on the girls and there is no real talking or kissing-centric theme and the HC ends with a body or facial cumshot. The softer artistic side of porn put forth here seems to get washed over by the crop / framing jobs, low lighting and one position camera angles in many scenes. Those who like artsy porn may be interested in this but I think that for most the HC isn't the hardcore we're used to seeing (and not just the gonzo / rough sex stuff, just the composition in general). The softcore / lez stuff with an artsy feel is done much better by places like HegreArt, MetArt and the like.
I guess I went into this with my hopes set a bit too high. I think this site would work best for someone who digs softcore and art photography and might be looking to try some hardcore. If, like me, you have more of a hardcore background then you're more likely to walk away disappointed. |
|
06-06-13 04:03pm
Replies (1)
|
Comment
138
|
Viv Thomas Video
(0)
|
|
05-20-13 11:35am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
139
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
I said "other" because it's probably all of the above. I've seen examples of all of the above in the forum in the past. My guess is that for a woman to openly be a woman here (I suspect some join under a male or gender neutral name) requires more effort and bother than what it's worth.
|
05-09-13 11:57am
|
Reply
140
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
I hate to admit it but the internet has ruined my reading. I used to read books all the time but now it's almost like I get bored reading more than a few pages. Damn you internet articles! Where did my ... (pause) ... attention span go?
|
05-03-13 12:59pm
|
Comment
141
|
Euro Teen Erotica
(0)
|
|
05-02-13 12:08pm
Replies (2)
|
Comment
142
|
DDF Network
(0)
|
|
04-30-13 06:32pm
Replies (1)
|
Review
143
|
Hands on Hardcore
(0)
87.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ Almost 800 scenes of nothin' but hardcore banging.
+ Exclusive content.
+ About 100 true HD scenes and large sized vids in general.
+ Professional quality production and lighting.
+ Good full trial price of $3.50 for 2 days (see review below for tips on saving $$ for more time).
+ Good DL speeds, various format options for vids and streaming in browser.
+ High quality pics, all with zips.
+ Good model directory and generally good search.
+ All updates are date stamped for future reference.
+ Multiple language options and a mobile viewing option as well. |
| Cons: |
- Not all HD labelled vids are HD.
- Search options for pics are worthless.
- Content gets a bit repetitive.
- Currently updating 2x per week but starting in 2012 and going back expect only 1 update per week at best.
- Prechecked cross sale on signup.
- Some content seen on other sites and some photographers work isn't up to snuff for DDF work.
- As usual, oldest content isn't that high quality.
- Some content recycled from other DDF sites and the date of publication here may not be when it first came out.
- Need more screen cap previews for the vids.
- Since I last joined they've removed some of the earliest content. Granted the quality wasn't the best but still not bad compared to some other major sites today. Wished they had kept it or remastered it. |
| Bottom Line: |
I last joined HoH about 4 years ago. I signed up for the 2 day trial expecting only to be able to grab a year or two worth of material. To my surprise I was done downloading in about 6 hours and I don't use a DL manager or have super fast high speed connections. The lack of updates over the years was about the major downer though. Here's the skinny:
PICS: All scenes have zip downloads and the last few years have pics coming in at 2000 x 1300 pixels. Even the oldest content is roughly 1600 x 1070 in size. The tags for photo search are worthless if there even are any. You can tag individual photos with info for others to see (don't know why you'd do this). No real ability to slideshow the pics. Multiple size options available. Some airbrushing on sets.
VIDS: All scenes have vids with the most recent allowing for wmv and mp4 download options. Some older vids also have divx or quicktime. All but the oldest material has streaming video with ability to jump around to get a good preview. I had consistent DL speeds of about 1.3 MB/sec on multiple channels. At best only about 80-100 vids are in true HD, most HD labelled vids are just HD size. Starting in 2008, the vid sizes get down to medium size (720x400) and the oldest years don't even get that big and come split into the scenes. I wish they had more screen caps in order to preview the vids without having to stream and jump around to decide if I wanted to DL or not.
The site allows you to search by category, date or tags. The model directory is good and has background info. There is some blog material and social media stuff but no one appears to do much with it. They also let you customize the site with favorites and similar items if you stick around for the long haul. There are some special discounts for other DDF sites and independent sites that pretty much match what you can find on TBP. However, if you want to join other DDF sites or the DDF network they do offer a 50% off the first month discount. So, my advice is join on a cheap trial and if you want more hit the discounts page, a better deal than what TBP has going.
Generally speaking, DDF puts out a consistent and high grade euro porn product. This site is no different but, if you've seen their sites before, you pretty much know what you're going to get. In that respect, there isn't a lot of imagination that goes into putting the scenes together and so some of the content does get repetitive. Overall, if they hadn't been skimpy with their updates the last 3 years or so I would have scored this in the 90's. So, if you like hardcore of all varieties you can't really go wrong here. |
|
04-07-13 08:33pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
144
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
But why have the real thing when you can shack up with a sexbot; a perfect 10 looks-wise that will do anything and everything in bed and then clean the house, cook dinner and mow the yard without complaining a bit?
|
03-26-13 12:33pm
|
Reply
145
|
Nasty Angels
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Review
Thanks for the review on this one. Just a general comment in that I looked at the tour page and found stuff that's been on my computer for a long time; stuff from Clubseventeen if that site is still around and a few others. Not sure how much of this new or just recycled old content.
|
02-19-13 12:13pm
|
Reply
146
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Dracula's Poll
Roku will probably be made obsolete once Apple and Microcrap get into the home tv market. I don't have one but I foresee most of us having some version of one in the coming decade as tv and the web become more seamless ... like the latex body suit I'm wearing ... oops, too much information again ;)
|
02-18-13 11:15am
|
Reply
147
|
Sex And Grades
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
What's up with that? "Cogniscenti" sent me to the dictionary. Who says porn pervs don't have an IQ bigger than their shoe size ... unless Drooler has really really big paws.
|
02-01-13 03:09pm
|
Comment
148
|
Sex And Grades
(0)
|
|
02-01-13 12:23pm
Replies (3)
|
Reply
149
|
Suze Randall
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
Thanks Capn but I'm more on semi-retired status. Don't spend a lot of time downloading new stuff anymore. Now, I'm more of a lurker here than a contributor.
|
02-01-13 12:13pm
|
Review
150
|
Suze Randall
(0)
83.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ Full access 7 day trial for $10 through TBP
+ Almost all original content. Some shared DDF and Holly Randall content.
+ Lots of content: About 650 hardcore photo sets and 4800 pic sets overall and all sets have zip function. About 1500 videos.
+ Membership includes Suze Classics for those looking to fill their 80's and 90's porn fix (that site factors into all the stats mentioned here).
+ Newest pics have 2400x1600 resolution and newest vids are HD with 1080 resolution. Newest vids have a stream option and multiple download options including wmv and mp4 files.
+ Good consistent download speeds of between 1MB - 2 MB/sec up to 6 channels.
+ Starting to remaster some of the old content
+ If you like glamor porn this is probably one of the best sites to visit. Has porn star from today back to the 80's.
+ Multiple weekly updates and all updates are dated for future reference. |
| Cons: |
- Search function and tags are a mess and not real helpful.
- There is a model directory but no model info.
- No screen caps or ability to preview vids. I couldn't make the stream function jump ahead, I had to wait for the movie to buffer in order to jump while watching on line.
- Quality takes a nose diver prior to 2010 with no HD vids and pic sets maxing out at 1000x1600 with most sets having smaller pics. Older vids don't have stream capability so you have to download them to know what they're like and the quality can be almost unwatchable by today's standards.
- Fairly generic porn with mostly known porn stars.
- Some advertising on each page.
- There is a forum and FAQ section but it looks to be pretty much dead. |
| Bottom Line: |
I last joined this about 5 years ago and dug it since it had a lot of content, decent pic sizes and decent videos for the time. However, time is not always kind and this site has been left a bit in the dust and it's caused me knock 8 points off of my original score. Here's the lowdown:
PICS: I still this site primarily as a photo site. There are more vids now but pix are what Suze got started doing back in the 70's and this is what Holly Randall, who does the shoots today, mostly focuses on. Tons of pics but most sets have less than 50 pics which is a bit skimpy. The sets, at least the older ones, also have jumbled material so when you look at them online or unzip the folders the content doesn't progress smoothly from beginning to end. This was the case 5 years ago and is so today. The oldest material (probably half) has pic sizes that work only if you view porn on your phone. They are slowly (I mean slowly) remastering some old stuff into larger sizes but only by scanning the original pics which results in some graininess. Everything has zips.
VIDS: The newest vids are great but there aren't a lot of them. As mentioned, the lack of a preview or screen caps isn't fun, especially when probably 2/3 of the vids don't have in browser stream options. The quality is all over the board to on the older vids, some are fine and others aren't worth it. Personally, I got frustrated because I'm not going to DL and watch a slew of vids just to see if I like the content.
NAV: Navigation, in a word, "bites". The navigation is the same system they've since they opened I think and it shows. You can search pix by tags but you can't search videos this way, you have to search all "hardcore" for example to find the vids mixed in with the pix. You only get 10 search results by page and you can only jump ahead or behind by a few pages. When you have 100's of scenes with the same tag this is a pain. Also, if you relied on the tag "hardcore" you would think they stopped shooting hardcore in 2010. Nope. You have to look under different tags to find the newer stuff. Some vid scenes of the same photo shoot also have different tags. A small minority of tagged scenes do not appear in the tag search results either. Basically this site is too big for this crap and it definitely hurt the final score. They need to scrap the status quo and start over on the layout and search/tag system.
I liked this site more before because I was more into glam sites since most amateur or gonzo sites didn't appeal to me. Now, when I look it and see the over saturated colors, small editors choice photo sets and porn stars past their prime doing generic scenes it doesn't do as much for me. DDF, 21stsextury, the WOW sites, teenmegaworld and others do a much better job of giving you fresh faces, quantity, quality and all in a more user friendly package.
Overall, I still recommend the site given the vast amount of original material it has and the ability to look at the "classic" porn of the last few decades. Also, a lot of the content is decent in quality and the stuff within the last 18 months or so is top notch in terms of HD vids and large pic sizes. So, it's worth a join but probably not for month, the 7 day trial is probably all you need unless you have limited time to hunt through the site to find all the goodies. |
|
01-31-13 07:26pm
Replies (3)
|
