| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Comment
1
|
VIP Area
(0)
|
|
10-16-16 12:40pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
2
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
girl watching girl/girl. keeping most of their cloths on, so lots of hands down panties.
|
01-01-16 09:32am
|
Reply
3
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
depends on what she's wearing...
|
06-05-11 01:57pm
|
Reply
4
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
It would probably have been a very bad, soft porn Fiona Cooper c.1990.
|
11-07-10 04:51am
|
Reply
5
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
too lazy to edit my collection.
|
09-20-10 12:57pm
|
Reply
6
|
N/A
|
Reply of
BadMrFrosty's Reply
another reason to use Firefox for safer browsing.
|
09-07-10 01:54pm
|
Reply
7
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
death to any developer that does this. same league as pop-ups and opening new windows without asking you whether you want to.
not only bad habit, but bad usability practice.
|
09-06-10 01:26pm
|
Reply
8
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
i, for example, might point out double standards of mainstream "culture" which frowns upon porn, but accepts images, particularly in advertising, with strong sexual connotations.
|
08-31-10 02:12am
|
Reply
9
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
i prefer the cooler months because more boot sightings though given our wet and windy august, there's been plenty of boots on show.
|
08-25-10 02:23pm
|
Reply
10
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
i've never tried a trial.
three reasons:
- slow broadband, so wouldn't be able to try much content
- i'll make up my mind from site tour, previews and/or tbp/pu reviews
- i'd probably forget to cancel
|
08-22-10 04:11am
|
Reply
11
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
no. but i did find an improvised sex toy under the bed shortly after i moved in.
|
08-17-10 02:21pm
|
Reply
12
|
N/A
|
Reply of
mistresskent's Poll
if you blog, you should accept comments.
if you accept comments, you should make the effort to engage in a conversation.
|
08-14-10 01:05am
|
Reply
13
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
you write the code once. that code should meet web standards.
but you may have to write patches - or fixes - too compensate for browsers that are not fully standards compliant and that make all the features you've written in compliant code work in other browsers.
ie6 is the bugbear. apart form the technical issues, it's a function of microsoft's dominance. ie6 was the standard browser delivered to a very high proportion of pcs bought say 5+ years ago. i'm amazed at looking at site stats that it still covers a big sector of the market.
there are more browsers than dracken mentions. there's also konqueror, older versions of netscape and a few more i don't know that run on linux or other more obscure operating environments.
even compliant code in compliant browsers can appear different because browsers will render differently and a lot depends upon your screen resolution.
then there's the server side and client side scripts - or mini-programs - that developers use to get sites to do cool stuff. javascript is probably the most common. apart from mundane uses, javascript can deliver a lot of dynamic activity like scrolling pictures and interactive menus. it can be used to run searches, but there's other code that can do that.
flash is usually used for video and a lot sites will use it for streaming. youtube uses it.
some users choose to turn off client side scripts like javascript because these can be exploited by hackers.
web standards require that the site delivers the same usability if scripts are turned off. some hope.
it's a mess really. but the good developers can usually write code that will work reasonably well for 95% of users.
|
08-10-10 01:25pm
|
Reply
14
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
death to ie6. but...
best efforts please and i'd rather sites avoided using javascripts - not the best from a security pov.
html5 should deal with a lot of these issues, but you're going to have people using legacy browsers for a long time.
oh, and any web developer who can't be bothered to code to standards should be fired.
|
08-09-10 02:03pm
|
Reply
15
|
N/A
|
Reply of
slutty's Reply
a couple of quick hints for making better videos:
- plan your shoot - unless you're doing a simple point/shoot, a simple storyboard can make quite a difference
- keep the camera still! - use a tripod, limit zooming in and out, pan slowly
- if you can use different angles
- use as much natural light as you can or invest in some decent lighting/reflectors (you can pick up something second hand that will do the trick)
|
08-07-10 01:20am
|
Comment
16
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
|
08-07-10 01:13am
Replies (1)
|
Reply
17
|
Flashy Babes
(0)
|
Reply of
nadiencendia's Review
thanks for this.
i was tempted by the $1 for 2 days offer, but won't bother now. video tease is flashy and well-produced, but boobs covered up. that seems to tell the story.
|
08-07-10 01:02am
|
Reply
18
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
have taken some of significant me.
pictures? what about video too? with those little phone sized jobs - gbp80 in the uk - it is p!ss easy to shoot, edit and load!
|
08-07-10 12:55am
|
Reply
19
|
Girls In Leather Boots
(0)
|
Reply of
alexmedia's Reply
hey. no problem. have you got any recommendations?
yeah. site uses tables. i do a bit of web development at work and home. site design and code is awful.
|
08-07-10 12:51am
|
Reply
20
|
Girls In Leather Boots
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
ah. i should've covered that a bit better. i'd say 80% of the sets contain nudity, of which about 33% topless only.
|
08-04-10 10:34am
|
Review
21
|
Girls In Leather Boots
(0)
74.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- good size collection growing since 2005 (about 130 videos, over 200 photo sets)
- nice selection of British regulars, a few new faces
- lots of girls in leather boots!
- regular updates, every 3 days; every 4th or 5th update is video
- photo sets reasonable softcore content
- a few sets/videos slightly stronger
- generally exclusive content
- host responds to emails |
| Cons: |
- poor site usability; no search, just a list of galleries
- endlessly opens up new windows for each link
- one size pics (generally 1000 x 670, 250 dpi)
- no zips!
- video production is poor, content a bit repetitive
- one video format, wmv, typically 128 kbps, 720 x 576
- videos typically 3 minutes only and have large watermarks
- predominantly softcore, a few mild bondage and punishment sets
- there is some non-exclusive content, but I believe this is legacy - designed to pad out the site in earlier days - and not being updated
- no model bios, interaction or shoot descriptions |
| Bottom Line: |
GILB services a niche and makes few bones about it.
Host, Raif, is a genuine enthusiast like most of those attracted to the content. Yet, the site has the tell-tale signs of an amateur.
It's very boot content focussed, but let down in other areas.
From a technical point of view, the media content is poor with no format options. Downloading was at a reasonable speed and there was no daily limit.
The site isn't the prettiest on the eye and not designed for easy use. Searching is non-existent; just a random list of galleries. There are also a few broken links. (Hi Raif, even with my limited knowledge of HTML and CSS I could design a better site.)
That said, the content - if the boot niche is what you are after - is generally good. Scene settings are a bit repetitive, but there has been some thought to content and outfits.
Don't expect anything much stronger than softcore from mainly British models. There's a few insertions, but it's mostly posing or stripping. Some of the bought in content features bondage and humiliation. (I hoped Raif got this properly licensed.)
There are a few familiar faces - Lucy Zara and Frankie - plus a couple of bored looking European girls. Otherwise, the models put on a good show, giving prominence to the boot.
For the content, it's a reasonable $20 a month. Even without zips you could download the whole site in a few weeks.
Raif did respond quickly to an email about a broken link.
I'd want to score GILB higher if only because it's one of the few sites to guarantee good boot content. Other options include Bootiful, which has little or no video content, and features some rather tame stuff even in comparison to GILB. Only Tease does feature quite a lot of boots. It would be interesting if the production team produce an Only Boots site.
Overall though, GILB is let down by amateurish production values, the lack of format options and a clunky website.
But...fills a niche. |
|
08-03-10 02:54pm
Replies (5)
|
Reply
22
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
boobs, pussy, face about equal.
clothing and boots, essential!
|
08-01-10 02:26pm
|
Reply
23
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
does taking candid photos count?
|
07-06-10 01:43pm
|
Reply
24
|
Ladies Kiss Ladies
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
Thanks for the review.
Sounds similar to my experience of 'Lick Nylons', part of the same stable. Content lacked passion.
|
07-04-10 01:04pm
|
Review
25
|
Viv Thomas Video
(0)
90.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- large collection of pics (over 1300 sets by my count) and vids (500+)
- regular photo and video updates
- great looking babes
- familiar faces
- good mixture of solo, lesbian/multi girl and boy/girl, 2+1, 2+2 hardcore (some pissing too)
- choice of bitrates (some choices labelled as HD)
- zipped photosets
- nice range of indoor and outdoor locations
- nice clothing, underwear, hose
- search by model and type
- ratings for sets, models |
| Cons: |
- older photosets of indifferent picture quality
- no choice of photo sizes
- no choice of video type (all wmv)
- a smattering of subtitled videos
- some of the videos poorly lit
- search facility is terrible
- zero model interaction
- no model info (though a lot of familiar faces) |
| Bottom Line: |
It's some time since I visited a Viv Thomas site. I recall that on my previous visit there was only streaming video available, but I might be mistaken.
Anyway, Viv Thomas is a site bursting with content and quality. Viv's been in the game a long time and knows how to shoot a beauty in a variety of poses and scenes. Earlier hardcore scenes are bit poorly staged, but later stuff is very good.
The videos are generally nicely composed, all the girls give out; no tentative amateurs here. That said, the more recent content is getting a bit stale and there's an impression that Viv or the webmaster is going through the motions.
All of the videos are culled from DVD releases which slightly detracts from exclusivity. But, few complaints about the content.
The search facility is minimal - chose from video or photo; solo, girl/girl, hardcore; or by model. It could be a lot better. Why do so many sites fall down on this point? It isn't that difficult so long as content is well tagged. ('Only' sites, IMHO, do this very well.)
Interaction is non-existent. You can rate content, but there's no indication how many users actually vote: probably very few.
Updates were regular though there's not a huge amount of content being added each week - about 1/2 vids and 7 photo sets. And, as pointed out above, the newer content is getting stale.
I had no technical issues. Photos are an okay size though I'm sure most users would prefer something crisper than 250 dpi. Videos come as Windows Media only. Streaming is available. Download speeds were fine, which for me means slow given the craptastulic speeds available here.
I spent a couple of months as a member. That's a compliment in its own right.
Overall, a lot of positives; very good content a few minor grumbles.
I'm sticking to a 90, but there's question mark about future content. That said, there is enough on the site right now to merit a month's investment. |
|
06-06-10 02:08pm
Replies (0)
|
