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.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- growing selection of photoshoots and videos
- daily updates
- very good search feature based on clothing type
- model index
- each set has a good selection; well composed and well lit
- generally pretty models, mostly smiling and seemingly enjoying the shoot
- videos also nicely lit
- zipped photoshoots
- most recent shoots have a selection of photo sizes; "ultra size" are 3000x2000, 250 dpi
- videos in several formats including HD
- nice selection of clothing, lingerie, stockings, pantyhose, shoes and boots
- reasonably active forum
- seems like there's feedback from the producers
Cons:
- some of the sets/videos are a bit repetitive
- some of the outfits are repeats
- not much more than topless
- videos are on the short side
- some of the videos lack direction - girls don't really know what to do
- could do with more videos
- not much interaction with models
- creeping cross sales
- irritating FastTrack feature
Bottom Line:
Only Silk and Satin delivers. You get a very good and expanding selection of pretty girls in a variety of sexy, silk and satin outfits.
Don't expect hardcore. This is strictly soft, not much more than the famous Page 3 range of UK tabloids newspapers. But, then, that's why you signed up, isn't it?
Well, that said, from comments I've seen and from my own taste, I would like to see a site that caters for clothing fetishes that provides some good masturbation scenes. Stripping from fully clothed is great, but I do want a little bit more. I guess Only is not going to give that.
As with other Only sites, there's a biased towards photoshoots. One or two videos a week and some of these look familiar to some of the photosets.
The Only brand has established itself well and is providing a regular stream of good quality product. It perhaps needs to take things to the next level. I've got a bit tired of the creeping repitition of sets and models. Perhaps Only can branch out into Only Boots or something like that. (Now that would really sell me!)
I really don't like the FastTrack feature which allows previews of content for a month at a time. Don't think this adds to the site and detracts from what is otherwise a good value site.
Overall? I've had a couple of bites of Only sites. I might come back again later. Only Boots would be a great sell. I guess we're going to have to wait for another provider to give that extra bit.
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.
Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- down and dirty masturbation
- vids are reasonable quality, lighting ok
- provides access to a range of other Ferro Cash sites
- navigation straightforward, easy to get to content
- seemed like it would get regular updates
Cons:
- selection was small: don't believe the tour come on
- bored looking models: clinical, disinterested
- repetitive scenes
- mostly East European girls, so not much in the way of understandable talk
- zero interaction with models
Bottom Line:
There's plenty of better sites giving you solo or girl-girl masturbation which are better value than this. Twistys or Suze would do.
On the plus side, you do get access to a big load of other content. However, that content is much the same.
It would be nice to have the girl come on to the camera. But, on sites like these I get the feeling that most of the "models" are street pros who are bored stiff. There's no need to speak English, but a bit of lust directed at the camera would help.
This was not money well spent and I will be steering clear of Ferro Cash sites.
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.
- 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
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.
- 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)
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.
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.
