| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Review
76
|
Craving Carmen
(0)
68.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+Carmen is very hot
+Images are decent quality (792x1200)
+Super HD videos are decent quality (1280x720 @5000 kbps) |
| Cons: |
-So called regular HD videos are fine if there isn't a "Super HD" option available. For some reason if there's both a Super HD and HD option, the HD version is 16x9 that's been zoomed out and made 4:3. So even on a widescreen monitor it's only 4:3 with huge black bars at top and bottom. Why they done that, I have no freaking clue.
-Site is pretty much dead. Pictures haven't been updated in over a year (March 5th 08) and the videos haven't been updated in 6 months (10-22-08). The only thing updated in 09 has been webcam archive.
-Expects you to pay another $18 to get two seperate video zip sets. Not sure if that's for both or only one. I have no interest in that BS. |
| Bottom Line: |
CravingCarmen is another site that could be soo much better then what it is but the people behind it appear to be more interested in just raking in money then actually putting out a quality side.
The site appears to have turned into nothing more then a ad for SpunkyCams.com. A webcam site that charges you anywhere from $3-12. For how long or for what, I have no clue. I'm not into webcams. Quality is always horrible.
The photos and the so called Super HD videos are good quality as mentioned in the Pros. As mentioned earlier, if there is both a Super HD and a HD option, the HD option is 16x9 zoomed out to 4:3. So even on a 16:9 screen, it'll actually be 4:3 with the black bars on top, bottom and sides. If there is no Super HD option, then the HD videos are actually widescreen, 1280x720 @ 5000kbps.
Her earlier sets are non-nude. She has roughly 76 movies on her site and 36 are non-nude. So just under half. Her older videos are available in mpg format. Unfortunately right clicking and properties doesn't show me any info on what quality it is, however it looks comparable to VHS tapes.
She also has archived webcam shows, which is the only thing that's been updated in 09. Those are available in 320x240 @ 447kbps. So not any quality worth keeping.
The site also try's to sell you other zipset galleries, one is a webcam video with her and Ashley and the other is a HD video of her, for $18. Not sure if that's for both or only for one but trying to charge me additional for extra content for a site that's non-updating doesn't settle well with me.
The site could easily be summed up just by looking at her journal, which hasn't been updated since 2007. This site is evidently of no priority to Carmen or Spunky Productions. The fact that they still charge $24 is ridiculous.
Carmen is hot but her site is a sure fire miss. It's nothing more then a one month hit and run at best. And that's as long as you go into it knowing that you are pretty much spending $24 for what could be a months worth of update content for other sites. |
|
03-13-09 08:40pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
77
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
Reply of
hogosos's Reply
That's cool and all, unless you don't want your reviews taken seriously? If you do, then you need alot more detail. As for Bam it's in your face, that all has to do with what your desktop resolution is at. If it's at 640x480, then yeah anything image will be life size. If it's like most of us here and alot bigger, say 1440x900, then a 640x480 image is nothing more then a thumbnail.
Your review has no facts, it's nothing more then opinion.
|
03-12-09 05:02pm
|
Reply
78
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
Reply of
hogosos's Review
Could use alot more detail in your review. Example, what's the image resolution? How about the video resolution? How often is the site updated? As of know your review is more of a ad, then a review. You make your review sound fake.
|
03-12-09 09:53am
|
Review
79
|
LV Panty
(0)
73.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
+Nice Quality Photos (1152x1728)
+A decent panty site.
+Some pretty good looking models |
| Cons: |
-Doesn't look like the site is updated anymore. No dates on the updates to know how old they are. But I haven't seen anything new in the month I've been there.
-Horrible quality vidoes (720x480 765kbs)
-Only 46 videos.
-All the photos look pretty much the same.
-No members link on the main page |
| Bottom Line: |
LV Panties is a decent site, that is if you are a panties fan. However it no longer appears to be updated anymore. There are no dates by the updates to know just when it quit but in the month I was a member I haven't seen anything new. From the layout and quality of the vids, I'd be guessing it's been 3-4 years since anything was updated. But again, I'm not positive on that and there's no way to know.
The photos are pretty much the only good thing about LVPanties, as they only have 46 vids at a crappy 720x480 @765kbs, so the only bright spot are the photos. Resolution wise, the photos are to the low end of todays standards at 1152x1728. They have what they call closeup gallerys, the photos are all in landscape, however they are 1152x768 size. So they are pretty much useless compared to the regular galleries. The photos are not available in a zip and there are normally 50-60 images per gallery.
The biggest problem I had with the photos is the fact that it was always shot in a bedroom or a bathroom. And it was always the same bedroom or bathroom, so it made the photos all blend together. 90% of the photos are shot in front of plain jane bare white walls. Makes for a very uneventful photo.
They do not have a member link on the main page. I had to search back through my history to find the link. Thankfully I hadn't cleared it out in a while. So unless you bookmark the members page, good luck finding it again.
In Closing, LVPanties is a decent site for a one month stay. There's really no point for anything else. |
|
03-10-09 12:09pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
80
|
Real Teen Latinas
(0)
|
Reply of
robert80's Review
Could really use some more technical info. For example photo size? Video size? Just saying high quality for pictures doesn't really cut it. As what's high quality to you, may not be high quality to most people.
|
03-10-09 10:45am
|
Reply
81
|
Kim's Anal Heaven
(0)
|
Reply of
Dillon's Review
My problem isn't with the fact that he gave the site a 100, if you think it's that good so be it, however you went into no techincal detail on anything. For example, what size are those so called "Hi Res Photos"? What size are the videos? How often is it updated? What makes this site any different from the million other sites out there? You mentioned none of that in the review. Hell, even your cons are useless.
Maybe your a spammer, I don't know. But if you really wanna post reviews your have to get more in depth then that. That looks more like a forum post selling a site, then a review.
|
03-10-09 10:38am
|
Reply
82
|
LV Panty
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
I know this is late but just wanted to let you know I signed up about a month ago (posting a review soon) and no they still don't have zip downloads. I also think they quit updating the site, as I don't see any dates for updates and didn't notice any while I was there.
|
03-09-09 12:31pm
|
Reply
83
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Review
While I don't agree with all you said in your review and actually rated it 11 points higher, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't agree with your video quality remarks, as I think the 07 videos are good quality for their time.
However I will agree 100% on a few ponts: The lack of any search function at all is flat out ridiculous for a site in 2009. Especially compared to some sites who let you search everything from boob size, clothing or labia size.
The one other thing that bugs me about the site, is the fact that Rob (the guy doing the shooting and behind it) seems to always think he's ideas are the only ones that matter. For example I brought up the image resolution thing to him and he pretty much told me I was dumb and 90% of subscribers think the images are already too big. And that sites doing them that big are just gimmicky.
Overall good thought out review.
|
03-09-09 12:27pm
|
Reply
84
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Review
Just wanted to comment on a few things:
I've been a member for about 2 months now. I never have had to login twice to access any content. Could that be something on your end? You could get on the forum, which is hidden on the voting page, and ask Rob about it. Seems strange.
I'm guessing it's just with Euro but US customers have a option for $99 for 150 days. Which comes out to $20 a month. Or US customers sometimes get a $20 a month deal when they go to cancel.
I believe the color bars are suppose to associate with hot the content is. But who decides that I don't know. Not sure if it's based off member reviews, Robs opinion or number of downloads.
But I do agree some things needs changed. Like a option to download a full movie, rather then 7-9 3-5min clips. This is the DSL age, no reason to not have a option like that.
And I also agree that in todays economical age, $30 for only one site is a bit overboard.
|
02-04-09 05:40am
|
Reply
85
|
Babelicious
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
Videos do work fine. And you can use download managers to download both the videos and the zips, it's just that you can't pause/resume or zips. So you'll have to download 3 zips at a time.
|
01-30-09 04:00pm
|
Review
86
|
Babelicious
(0)
81.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+Newer videos are good quality. 08 & 09 videos are 3000 kbps (1280x720), 07 and before are 2000 kbps (640x480).
+Most images are in high resolutions and good quality. Sizes range from 1000px to 4000px.
+Great site layout and navigation.
+Easy search function. By model name, clothing, etc. |
| Cons: |
-Can only view one image at a time.
-Must download zips at once, no queing up in a download manager & no pausing/resuming.
-No option to default to bringing up all thumbnails at once, instead of default 20 per page.
-No consistency to images, a 06 set will be available in 4000px, while a 08 set will only be in 2000px.
-Only uses Epoch. |
| Bottom Line: |
Babelicious is in the same line as Twistys, a glamour style site featuring softcore & hardcore. I really liked the site navigation and the ability to search for clothing type or cup size. And both the images and videos are good quality, I had a few problems that I just couldn't get past.
First being that each image must be viewed 1 at a time. If you use Firefox, there's no way to right click and open in new tab for each image your interested in. When you do that it just brings up the full gallery again. So that means you either waste time going photo by photo, which is opened up in a new window, or you download the full zip and then sort through the ones you want. I've never been the kind to download the full zips, I prefer to just keep the images I like.
The problem with downloading the zips, is the fact that you can't que them up into a download manager. There is also no resuming of the zips. Videos seem to do fine queing up and downloading but for some reason you can't with the zips.
Each gallery comes up as default, 20 thumbs per page. You can change it to 50, 100 or all but there's no way to make all the default.
One other problem with images seems to be that there is no consistency. For example a 06 gallery may be available in 4000px, while a 08 gallery may only be available in 2000px. Or it may be 3500px or 2500px, there just seems to be no consistency to image size. It's all over the map.
They have a rating system I really like. You can rate the model, photosets & videosets. If you've been a member of a site like Twistys before, then you've seen most of the models. I guess that's one reason why it was just kinda blah to me. Different site and galleries but still most of the same models.
You do get access to bonus sites: BabesOnFilm.com, BikiniBabes.TV, BabesUK.com, CumminAtYa.com, RoyalBoobs.com, Sexy-Babes.TV, DreamBabes.com & EuroBabez.com. Some are still updated regulary, looks like mainly Sexby-Babes.tv, others look like they haven't been updated in awhile.
Overall for the TBP discount of $19.95, Babelicious is a good site. Unfortunately the quirks about downloading the photos and/or zips is enough to make me not stay a member. If your the type that downloads all zips and don't mind not being able to que them up, then I'm sure you'll love the site. Unfortunately, that's a huge turn off for me and I felt the site just wasn't worth the hassle required to download the images. |
|
01-30-09 02:08pm
Replies (3)
|
Reply
87
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Poll
I guess my question is, would it have been considered porn before the interent? And I think most people would say yes.
In uptight America, I would still consider it porn but it's about as soft as you can go. Other countries where nudity is more acceptable, then I don't think it would be.
|
01-08-09 07:29am
|
Reply
88
|
Teen Core Club
(0)
|
Reply of
Low End's Review
Could use alot more technical info. What is "Very High Definition"? Or pretty regular updates? Is that daily? Weekly? 3x a week? What resolution is that pics? Or what formats and resolution is the video?
If the sites not worth staying a member, how does it warrent a 99?
|
01-05-09 06:29pm
|
Review
89
|
DOMAI
(0)
73.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+Good price ($19.95 not rebilled or $14.95 rebilled)
+Good quality photos (1333x2000px)
+On average updated almost daily. |
| Cons: |
-No videos
-No search function
-Navigation is horrible (no models page) Everything is sorted by update. So while a model may have 6 different sets on there, there is no way to find out untill you get to that update.
-Evertyhing is sorted by year, then by update date. |
| Bottom Line: |
My main problem with Domai is the same problem I have with Femjoy, each model starts out nude. Or if she's not full nude, she will be within 5 images. Then you have 40 images that all start to look the same.
The navigation is horrible. You can't search for body type, hair color or even model name. Everything is listed first by year, since 2005, then by date that they were added. So if you find a model you like, there is no way to see her other sets or even to find out if she has other sets. Technically you can cheat and look at the web address to see what gallery you are in, then you'd know if they have any other sets
available. You can then change the gallery number to go to the other ones but frankly in 2009 you shouldn't have to do that to see the other sets. EAch model should have a main page.
Most of the models are pretty attractive and the photos are decent quality (1333x2000px) but there are no videos. No users forum. No bonus sites or anything. All you've got are 5 links on the side for update year.
Overall if you want nothing but full nude women, then you'd probably like Domai. But if you are the kind that likes the art of stripping, then I'd recommend you stay away. |
|
01-05-09 02:58pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
90
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
Most of the time, within a week. Unless it's a site that I really dislike or that doesn't update anymore, then I cancel pretty much days, if not hours within singing up.
|
01-04-09 08:49am
|
Reply
91
|
N/A
|
Reply of
messmer's Poll
My first is price. Second would be if they use Epoch. The rest don't really bother me, as there are ways around DRM and/or streaming only video.
|
01-02-09 06:25am
|
Reply
92
|
Playboy's CyberClub
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Comment
Sorry I'm just now seeing this but if you are using Firefox you can use "Download Embedded" to download older streaming only videos. You can find it here https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1993. When it brings up the page with the video streaming, there will be a little red arrow in the bottom right corner. If you click on that you can download the embedded video.
|
12-31-08 08:29am
|
Reply
93
|
FTV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
TheRizzo's Reply
The problem is FTV doesn't update 6-7 times a week, it averages out to 1-2 a week max.
As to Monahan, I never have understood how FTV ranks their models. For example if you go to the recent updates page, you'll see member choice under Ileana, Franziska & Miyu. However I've never seen a page to rank or vote for the models. So not sure if it's just off of downloads or how they figure it.
|
12-30-08 08:05pm
|
Review
94
|
FTV Girls
(0)
91.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+High Quality videos.
+Beautiful selection of young models, with different body types and sizes. They don't all look the same.
+Intimate videos with Real Orgasms.
+Lots of public nudity
+Normally 3-4 galleries per model update, around 60 images per gallery.
+2-4 videos per model update. |
| Cons: |
-Pricey ($29.95 per month, I got offered $20 per month when I went to cancel)
-Images could stand to be bigger. Currently are 1062x1600 for portrait and 1600x1062 for landscape. Not as high quality as some other sites.
-They do have BigPics, where are 3000x4000 or 2000x3000 but it's a seperate page from it's self and no way to know from the model update if they are available for her or not.
-No search function. Have to go by update or models first name.
-Not all models are actually first timers. For example a recent update was Franziska, who I saw alot on ALS Scan when I was recently a member to there.
-Older videos and pictures not that good of quality.
-Only updated on average 1-2x per week.
-Some videos are behind the scenes of the photo shoot, so you hear the great 3,2,1 camera click. |
| Bottom Line: |
FTV is a site that I was a member of awhile back and liked back then but it was a bit too pricey for me. The site can get alittle too extreme for me (huge toys or fisting, etc) but decided to give it another try.
Photo's: In todays day and age of high resolution and high quality, FTV's photos are step behind the competition. Current updates photos are 1062x1600 for portrait and 1600x1062 for landscape. While updates in 07 where, 797x1200. 06 where 712x1072. So as you can see, while FTV keeps improving every year, it still doesn't compare to sites that have 3000 or 4000px images. But FTV does offer BigPics. They are 3000x4000px or 2000x3000px. But it's only of select galleries/models. I don't know why FTV doesn't do what ALS Scans do and offer two download sizes, normal res and high res. Since offering BigPics proves they have them available. For $30 a month, not offering them as standard is unacceptable.
Videos: 08 videos are available in 8000kb/s HD WMV's, 3000kb/s WMV's & Divx vidoes. Anything prior to December 07, is available in 2100kb/s WMV & Divx. The 8000kb/s videos are great quality, unfortunately my pc can't play them smoothly. So I'm stuck with the 3000kb/s. The quality is pretty good but not as good as some 720p videos from other sites. According to FTV's site, here are the following specs:
WMV Ultra HD 1440x1080 Resolution 8000kb/sec bitrate
WMV HD 720x480 Resolution 3000kb/sec bitrate
WMV 640x480 Resolution 700-2000kb/sec bitrate
Some videos are behind scenes of the photoshoots and you get to hear the lovely 3,2,1 and then the snap of the camera. However the cameraman does do a decent job of not talking too much, unless it's the interview video, he normally just lets the girls do what they want.
The videos are normally split up into 5-10 5-7 min secments. No option for full scene download.
The site could use a update in navigation. As of now you can either list by update or by model name in alphabetical order. There no way to search for a name or to find a model with a certain body type.
Some models are also not first time video girls, some can be seen on other pages, before their FTV shoots. However the models like that seem to be few.
In closing I really like FTV and it's probably one of my favorite sites. However there are changes that need to be done to break the low 90's number. They need to start putting the images up in their default resolution, instead just putting select images in a zip and slapping them up on the BigPics page. Add the user forum and drop the price. Right now $29.95 is flat out too high for any site that isn't a network site.
If they would do both of those and drop the price to $5-10 then I think it could easily be a mid to high 90's site.
In closing if you like public nudity or like real orgasms, then I'd recommend you give FTV a shot. |
|
12-30-08 04:58pm
Replies (4)
|
Reply
95
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
No. Mainly for two reasons. My dsl isn't the fastest out there and it really isn't a realistic option for me to stream hi quality/HD videos.
Most videos I download, I like to skip around or fastly skim through it.
The only way I'd realistically think about doing it, was if it was only $10 or less per month. AS there are always ways around streaming only videos. It's just normally more of a pain in the ass then needed.
|
12-23-08 08:03am
|
Reply
96
|
N/A
|
Reply of
sitsat's Poll
My number one has to be dumbass guys talking in the background. I don't mind it too much on some sites like FTV where most of the talking is more of a interview kinda thing. But I hate the cameraman telling the girls exactly what to do.
My 2nd would have to be the camera snapping away. Mainly just because it normally follows a 3,2,1 or the guy telling the model how to pose.
|
12-16-08 01:01pm
|
Reply
97
|
ALS Scan
(0)
|
Reply of
mr smut's Reply
You might be right, anything above a B might be on ALS Angels. If they'd just merge both sites into one, then it'd probably be alot better. Seems they are just trying to milk people out of money.
|
12-12-08 06:57am
|
Reply
98
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
rome476's Reply
I'd say it's probably 75% Solo/SC and 25% HC.
|
12-11-08 06:04pm
|
Review
99
|
ALS Scan
(0)
86.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
+Helps a charity (The only site I've ever known to do so)
+Great quality images(2592x3888 portrait/3888x2592 for landscape).
+Great quality videos. Had Divx (which my pc wouldn't play smoothly) and 720p MP4 videos.
+Most models are small chested and pretty skinny. Very seldom are any models C cup or bigger. |
| Cons: |
-Website must have been one of the first ever built and boy does it show. WAY past due for a upgrade.
-No easy navigation.
-Most vidoes are just behind the scenes of the photo shoots. |
| Bottom Line: |
As you can tell by the name of the site, every model is 100% shaved. At first it's pretty cool but then it starts to make every photo set and every model start to look the same. I love the fact that they have alot of smaller chested girls but after a while, they start to feel the same. Could really use some variation.
There are normally 100 or so photos per set. And the photos are great high quality images. The first 3/4 of the set is your normally glam style shoots but the last quarter can get pretty strange. From sticking normal every day items (food, end of a shovel, etc) in the pussy to pissing. Pissing seems to be a pretty big niche on the site, as it seems to happen alot.
The videos are great quality but most are behind the scens of the photo shoots. So you've always got the lovely cameraman talking through out the whole thing. When will these companies learn? Get rid of that shit.
Navigation for the site is complete crap.You've got either updates or all models. No way to search by cup size, hair color or even model name. To find certain model you have to go to the all models page and do a find within IE or Firefox.
For the price ($29.95 1st month/then $24.95) I think the site is past due for a upgrade. While the images are great quality, due to the navigation and the constant talking during videos, unless a your a image fan you'll probably be disappointed. If your a video fan like me, you'll quickly get sick of hearing the dumbass guys talking. |
|
12-11-08 02:17pm
Replies (5)
|
Review
100
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
86.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
+Great price. ($19.95 from here or you can find it for $17.95 from another site)
+Updated 2-3 times a week.
+Very helpfull members forum, where the webmaster will even reply.
+Bonus guest model section. Gives samples of other sites.
+Nice and easy navigation. By style of set, body type or even just searching for the models name.
+Good selection of solo, girl/girl & boy/girl |
| Cons: |
-Some girls are the same one you've seen from other sites but with different names.
-Images are 1333x2000 for portrait and 1999x1333 for landscape.
-Newer Videos are 704x396, older videos are 640x480.
-Security doesn't allow me to download images using DownThemAll download manager.
-Too many images per set, where 3-4 in a row look almost identical. |
| Bottom Line: |
For the price of under $20 a month, Teen Dreams is a very good site. And if it wasn't for economic reasons, I'd still be a member.
Compared to other websites, Teen Dreams is a bit behind on the quality of both the video and images. The images are good quality and decent size but don't compare to other sites that have 3000px and 4000px images. Both the new and older video are decent quality, however non are true HD or HD quality. I'd consider most videos to be near DVD quality.
One other nitpicking I didn't like was the fact that I couldn't use DownThemAll in Firefox for the images. It has a cool feature where you save the first image as "name" and then each following image would get a number behind it in order. The webmaster was quick to reply as to why, since they were recently hacked, it was a double security thing. Unfortunately there was no way around it, except don't use the download manager. Their suggestion was to just download the zips, unfortunately they normally have 100+ images per set. However there always seemed to be 3-4 in a row that looked almost identical and could have been left out. It just made it a bit more of a pain to download images, then other sites.
Overall Teen Dreams is a site worth checking out, you can't go wrong for $20. |
|
12-11-08 01:24pm
Replies (3)
|
|
