| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
Love Hairy
(0)
|
Reply of
Loki's Reply
I think it's an appealing site in part because ANY pubic hair on attractive models has been such a rarity for so long. I'm glad to see that bush might be coming back into style.
|
03-10-19 12:23pm
|
Reply
2
|
My Naughty Latin Maid
(0)
|
Reply of
Kody's Reply
The content is above average if you can overlook the ten year old resolution, lighting, technology, etc. Blowjob, cunnilingus, missionary, doggy, cowgirl, then cum on tits or face. Standard Naughty America stuff.
I had an annual subscription that wasn't affected by this recent debacle, but I didn't re-up when it expired in late May because very few videos would finish downloading on any of their sites.
And yes, they will do it to an archive site. It's right there in the terms I quoted. Here's a member in the forum on June 7:
"I signed up today, i cancelled a few minutes ago while checking that i have only access to one video.."
https://forums.naughtyamerica.com/topic/34399-how-do-we-warn-people-about-channels/
I halfway think they're trying to help their users give up their porn habit.
|
07-04-18 01:17pm
|
Reply
3
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pornwatcher's Poll
I usually only view hetero cunnilingus if the woman is taking charge and climbing on top of him. Lesbians? Well sure. I especially like the new POV style of filming lesbian cunnilingus.
|
04-16-18 08:38am
|
Reply
4
|
Bang.com
(0)
|
Reply of
Jade1's Reply
Sorry I'm late replying. I think the "Prime" designation just means you're a paying member vs some sort of free tier, so I'm guessing it's access to everything. When I click on "what is prime" it tells me you can download the videos, you have access to premium studios, access to photos, and some sort of early access to videos. I'm guessing the last is vs. the free tier, too.
|
04-16-18 08:19am
|
Reply
5
|
Naughty America
(0)
|
Reply of
Onyx's Reply
Yeah, it seems to be a new thing with VPNs, adblockers, and java.
https://imgur.com/a/Yp6IT
They force you to do a captcha every few pages if so. It's ridiculous. I know they want to sell ads to paid subscribers and sell the paid subscribers data to other companies, but this is a bit too intrusive, especially when more and more paying customers users are using the tools.
|
03-13-18 01:30pm
|
Reply
6
|
Naughty America
(0)
|
Reply of
WeedLordVegeta's Comment
Can confirm. Captchas every few clicks if you decide to use a VPN, adblocker, or disable java. Avoid this site.
Edited: Too wordy.
|
03-13-18 08:28am
|
Reply
7
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I'm reminded of the old saying about locks only being there to keep honest people out. Why would a pirate searching through torrents notice and care if a site required higher costs or ridiculously restrictive limits to downloading content? I guarantee the paying customers like us would notice and care, though. I've marked a couple of sites off of my "to join" list for that very reason.
I bet both paying customers and the torrenting crowd notice when the paying customers who want to pay for legal content leave reviews saying it's both too expensive AND too much of a PITA to download, though.
It would be interesting to see data on whether heavier restrictions encourages more piracy of the product. I'd bet my $29.95 it does.
|
01-08-18 04:18am
|
Reply
8
|
Karups
(0)
|
Reply of
Karup's Reply
Thanks, but I'm not sure that moving the discussion to customer service would be helpful to other users who may be interested in the topic, especially when the pay site being discussed is clearly working as designed. Downloads are intentionally and very specifically designed to fail after ten minutes to discourage paying customers from downloading content, and download managers that queue properly and work perfectly fine at all other sites will necessarily obey these ten-minute download restrictions as designed.
Thanks for the input, and for the willingness to participate on the review site. Would you mind if I post the meat of your PM regarding the site's position on download managers?
|
01-08-18 03:00am
|
Reply
9
|
Karups
(0)
|
Reply of
Karup's Reply
"Does your download manager require that you provide links of all of the sets/movies that you want to download prior to running it? Or can it be set to open URLs on its own after a movie completes downloading? If so, that seems like it would solve the problem."
I'm not sure I'm following. A download manager that opens URLs on its own before they have been generated to queue into the download manager?
I'm unfamiliar with that technology, but I'd certainly be interested in a recommendation for a download manager that functions that way.
|
12-15-17 10:05am
|
Reply
10
|
Karups
(0)
|
Reply of
Karup's Reply
So that I don't misunderstand and misrepresent what I'm reading when I write a future review:
I set my download manager to only download one file at a time. I start my first download and queue another download 30 seconds later. If my first download takes 12 minutes to complete then my second download will fail?
|
12-12-17 09:03am
|
Reply
11
|
Karups
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
Thanks. I could certainly see a difference in experiences when compared to users that are downloading at 500 KB/s and needing 30-45 minutes for that same clip.
|
12-12-17 08:54am
|
Reply
12
|
Karups
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
What are your internet speeds if you don't mind me asking?
With the ten minute cutoff, I can certainly understand drastically different user experiences for someone on a 25.6 Mbps pipe vs the majority of rural American's on what is regarded as dial up these days.
100MB file at 25.6 Mbps = 34 seconds
100MB file at 2 Mbps = 7 minutes
Ten minute limits would yield huge variations in paid user experiences between someone who can get a set of their favorite actress in that ten minutes, and someone who has to babysit the downloads literally all evening for the exact same set.
(FWIW, I doubt pirates are bothered by any of it.)
|
12-09-17 12:30am
|
Reply
13
|
Bree Olson
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I got a promo code that offered the network at a greatly reduced price. I'm a fan of a couple of the actresses, so I figured, "Sure, why not?" Now I'm just offering warnings to others.
|
11-19-17 05:32pm
|
Reply
14
|
Kink.com
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Yeah, I was surprised since I hadn't seen any mention of download limits before, but I didn't re-up when my month ended. I didn't see the point. FWIW, I'd be even more inclined to not recommend the site if it's going to be a crap shoot on how users will be allowed access.
|
08-29-17 06:08pm
|
Reply
15
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
I'd be more inclined to suggest the "Top Rated" section of PU should be based on a running average and definitely more than one review. Naughty Alisha/Pornicate and Stiffia were some of the worst sites and networks I've ever seen, and all I would have to do to make them rank at the top for weeks would be to review a few times and then give them 100.
Blacks on Blondes is another that is puzzling. Decent content, but I was locked out of the associated network after I ran into a download limit that the webmasters say doesn't exist. It's still a "Top Ranked" site that beats MetArt, Brazzers, Reality Kings, etc. with only one review able to do the trick.
The only listing on the PU top ten that seems somewhat legitimate is Kink (3 reviews).
EDIT: All to say that the user reviews of PU seem to be a large part of the PU site appeal, and having the rankings so easily tilted seems like a poor approach.
And this is probably the entire wrong place, and I apologize. The sites are connected, though, and the scores are there for similar reasons.
|
07-26-17 08:28am
|
Reply
16
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
It would be interesting to see which way the results leaned if there were a choice with her natural breasts. How old is India Summer?
EDIT: Pre-fake tits Kayla Synz or Tawny Roberts. (Sigh)
|
07-16-17 03:11am
|
Reply
17
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
bibo's Reply
Ah, I see. Yes, I was looking at the previews of bang.com, and not the "bang originals" material you have click to get to on bang.com.
So is bang.com just a (partial?) clone site of videosz with 100-200 or so original clips leftover from an acquisition by the videosz company?
|
11-17-16 08:37am
|
Reply
18
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
bibo's Comment
FWIW, I'm seeing a lot of what looks like overlapping material from Tainster sites (saw some very distinct slimewave, Party Hardcore, some Bimaxx, and some of their clothing-fetish material). I'm fairly sure I saw some content from clubseventeen.com, too. I think they're associated with Tainster somehow, so that sort of makes sense.
I'll likely join videosz in the next six months, so I'll try to remember to look closer once I'm there.
|
11-12-16 09:07am
|
Reply
19
|
ATK Archives
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
The issue is less the armpits and more the forced and obvious focus on them to the point of nearly being comical.
Replace "armpit" with "inside of the knee" and imagine joining a site where you notice many, if not most, of the hundreds of sets you click through have the model showing the inside of her knee from different angles for multiple shots within the first 10-12 photos. Then you notice quite a few of the shoots involve the model pulling at the skin or licking the inside of her knees later on in the sets (yes, I know the latter is not physically possible, but it's just for comparison's sake).
I'm fairly indifferent to armpits overall. Even hairy ones. Attractive women are attractive women, period. However, armpit licking and/or pulling at armpit hair is a different thing entirely, and definitely catering towards a fetish.
|
10-16-16 04:57pm
|
Reply
20
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
Divinx's Reply
Yeah, it probably wouldn't be so irritating if they arranged them so that, after clicking on an actress, the videos you can honestly, actually, truly, 100% download were lined up in front of all of the advertisements for the other sites.
Clicking through to look for more might be okay, but having to click through to look for ***any*** on a paid site that shows the actress is a major problem.
|
09-06-16 08:43am
|
Reply
21
|
DogFart
(0)
|
Reply of
Amanda's Reply
Weird, especially considering my internet connection is only physically capable of (ideally) 65 GB in 24 hours.
I wonder if they don't allow download managers and that's what triggered it?
|
07-28-16 03:52pm
|
Reply
22
|
PJ Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
clark kent's Review
Wow. 100%.
Better than Met Art.
Better than DDF.
Better than Sapphic Erotica, Team Skeet, MC Nudes, Karups, W4B, TLE, Naughty America, Brazzers, and every other site listed here.
How very impressive. Must be one hell of an absolutely perfect site.
|
07-25-16 12:51pm
|
Reply
23
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
I wrote a lengthy reply but wasn't logged in and it was eaten when I submitted. Sorry.
Short version- My idea was bad because I'm old and out of touch and yeah, you should probably go with social media unless you can figure out a way to get a big time rapper to mention you or repeatedly wear a baseball cap with your logo on it.
FWIW, I found PU by googling and being impressed with detailed reviews from actual users instead of a bunch of "THIS SITE SUX AND I HAT IT!!!" in the comment section after a webmaster's glowing 99/100 score.
|
05-11-16 10:00am
|
Reply
24
|
Sexy Hub
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
Thanks. None of the videos I downloaded appear to have any problems. Unfortunately I'm not on a very fast connection and almost never stream, so I didn't test that aspect. I'll likely add it to my mental list of things to briefly look at for future reviews, though.
|
04-08-16 03:46am
|
Reply
25
|
Babes Network.com
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
Thanks for giving everyone a heads up. I try to do the BangBros trick someone mentioned in their review/complaint with EVERY website that doesn't use Epoch these days:
If Epoch isn't the primary biller, enter everything correctly except for your credit card's expiration date. Make it a year in the future, and the system will reject it.
Repeat the year-in-the-future wrong date when it tells you there was an error and prompts you to re-enter your info.
On the third time (possibly fourth?), and assuming Epoch is a secondary biller, it should give you a different error message and say something like "please wait while you're redirected."
The Epoch page should appear next.
|
02-19-16 05:21pm
|
